Complaint Review: Matthew Keith Cunningham Holly Ann Godwin-Cunningham Follow Through Inc.Contractor. Lic #240052-90 - Beaverton Oregon

I Decided to do a Statewide Search on my own Company, to prove a point: Oregon District and Circuit Courts Search Name Searched : follow through Case Types Searched : All Cases Search Date : September 06, 2008 Data updated to : August 1, 2008 No cases were found. ADDITIONALLY, I DID ONE ON MY NAME TOO A SPEEDING TICKET IN 1999 (Ooooh, I'm so bad) Like I said before, make your own EDUCATED decisions. About who's fraudulent and who is not !!!!!!! Here is a little history of the total issue. All statements of fact about documents I write here can be proven and backed up, it's already in a file box ready to go to the US District court. I have a knack for research, another thing I am good at in life = documentation of paper trails. On the Other Hand in the court record . This was found: In order to find the information on Ms Andrews you will need to go to the Clackamas County District Court (for additional records found scroll to the bottom) to do a physical search in Archived records of the two or three available records on her past convictions of check writing fraud she was found guilty of in the early 1990's. (Two banks, Fred Meyers Stores and TruGreen Company) along with numerous FED's, and another Citation for failure to change her name on her drivers license (as I said these women like to harass people and then hide behind fictitious names that they legally don't have the right to use). Additionally, There is a public record in Clackamas County that shows the Satisfied Money Judgment that Ms Andrews was required to issue on Matt's behalf when he paid off all of his arrears and child support owed up to September 2004 (what deadbeats pay all their child support ????) She attempted to state that she never agreed to file the satisfaction, yet I required Matt when he borrowed the money from me at the time to pay the arrears, that he needed to get it in writing from her or I would not be able to lend the money. So he did. A year later he had to file a suit to judicially satisfy that money payment and the judge wasn't too happy about it, stating that if she (Amy) received the money yet never stated that she was settling the judgment how could she justify spending it ? (contract law) states if you receive funds but don't agree to the settlement terms, you must not SPEND the money as if it was a payment as she tried to manipulate the court about. The judge didn't buy it. He won the Satisfaction, but that pissed her off even more and the harassment continued.. I wonder how much of that money was set aside for her children, since that money was suppose to be held and spent on their behalf? Maybe someday her children will ask her that question, and for once she'll have to tell them the truth. Or maybe they will stumble across it on the internet like I stumbled across this defamation by them. Matt always held that the truth of the matter is that he will not be in their lives until they turn 18 because of the abusive behavior that he's had to experience while involved through visitation and child support issues ( greed and fantastical assumptions of Matts' supposed income level) - with their mother(s). It's sad, really sad, I would have liked to get to know Matt's kids all of them and without the poisoning of their minds due to jealousy and greed. Women should be more hesitant to create toxic situations that affect their children. It's much more rewarding to be independent and ethical than rely on making someone else responsible, when you don't feel like being responsible for yourself. The bottom line has always been in their issue (these three people Plus children) that I happened to have thrust into my life in 2004, the AMOUNT of child support being paid. Not that it wasn't getting paid, but that they wanted MORE. Granted Matt may have not had the best record of on time payments but I argue that it is probably evident that most obligors of child support don't make their payments on time every month for their entire judgment periods either, especially when the amounts are determined through a domestic court system that isn't required to use evidence if the judge doesn't feel like it due to bias and the only resolution is to pay an attorney, instead of the child support due, in order to get the amount corrected in the court records based on actual evidence, not assumption and here-say. I know what Matt went through, it was hell and these women think they had a right to do it to him because: They didn't like his new spouse, and the new spouse had money, that they felt was theirs for the taking. They harassed us both for 3 and a half years until I cut the strings this year and left my relationship with him. I shouldn't of had to do that in order to live my life without fear of financial and judicial harassment. These two women continually, and in succession, while colluding with each other went as far to file false and repeated anonymous child abuse reports but forgot to conceal that they were (the mothers) making the reports which was recorded to the police reports and is public information. These two women attempted to use here-say while calling up events in my past or in Matt's past, as related to supposed domestic relation issues when if you speak with the police or others whom they attempt to alter the connection on, will clearly state and show the information clearly leads the READER of the original document, to see that any accusations being made by them are utterly false. On another occasion, after Matt had happened to collect on child support owed to him by Christina Starr, filed a bogus suit in retaliation against Matt, THAT AMY ANDREWS AS A NOTARY IN WASHINGTON STATE SIGNED ON CHRISTINAS BEHALF FOR THE COURT RECORDS !!!!!! (No evidence of collusion there huh ? Good thing the US District Court of the United States is not the Domestic Courts of Oregon and the truth will be finally known of their collusion). Evidence is Evidence. Additionally, that same suit was filed by Christina Starr against Matt and was PAID FOR BY PERSONAL CHECK BY FLETCHER ANDREWS AMY ANDREWS HUSBAND !!! But no . They are abused ex spouses just looking for justice right ? How about the THREE RESTRAINING ORDERS and ONE STALKING ORDER that these two women filed against Matt over a period of three years while living with me (while we continually refused to have contact with them except through attorneys or the court system) One was filed by C.S In September of 2004, when she wanted to make it look like Matt was abusive, she got it awarded without showing any proof of her claims because the child was in her custody at the time. Then two weeks later dropped it with the court but refused to inform the school where the child was attending, to attempt to keep Matt from seeing his son, away from her presence. That was corrected too in the court record. Then in retaliation of Matt's attempt to collect the child support she owed for two years of arrears . Attempted to file a completely bogus report in Multnomah county Oregon for Stalking against him which she then never showed up at the hearing for and it was dismissed with prejudice for NO GROUNDS. You see she wanted to ALLOW THE USE OF this Stalking order (if she could get it to stick) in AMY ANDREWS WASHINGTON STATE ABUSE PREVENTION CASE, that Amy had filed during the SAME WEEK in WASHNIGTON STATE COURTS. ( No not colluding no way, right ?) (this was during a time that we documented repeated emails and letters from Amy Andrews to us, threatening all kinds of things from taking Matt to the cleaners, calling us names and threatening to never allow the kids to visit Matt again. Totally emotionally out of control. Amy Andrews filed a bogus case in Washington State stating that MATT (reverse psychology in action) was attempting (or that I was) attempting to HACK her computer and even went as far as to provide a evidentiary document to the court record that stated as an expert opinion, that she hired some dude that couldn't be found in existence as the expert to put in writing that what she claimed was true. Thankfully, the courts saw through the manipulations and after returning to court on three occasions (total harassment through the judicial system) her case was thrown out due to NO GROUNDS FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER. These two women attempted these types of manipulative tactics over and over and over and over again in the court record, only to be proven false (can't hide a paper and date trail). My damages monetarily over the three years in court costs, legal fee's lent to Matt and time spent fighting false accusation, including the heart attack I suffered and documented was due to their harassment is only the tip of the iceberg. These ladies if that's what you want to refer to them as, had two motives (Jealousy & Greed) and two objectives (Attempt to ruin Matt financially so they could continue to call him a deadbeat since he would then not be able to pay his child support AND to ruin his current relationship with the new spouse). None of them worked and in the process, have ruined ANY chances their children would have had to have a healthy and in tact relationship with their biological father, due to their harassment and fraudulent dealings through their rights as mothers. I cut the strings of these two women out of my life when I cut Matt out of it. I called him tonight, just to see if he has heard from them lately and he said shortly after he moved out that Christina contacted him, with her bleeding heart to stress that all of a sudden now, their son needed Matt in his life. How convenient that she would do that once I was no longer in the picture right ???? Maybe she's still hung up on and obsessing on Matt after all these years, who knows but that would be my OPINION based on my own personal experience. It's a sad day when you see people use children as a tool to enact their own destructive and needy objectives. I may not have my own children, but I've clearly made a difference in their sons future, based on the proof (school records & counseling records) that in 2nd grade when he started living under my roof, that he could not read and had behavioral problems. In two years time he had started to accel in class, read very well and brought his test scores up to some of the highest in his classes. I hope that the influence I had on him during that time stays with him while he continues through his new life with his mother. Matt suffered tremendously through all of this too. His health deteriorated severely and I assume he's kept track of his damages as well, which is probably why he just wants to disappear from their lives all together. I suffered a heart attack, I overcame it, and healed. Matt unfortunately ended up with a stress related diagnosis in the summer of 2007 of Chron's Disease. He was told that in his case, it was related to stress and not related to genetics due to no one in his family having any history of the disease. Now he gets to live with an incurable disease caused directly by the harassment these women put him through, for the rest of his life. It's a damned sick day in life when toxic people won't go away. My only justice is the defamation and libel suit, which will eventually flush out from hiding the truth that both of these women were involved together, in an extortive manner through their rights as biological mothers the incessant and continued harassment they put me through. The reason I know that this is true and will unfold is that Ripoff Report states clearly, that they will and are obligated to provide the original account email and person's information who posted the defamatory statements, to subpoena's issued by the US Courts. Well, it's only a matter of time now it's on it way shortly. AND THIS IS WHAT CAN BE FOUND ON CHRISTINA. Who's VIOLENT AND DANGEROUS ??????????????? The Pot calling the kettle Black. Christina has a LONG history of being VIOLENT and has been CONVICTED OF HARASSMENT. I just wish I had done a background search on her before I agreed to get involved with her EX. Court Case Number Type Date Filed Starting Instrument Status Yamhill County District Court 69279 Offense Misdemeanor I 04/03/95 Information Closed Inactive Defendant Name Birth Date Height Weight Eyes Race DL Address DEF STARR CHRISTINA ANN BLANKENSHI 02/18/75 0 0 6046164 OR 331 E 10TH ST MCMINNVILLE OR 97128 2049 N BAKER MC MINNVILLE OR 97128 331 E 10TH ST MC MINNVILLE OR 97128 331 NE 10TH ST MC MINNVILLE OR 97128 615 N COLLEGE ST NEWBERG OR 97132 PO BOX 2485 WALDPORT OR 97394 20487 S. HWY 99W AMITY OR 97101-2202 Charge and Disposition Summary Charge ID Charge Statute Incident Date Charged Date Plea and Disposition Plate # 1 Assault-4 ORS 163160 04/02/95 04/03/95 04/03/95 Plea Entry of Not Guilty 2 Harassment ORS 166065 04/02/95 04/03/95 04/03/95 Plea Entry of Not Guilty 08/30/95 Convicted Case Participants Name Role Side DISTRICT/ATTY YAMHILL/COUNTY District Attorney Attorney - Plaintiff OREGON STATE OF Plaintiff Plaintiff FOSTER WALTER W Judge Judge DEPENBROCK ALBERT Judge Judge HAYES KEITH L Court Appointed Attorney - Defendant HARRIS WAYNE R Judge Judge COLLINS JOHN L Judge Judge STONE RONALD W Judge Judge Event Summary Date ID Event Related Event 04/03/95 1 Information 04/03/95 2 Arraignment 04/03/95 3 Arraignment 04/03/95 4 Removed Inactive Status 04/04/95 5 Forms/Pre-trial Disclosure 04/04/95 6 Order Appointing Counsel 04/03/95 7 Plea Entry of Not Guilty Charge 1 Charge 2 04/04/95 8 Agreement Conditional Release 04/06/95 9 Hearing Pre-trial Conference Event 10 04/06/95 10 Notice Hearing 04/06/95 11 Trial Six Person Jury Event 12 04/06/95 12 Notice of Trial 04/06/95 13 Trial Six Person Jury Event 14 Reset from June 5, 1995 04/06/95 14 Notice of Trial 04/12/95 15 Hearing Pre-trial Conference Event 16 Reset from 5/3/95 04/12/95 16 Notice Hearing 04/26/95 17 Notice state acknowledges it has prov ided def with discov material 06/01/95 18 Trial Six Person Jury Event 19 Reset from 6/2/95 To Change Plea 06/01/95 19 Notice of Trial 08/18/95 20 Hearing Plea 08/29/95 21 Petition Enter Guilty Plea 08/29/95 22 Dismissed Charge 1 08/30/95 23 Convicted Charge 2 08/30/95 24 Order 08/30/95 25 Sentence Suspended Imposition Sentence 2 08/30/95 26 Closed 08/30/95 27 Sentence Suspended Imposition Sentence 3 11/21/95 28 Notice viol and structured sanction reporting form 08/20/97 29 Hearing Show Cause re pv 08/20/97 30 Order to Show Cause re:probation revocation 08/20/97 31 Hearing Show Cause re: probation revocation 09/04/97 32 Modification of Sentence Sentence 4 02/20/98 33 Order to Show Cause W/MOTION PROB VIOLATION 02/20/98 34 Ordered/Warrant SRA $10,000 02/20/98 35 Warrant Arrest Judgment Summary Date Charge ID Judgment Status Status Date Sentence Summary 09/04/97 2 4 Modification of Sentence 07/05/05 Financial Summary Description Amount OUTSIDE COLLECTION 0.0 Admin Write Off 97.0 A/R Payment 145.0 A/R Payment 0.0 Attorney Fees 91.0 Unitary Assessment 54.0 Court Case Number Type Date Filed Starting Instrument Status Tillamook Co Circuit Court 045096 Domestic Relations Abuse Prvntn 08/12/04 Petition Abuse Prevention Closed Inactive Case Participants Name Role Address CUNNINGHAM MATTHEW K Defendant 5855 SW 198TH AVE BEAVERTON OR STARR CHRISTINA A Plaintiff 2411 7TH STREET TILLAMOOK OR 97141 TREVINO MARI GARRIC Judge Event Summary Date ID Event Related Event 08/12/04 1 Petition Abuse Prevention 08/12/04 2 Minor Child(ren) In The Home 08/12/04 3 Certificate of Document Prep 08/12/04 4 Order Abuse Prev Restraining Event 2 Security set at $25000.00 08/13/04 5 Closed 08/27/04 6 Return Svc Restraining Order by Washington County Sheriff Office 09/15/04 7 Motion Dismissal 09/16/04 8 Hearing Motion Event 9 ON DISMISSAL 09/16/04 9 Notice Hearing 09/24/04 10 Order of Dismissal Event 7 restraining order is dismissed Judgment Summary Date Jgmt # Judgment Status Status Date Multnomah Circuit Court 060707562 Civil Stalking 07/24/06 Petition Closed Inactive Case Participants Name Role Address CUNNINGHAM MATTHEW KEITH Defendant 5855 SW 198TH ST BEAVERTON OR 97007 STARR CHRISTINA ANN Plaintiff 20121 SE STARK # 136 PORTLAND OR 97233 PHILBROOK_ JULIA_ A. Judge Event Summary Date ID Event Related Event 07/24/06 1 Petition w/attachment 07/24/06 2 Hearing Protective Order temporary 0 7/31/06 3 Judgment Dismissal Event 5 No basis for a protective order. PET did not appear 07/31/06 4 Closed 08/01/06 5 Notice Entry of Judgment

Unsubstantiated, Slanderous and Defamatory Claims Don't stand up to the Facts. Fact number 1 The following rebuttal statements are soley my own opinion, unless otherwise stated as such, which will show the bold words "Fact". Definition of "Fact" : Taken from reference by "Lectric Law Library" Fact or Opinion In libel and defamation actions it's a general rule that no remedy can be had for a statement that was issued in the form of an opinion. The distinction between a statement of fact and one of opinion is frequently difficult. In characterizing a statement, courts must look at it not as lawyers and judges but by placing ourselves in the position of the hearer or reader, and determine the sense or meaning of the statement according to its natural and popular construction. In short, the measure is not the effect of the statement on a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader. (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 260.) Accordingly, "what constitutes a statement of fact in one context may be treated as a statement of opinion in another, in light of the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 601.) "For these reasons, California courts have developed a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine whether an alleged defamatory statement is one of fact or of opinion. First, the language of the statement is examined. For words to be defamatory, they must be understood in a defamatory sense. Where the language of the statement is 'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency,' the statement is less likely to be reasonably understood as a statement of fact rather than opinion. Next, the context in which the statement was made must be considered. Since '[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used,' the facts surrounding the publication must also be carefully considered. "This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed. '"[T]he publication in question must be considered in its entirety; '[i]t may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate unit.' It must be read as a whole in order to understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader, and construed in the light of the whole scope and apparent object of the writer, considering not only the actual language used, but the sense and meaning which may have been fairly presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it. If the publication so construed is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense, [the statement is not actionable]. (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 260-261.) Given the trial court's special role in ruling on dispositive motions in libel cases (the distinction between fact and opinion is a question for the court, not the jury) (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 260). Fact number 2 State of Oregon case number C06-0970DR (A Public Record) Washington County Oregon, was recently overturned due to Judge Keith Raines "Blatant Judicial Bias" against Matt Cunningham in the referenced child support case in the court of appeals, in the State of Oregon. Fact number 3 Matt Cunningham, approximately 3 years ago utilized (my own) ripoff report account without my knowledge to lodge his opinions about his ex Girlfriend and mother of his children Christina Starr (Blankenship). Fact number 4 In retalliation, and some two years after the fact, Ms. Starr filed this "anonymous" complaint on ripoff report dot com in an attempt to slander and defame my company Follow Through, Inc., on January 19th 2008. Ms. Starr currently lives in Clackamas County Oregon, not Killeen Texas as she posted when she filed this defamatory and erroneous complaint. She has also recently (4 months or so after filing the original complaint here ) changed or modified the body of the complaint, thinking that she is saving herself from a lawsuit. Fortunately, I have already entered that original complaint into a court record, have saved the original documented slander and am saving the rest for the court record. Being a good person in my own life has allowed me to be tipped off by an association who happened to find this slander on this website and contacted me immediately to inform me of the bad mouthing and lies being posted about myself and my company. Thank God for living right, Jon - you are an angel for informing me about it, thank you agian !! Fact number 5 Ms. Starr was contacted by Sheriff Service in Clackamas County Oregon and served a US District court Subpoena for information regarding the "anonymous" posting. She propmptly provided a sworn and notarized affidavit in that case admitting that she had posted this slanderous statement on ripoff report in retalliation for her ex boyfriends statements on this site. I will happily provide a copy of that sworn and notarized affidavit to whom ever requires the information be backed by factual evidence and not some slanderous opinion of a scorned ex-spouse. Fact number 6 Matt Cunningham has no criminal history, has no history of violence and has never been incarcerated, charged or otherwise jailed, taken into custody or tried on any charges even remotely related to the slanderous opinions Ms. Starr states as fact in her report. Fact number 7 Usually, when a person has EVIDENCE they provide that evidence to substantiate their claims. Ms. Starr has not. Fact number 8 Ms. Starr was "taken into custody" in 2005 by Tillamook Oregon Police to advise her to stop the phone harassment that I had documented and filed a police report on with Washington County Oregon Sheriffs Office. This was during my short lived marriage to her ex boyfriend Matt Cunningham, which I disolved less than one year after the nuptuals, for obvious reasons (harassment). Fact number 9 Ms. Starr during her first visitation with her son in Matt's custody in my home in 2006 since he had been given custody, attempted to lauch a scheme to try and defame my reputation as co-parent of their son (whom I had been taking care of financially for two years without the help of Ms. Starr's child support owed to Matt) The scheme, during that visitation was to call a anonymous report of child abuse in on our home (for the second time in one year) and stated to the child support hotline that she feared her son was in danger and was in the home with his father (my home). After research into the report made, it was verified with the Gresham Police Department and the Washington County Police Department, that Ms. Starr had stated to the hotline that she was the childs mother and that she wanted a home check done on Matt and her son immediately. Problem was, that Ms. Starr had her son in her own physical custody at the time the phone call was made. Later that week she refused to bring her son back to the legal custodial parent and then filed an erroneous emergency custody suit in Washington County Court (Public Record) which was overturned at hearing due to no evidence of abuse whereby we subpeoned the childs own teachers, playmates parents and others, including his school counselor to testify on our behalf. After three months Matt was able to bring his son home due to Ms. Starr's availability of the child advocate system which allows unsubstantiated claims to be tried without evidence, purely by persuasion. Fact number 10 Domestic Courts do not have to allow evidence nor are they required to follow the rule of law in domestic support cases, in the state of Oregon. This is a playground for ex-spouses who find enjoyment out of harassing so called "dead-beats" through the court system. Thankfully, the state of Oregon Appeals courts know this and act accordingly when they file their opinions. Fact number 11 I suffered a heart attack on December 6th, 2006 (documented through my health Care provider) due to the two years of severe harassment and stress Ms. Starr and her co-hort inacted against me by way of their ex through legal, financial and seridipitous character attacks by Ms Starr) (Matt's other ex-spouse from the early 1990's Amy Andrew's) One day after the courts found that the emergency order filed by Ms. Starr was bogus and threw it out of court, returning custody to Matt. Fact number 12 Three months later in early 2007, Matt offered custody of their son back to Ms. Starr in an attempt to distance his ex-spouses toxic behavior from our lives. Eventually that case wound up in court again and has been recently overturned (the decision of the judge she states as if it is current). (Public Record) State of Oregon Appeals. Fact number 13 Matthew Cunningham was invited to become a partner in the business Follow Through, Inc. in 2004. By 2005, February not 6 months after the inception of my own company he had made mistakes in building a project for a client that offered light into the fact that he did not have enough experience to continue to do business on my behalf in the company and was removed corporately through documentation with the State of Oregon. (Public Record). in My own professional opinion (17 years experience) he did not have enough experience to continue to work as my partner and he was removed. Follow Through, Inc. is a general contracting company who is exempt from having employees, therefore, Matt could not have been characterized as such, and was not. Additionally, Ms. Starr is unaware of how a business operates and so to give a educational lesson here on doing business in Oregon, it really a waste of my time. Fact number 14 Unfortunately, Ms. Starr does not have the capacity, nor the personal knowledge of my character, my business dealings or the opinions of my closest friends and family to make assumptions about my business character or my personal life. She wouldn't therefore know that Ive held a business license as a land developer and home builder for over 17 years in the state of Oregon, or that my clients are exceedingly happy with the service I have provided them over the years, or even that I do not do residential work, which would allow the "theiving" of people's personal property" as she claims I am Matt's accomplice in "the con". Whatever that supposed con she states is fact ? Additionally, I find all my own work by word of mouth and referral which in and of itself is a testiment to who I am as a person, whether personally or through business dealings. I'm highly ethical, love to cut to the chase and only work within environments that are trustworthy and longterm associations. I do thorough background checks on any subcontractor's I use in my business (as I did on Matt in the beginning of our partnership) and refuse to associate with dramatic, hostil or toxic people in my life and is why Matt & I are no longer together, by proxy. Fact number 15 Ms. Starr provides example's of statement from affidavit's in child support hearings that I have filed in the past. Those statement are true and factual. Matthew Cunningham since February 2005 is not associated with Follow Through, Inc. He was never paid a salary (because he didn't make any money in that first 6 months) and is not subcontracted to for any work I have ever provided services for. Matt is not a licensed contractor and was only a partner to me (the license holder), therefore I cannot hire him, nor would anyone else be able to legally in the state of Oregon. As far as I know at this time he is currently doing work as a handyman, which I believe he is fully capable of that line of work, on small home related projects, but again I wouldn't know since I have not spoken to him in over 6 months thanks to the abusive tactics of ms. Starr and her co-hort, again and again. Fact and Opinion number 16 Ms Starr believes that in order to be a couple, who once worked together as partners in a business, but no longer do..... must be hiding their income from her empty hands, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed together for almost 3 1/2 years. Unfortunately for Ms. Starr, it appears that she may not have ever had a genuinely mature relationship in her past, in order to come to this type of belief system whereby if a couple doesn't agree in every aspect of their lives, then that means they shouldn't be together. That's a very sad oppositional stance to take in a world where there are many millions of people who all have their own worth as a human being, whether a woman happens to be "the contractor" or not. In my own opinion, I believe this is the basis for Ms. Starr's constant harassment and slandering of my name personally and professionally. I believe she is inherently jealous that her ex spouse ended up with someone who is successful, when she is not. It's an envy that probably eats at her ever day, and in the past during my relationship with her ex. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT SEEK YOUR ENVY MS. STARR and you've created this obsession with me all by your own faculties. I would suggest, woman to woman - that you find something in life you are good at, and go do it instead of following after mine. Anyone who would like me to substantiate any of the FACTS in this case are welcome to comment in the rebuttal form and leave an email address so that I may contact you with the information you seek. Unfortunately, due to the schematic nature of Ms. Starr and her abusive defamation on this website - I will do a thorough background check on your email address, as well as your ip address before any correspondence ensues. This is generally for my own protection as Ms Starr and her co-hort have been known to open bogus email accounts to try and contact me in the past, as someone else, just like they've tried to do with this so called complaint on Ripoff Report Dot Com. Furthermore, I won't be "joining" the "Advocate" program "offered" at a NOMINAL FEE to the companies on this website who have had claims filed on here against them to "argue and comply" with, to satisfy complaints that are erroneous to begin with and totally unsubstantiated. A word of advice to consumers who read these Ripoff Reports. You will notice that all TRUE CON ARTISTS will give you a smidgen of truth wrapped inside of their lie, in order for the story to be believeable. React with caution, utilize the appropriate channels available to research the supposed company who has "taken" consumers and make up your own mind about that company based purely on FACTS. I have a sterling background - professionally and personally - and invite anyone to do their own research into my background as you wish, for I have nothing to hide and only look forward to proving once again, that my character is firmly intact, and trustworthy. The Truth Will Set You Free. It's out there, go find it. I currently have a pending suit in draft form ready to file against Ms. Starr for the defamation on this website, she has already been demanded to remove the statements (or otherwise because this site does not allow this to take place - which is highly suspicious) to file a formal and notarized retraction to stop the suit from taking place. Currently, Ms. Starr has not responded and has 30 days to decide what she plans to do about it. I will be glad to update this site as the trial is completed, until such time as that will take place, I will only respond to factual requests on these slanderous and unsubstantiated claims by Ms. Starr. Frankly, the amount of time I have had to set aside tonight on this website to protract bogus claims of "fact" is just another reason that fraudulent statements of fact should be dealt with in a court of law, where the people involved know the difference between Fact and Opinion. I'll be adding this to my damages when I file the suit in the US district court of the United States. Have a good evening, Holly Godwin Follow Through, Inc. License Number filed by Ms. Starr is also incorrect. That is called the "REGISTRY NUMBER". If you contact the CCB or Oregon all pertinent information is public record. Have at it, I approve.

Unsubstantiated, Slanderous and Defamatory Claims Don't stand up to the Facts. Fact number 1 The following rebuttal statements are soley my own opinion, unless otherwise stated as such, which will show the bold words "Fact". Definition of "Fact" : Taken from reference by "Lectric Law Library" Fact or Opinion In libel and defamation actions it's a general rule that no remedy can be had for a statement that was issued in the form of an opinion. The distinction between a statement of fact and one of opinion is frequently difficult. In characterizing a statement, courts must look at it not as lawyers and judges but by placing ourselves in the position of the hearer or reader, and determine the sense or meaning of the statement according to its natural and popular construction. In short, the measure is not the effect of the statement on a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader. (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 260.) Accordingly, "what constitutes a statement of fact in one context may be treated as a statement of opinion in another, in light of the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 601.) "For these reasons, California courts have developed a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine whether an alleged defamatory statement is one of fact or of opinion. First, the language of the statement is examined. For words to be defamatory, they must be understood in a defamatory sense. Where the language of the statement is 'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency,' the statement is less likely to be reasonably understood as a statement of fact rather than opinion. Next, the context in which the statement was made must be considered. Since '[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used,' the facts surrounding the publication must also be carefully considered. "This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed. '"[T]he publication in question must be considered in its entirety; '[i]t may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate unit.' It must be read as a whole in order to understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader, and construed in the light of the whole scope and apparent object of the writer, considering not only the actual language used, but the sense and meaning which may have been fairly presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it. If the publication so construed is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense, [the statement is not actionable]. (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 260-261.) Given the trial court's special role in ruling on dispositive motions in libel cases (the distinction between fact and opinion is a question for the court, not the jury) (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 260). Fact number 2 State of Oregon case number C06-0970DR (A Public Record) Washington County Oregon, was recently overturned due to Judge Keith Raines "Blatant Judicial Bias" against Matt Cunningham in the referenced child support case in the court of appeals, in the State of Oregon. Fact number 3 Matt Cunningham, approximately 3 years ago utilized (my own) ripoff report account without my knowledge to lodge his opinions about his ex Girlfriend and mother of his children Christina Starr (Blankenship). Fact number 4 In retalliation, and some two years after the fact, Ms. Starr filed this "anonymous" complaint on ripoff report dot com in an attempt to slander and defame my company Follow Through, Inc., on January 19th 2008. Ms. Starr currently lives in Clackamas County Oregon, not Killeen Texas as she posted when she filed this defamatory and erroneous complaint. She has also recently (4 months or so after filing the original complaint here ) changed or modified the body of the complaint, thinking that she is saving herself from a lawsuit. Fortunately, I have already entered that original complaint into a court record, have saved the original documented slander and am saving the rest for the court record. Being a good person in my own life has allowed me to be tipped off by an association who happened to find this slander on this website and contacted me immediately to inform me of the bad mouthing and lies being posted about myself and my company. Thank God for living right, Jon - you are an angel for informing me about it, thank you agian !! Fact number 5 Ms. Starr was contacted by Sheriff Service in Clackamas County Oregon and served a US District court Subpoena for information regarding the "anonymous" posting. She propmptly provided a sworn and notarized affidavit in that case admitting that she had posted this slanderous statement on ripoff report in retalliation for her ex boyfriends statements on this site. I will happily provide a copy of that sworn and notarized affidavit to whom ever requires the information be backed by factual evidence and not some slanderous opinion of a scorned ex-spouse. Fact number 6 Matt Cunningham has no criminal history, has no history of violence and has never been incarcerated, charged or otherwise jailed, taken into custody or tried on any charges even remotely related to the slanderous opinions Ms. Starr states as fact in her report. Fact number 7 Usually, when a person has EVIDENCE they provide that evidence to substantiate their claims. Ms. Starr has not. Fact number 8 Ms. Starr was "taken into custody" in 2005 by Tillamook Oregon Police to advise her to stop the phone harassment that I had documented and filed a police report on with Washington County Oregon Sheriffs Office. This was during my short lived marriage to her ex boyfriend Matt Cunningham, which I disolved less than one year after the nuptuals, for obvious reasons (harassment). Fact number 9 Ms. Starr during her first visitation with her son in Matt's custody in my home in 2006 since he had been given custody, attempted to lauch a scheme to try and defame my reputation as co-parent of their son (whom I had been taking care of financially for two years without the help of Ms. Starr's child support owed to Matt) The scheme, during that visitation was to call a anonymous report of child abuse in on our home (for the second time in one year) and stated to the child support hotline that she feared her son was in danger and was in the home with his father (my home). After research into the report made, it was verified with the Gresham Police Department and the Washington County Police Department, that Ms. Starr had stated to the hotline that she was the childs mother and that she wanted a home check done on Matt and her son immediately. Problem was, that Ms. Starr had her son in her own physical custody at the time the phone call was made. Later that week she refused to bring her son back to the legal custodial parent and then filed an erroneous emergency custody suit in Washington County Court (Public Record) which was overturned at hearing due to no evidence of abuse whereby we subpeoned the childs own teachers, playmates parents and others, including his school counselor to testify on our behalf. After three months Matt was able to bring his son home due to Ms. Starr's availability of the child advocate system which allows unsubstantiated claims to be tried without evidence, purely by persuasion. Fact number 10 Domestic Courts do not have to allow evidence nor are they required to follow the rule of law in domestic support cases, in the state of Oregon. This is a playground for ex-spouses who find enjoyment out of harassing so called "dead-beats" through the court system. Thankfully, the state of Oregon Appeals courts know this and act accordingly when they file their opinions. Fact number 11 I suffered a heart attack on December 6th, 2006 (documented through my health Care provider) due to the two years of severe harassment and stress Ms. Starr and her co-hort inacted against me by way of their ex through legal, financial and seridipitous character attacks by Ms Starr) (Matt's other ex-spouse from the early 1990's Amy Andrew's) One day after the courts found that the emergency order filed by Ms. Starr was bogus and threw it out of court, returning custody to Matt. Fact number 12 Three months later in early 2007, Matt offered custody of their son back to Ms. Starr in an attempt to distance his ex-spouses toxic behavior from our lives. Eventually that case wound up in court again and has been recently overturned (the decision of the judge she states as if it is current). (Public Record) State of Oregon Appeals. Fact number 13 Matthew Cunningham was invited to become a partner in the business Follow Through, Inc. in 2004. By 2005, February not 6 months after the inception of my own company he had made mistakes in building a project for a client that offered light into the fact that he did not have enough experience to continue to do business on my behalf in the company and was removed corporately through documentation with the State of Oregon. (Public Record). in My own professional opinion (17 years experience) he did not have enough experience to continue to work as my partner and he was removed. Follow Through, Inc. is a general contracting company who is exempt from having employees, therefore, Matt could not have been characterized as such, and was not. Additionally, Ms. Starr is unaware of how a business operates and so to give a educational lesson here on doing business in Oregon, it really a waste of my time. Fact number 14 Unfortunately, Ms. Starr does not have the capacity, nor the personal knowledge of my character, my business dealings or the opinions of my closest friends and family to make assumptions about my business character or my personal life. She wouldn't therefore know that Ive held a business license as a land developer and home builder for over 17 years in the state of Oregon, or that my clients are exceedingly happy with the service I have provided them over the years, or even that I do not do residential work, which would allow the "theiving" of people's personal property" as she claims I am Matt's accomplice in "the con". Whatever that supposed con she states is fact ? Additionally, I find all my own work by word of mouth and referral which in and of itself is a testiment to who I am as a person, whether personally or through business dealings. I'm highly ethical, love to cut to the chase and only work within environments that are trustworthy and longterm associations. I do thorough background checks on any subcontractor's I use in my business (as I did on Matt in the beginning of our partnership) and refuse to associate with dramatic, hostil or toxic people in my life and is why Matt & I are no longer together, by proxy. Fact number 15 Ms. Starr provides example's of statement from affidavit's in child support hearings that I have filed in the past. Those statement are true and factual. Matthew Cunningham since February 2005 is not associated with Follow Through, Inc. He was never paid a salary (because he didn't make any money in that first 6 months) and is not subcontracted to for any work I have ever provided services for. Matt is not a licensed contractor and was only a partner to me (the license holder), therefore I cannot hire him, nor would anyone else be able to legally in the state of Oregon. As far as I know at this time he is currently doing work as a handyman, which I believe he is fully capable of that line of work, on small home related projects, but again I wouldn't know since I have not spoken to him in over 6 months thanks to the abusive tactics of ms. Starr and her co-hort, again and again. Fact and Opinion number 16 Ms Starr believes that in order to be a couple, who once worked together as partners in a business, but no longer do..... must be hiding their income from her empty hands, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed together for almost 3 1/2 years. Unfortunately for Ms. Starr, it appears that she may not have ever had a genuinely mature relationship in her past, in order to come to this type of belief system whereby if a couple doesn't agree in every aspect of their lives, then that means they shouldn't be together. That's a very sad oppositional stance to take in a world where there are many millions of people who all have their own worth as a human being, whether a woman happens to be "the contractor" or not. In my own opinion, I believe this is the basis for Ms. Starr's constant harassment and slandering of my name personally and professionally. I believe she is inherently jealous that her ex spouse ended up with someone who is successful, when she is not. It's an envy that probably eats at her ever day, and in the past during my relationship with her ex. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT SEEK YOUR ENVY MS. STARR and you've created this obsession with me all by your own faculties. I would suggest, woman to woman - that you find something in life you are good at, and go do it instead of following after mine. Anyone who would like me to substantiate any of the FACTS in this case are welcome to comment in the rebuttal form and leave an email address so that I may contact you with the information you seek. Unfortunately, due to the schematic nature of Ms. Starr and her abusive defamation on this website - I will do a thorough background check on your email address, as well as your ip address before any correspondence ensues. This is generally for my own protection as Ms Starr and her co-hort have been known to open bogus email accounts to try and contact me in the past, as someone else, just like they've tried to do with this so called complaint on Ripoff Report Dot Com. Furthermore, I won't be "joining" the "Advocate" program "offered" at a NOMINAL FEE to the companies on this website who have had claims filed on here against them to "argue and comply" with, to satisfy complaints that are erroneous to begin with and totally unsubstantiated. A word of advice to consumers who read these Ripoff Reports. You will notice that all TRUE CON ARTISTS will give you a smidgen of truth wrapped inside of their lie, in order for the story to be believeable. React with caution, utilize the appropriate channels available to research the supposed company who has "taken" consumers and make up your own mind about that company based purely on FACTS. I have a sterling background - professionally and personally - and invite anyone to do their own research into my background as you wish, for I have nothing to hide and only look forward to proving once again, that my character is firmly intact, and trustworthy. The Truth Will Set You Free. It's out there, go find it. I currently have a pending suit in draft form ready to file against Ms. Starr for the defamation on this website, she has already been demanded to remove the statements (or otherwise because this site does not allow this to take place - which is highly suspicious) to file a formal and notarized retraction to stop the suit from taking place. Currently, Ms. Starr has not responded and has 30 days to decide what she plans to do about it. I will be glad to update this site as the trial is completed, until such time as that will take place, I will only respond to factual requests on these slanderous and unsubstantiated claims by Ms. Starr. Frankly, the amount of time I have had to set aside tonight on this website to protract bogus claims of "fact" is just another reason that fraudulent statements of fact should be dealt with in a court of law, where the people involved know the difference between Fact and Opinion. I'll be adding this to my damages when I file the suit in the US district court of the United States. Have a good evening, Holly Godwin Follow Through, Inc. License Number filed by Ms. Starr is also incorrect. That is called the "REGISTRY NUMBER". If you contact the CCB or Oregon all pertinent information is public record. Have at it, I approve.

Unsubstantiated, Slanderous and Defamatory Claims Don't stand up to the Facts. Fact number 1 The following rebuttal statements are soley my own opinion, unless otherwise stated as such, which will show the bold words "Fact". Definition of "Fact" : Taken from reference by "Lectric Law Library" Fact or Opinion In libel and defamation actions it's a general rule that no remedy can be had for a statement that was issued in the form of an opinion. The distinction between a statement of fact and one of opinion is frequently difficult. In characterizing a statement, courts must look at it not as lawyers and judges but by placing ourselves in the position of the hearer or reader, and determine the sense or meaning of the statement according to its natural and popular construction. In short, the measure is not the effect of the statement on a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader. (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 260.) Accordingly, "what constitutes a statement of fact in one context may be treated as a statement of opinion in another, in light of the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 601.) "For these reasons, California courts have developed a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine whether an alleged defamatory statement is one of fact or of opinion. First, the language of the statement is examined. For words to be defamatory, they must be understood in a defamatory sense. Where the language of the statement is 'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency,' the statement is less likely to be reasonably understood as a statement of fact rather than opinion. Next, the context in which the statement was made must be considered. Since '[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used,' the facts surrounding the publication must also be carefully considered. "This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed. '"[T]he publication in question must be considered in its entirety; '[i]t may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate unit.' It must be read as a whole in order to understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader, and construed in the light of the whole scope and apparent object of the writer, considering not only the actual language used, but the sense and meaning which may have been fairly presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it. If the publication so construed is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense, [the statement is not actionable]. (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 260-261.) Given the trial court's special role in ruling on dispositive motions in libel cases (the distinction between fact and opinion is a question for the court, not the jury) (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 260). Fact number 2 State of Oregon case number C06-0970DR (A Public Record) Washington County Oregon, was recently overturned due to Judge Keith Raines "Blatant Judicial Bias" against Matt Cunningham in the referenced child support case in the court of appeals, in the State of Oregon. Fact number 3 Matt Cunningham, approximately 3 years ago utilized (my own) ripoff report account without my knowledge to lodge his opinions about his ex Girlfriend and mother of his children Christina Starr (Blankenship). Fact number 4 In retalliation, and some two years after the fact, Ms. Starr filed this "anonymous" complaint on ripoff report dot com in an attempt to slander and defame my company Follow Through, Inc., on January 19th 2008. Ms. Starr currently lives in Clackamas County Oregon, not Killeen Texas as she posted when she filed this defamatory and erroneous complaint. She has also recently (4 months or so after filing the original complaint here ) changed or modified the body of the complaint, thinking that she is saving herself from a lawsuit. Fortunately, I have already entered that original complaint into a court record, have saved the original documented slander and am saving the rest for the court record. Being a good person in my own life has allowed me to be tipped off by an association who happened to find this slander on this website and contacted me immediately to inform me of the bad mouthing and lies being posted about myself and my company. Thank God for living right, Jon - you are an angel for informing me about it, thank you agian !! Fact number 5 Ms. Starr was contacted by Sheriff Service in Clackamas County Oregon and served a US District court Subpoena for information regarding the "anonymous" posting. She propmptly provided a sworn and notarized affidavit in that case admitting that she had posted this slanderous statement on ripoff report in retalliation for her ex boyfriends statements on this site. I will happily provide a copy of that sworn and notarized affidavit to whom ever requires the information be backed by factual evidence and not some slanderous opinion of a scorned ex-spouse. Fact number 6 Matt Cunningham has no criminal history, has no history of violence and has never been incarcerated, charged or otherwise jailed, taken into custody or tried on any charges even remotely related to the slanderous opinions Ms. Starr states as fact in her report. Fact number 7 Usually, when a person has EVIDENCE they provide that evidence to substantiate their claims. Ms. Starr has not. Fact number 8 Ms. Starr was "taken into custody" in 2005 by Tillamook Oregon Police to advise her to stop the phone harassment that I had documented and filed a police report on with Washington County Oregon Sheriffs Office. This was during my short lived marriage to her ex boyfriend Matt Cunningham, which I disolved less than one year after the nuptuals, for obvious reasons (harassment). Fact number 9 Ms. Starr during her first visitation with her son in Matt's custody in my home in 2006 since he had been given custody, attempted to lauch a scheme to try and defame my reputation as co-parent of their son (whom I had been taking care of financially for two years without the help of Ms. Starr's child support owed to Matt) The scheme, during that visitation was to call a anonymous report of child abuse in on our home (for the second time in one year) and stated to the child support hotline that she feared her son was in danger and was in the home with his father (my home). After research into the report made, it was verified with the Gresham Police Department and the Washington County Police Department, that Ms. Starr had stated to the hotline that she was the childs mother and that she wanted a home check done on Matt and her son immediately. Problem was, that Ms. Starr had her son in her own physical custody at the time the phone call was made. Later that week she refused to bring her son back to the legal custodial parent and then filed an erroneous emergency custody suit in Washington County Court (Public Record) which was overturned at hearing due to no evidence of abuse whereby we subpeoned the childs own teachers, playmates parents and others, including his school counselor to testify on our behalf. After three months Matt was able to bring his son home due to Ms. Starr's availability of the child advocate system which allows unsubstantiated claims to be tried without evidence, purely by persuasion. Fact number 10 Domestic Courts do not have to allow evidence nor are they required to follow the rule of law in domestic support cases, in the state of Oregon. This is a playground for ex-spouses who find enjoyment out of harassing so called "dead-beats" through the court system. Thankfully, the state of Oregon Appeals courts know this and act accordingly when they file their opinions. Fact number 11 I suffered a heart attack on December 6th, 2006 (documented through my health Care provider) due to the two years of severe harassment and stress Ms. Starr and her co-hort inacted against me by way of their ex through legal, financial and seridipitous character attacks by Ms Starr) (Matt's other ex-spouse from the early 1990's Amy Andrew's) One day after the courts found that the emergency order filed by Ms. Starr was bogus and threw it out of court, returning custody to Matt. Fact number 12 Three months later in early 2007, Matt offered custody of their son back to Ms. Starr in an attempt to distance his ex-spouses toxic behavior from our lives. Eventually that case wound up in court again and has been recently overturned (the decision of the judge she states as if it is current). (Public Record) State of Oregon Appeals. Fact number 13 Matthew Cunningham was invited to become a partner in the business Follow Through, Inc. in 2004. By 2005, February not 6 months after the inception of my own company he had made mistakes in building a project for a client that offered light into the fact that he did not have enough experience to continue to do business on my behalf in the company and was removed corporately through documentation with the State of Oregon. (Public Record). in My own professional opinion (17 years experience) he did not have enough experience to continue to work as my partner and he was removed. Follow Through, Inc. is a general contracting company who is exempt from having employees, therefore, Matt could not have been characterized as such, and was not. Additionally, Ms. Starr is unaware of how a business operates and so to give a educational lesson here on doing business in Oregon, it really a waste of my time. Fact number 14 Unfortunately, Ms. Starr does not have the capacity, nor the personal knowledge of my character, my business dealings or the opinions of my closest friends and family to make assumptions about my business character or my personal life. She wouldn't therefore know that Ive held a business license as a land developer and home builder for over 17 years in the state of Oregon, or that my clients are exceedingly happy with the service I have provided them over the years, or even that I do not do residential work, which would allow the "theiving" of people's personal property" as she claims I am Matt's accomplice in "the con". Whatever that supposed con she states is fact ? Additionally, I find all my own work by word of mouth and referral which in and of itself is a testiment to who I am as a person, whether personally or through business dealings. I'm highly ethical, love to cut to the chase and only work within environments that are trustworthy and longterm associations. I do thorough background checks on any subcontractor's I use in my business (as I did on Matt in the beginning of our partnership) and refuse to associate with dramatic, hostil or toxic people in my life and is why Matt & I are no longer together, by proxy. Fact number 15 Ms. Starr provides example's of statement from affidavit's in child support hearings that I have filed in the past. Those statement are true and factual. Matthew Cunningham since February 2005 is not associated with Follow Through, Inc. He was never paid a salary (because he didn't make any money in that first 6 months) and is not subcontracted to for any work I have ever provided services for. Matt is not a licensed contractor and was only a partner to me (the license holder), therefore I cannot hire him, nor would anyone else be able to legally in the state of Oregon. As far as I know at this time he is currently doing work as a handyman, which I believe he is fully capable of that line of work, on small home related projects, but again I wouldn't know since I have not spoken to him in over 6 months thanks to the abusive tactics of ms. Starr and her co-hort, again and again. Fact and Opinion number 16 Ms Starr believes that in order to be a couple, who once worked together as partners in a business, but no longer do..... must be hiding their income from her empty hands, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed together for almost 3 1/2 years. Unfortunately for Ms. Starr, it appears that she may not have ever had a genuinely mature relationship in her past, in order to come to this type of belief system whereby if a couple doesn't agree in every aspect of their lives, then that means they shouldn't be together. That's a very sad oppositional stance to take in a world where there are many millions of people who all have their own worth as a human being, whether a woman happens to be "the contractor" or not. In my own opinion, I believe this is the basis for Ms. Starr's constant harassment and slandering of my name personally and professionally. I believe she is inherently jealous that her ex spouse ended up with someone who is successful, when she is not. It's an envy that probably eats at her ever day, and in the past during my relationship with her ex. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT SEEK YOUR ENVY MS. STARR and you've created this obsession with me all by your own faculties. I would suggest, woman to woman - that you find something in life you are good at, and go do it instead of following after mine. Anyone who would like me to substantiate any of the FACTS in this case are welcome to comment in the rebuttal form and leave an email address so that I may contact you with the information you seek. Unfortunately, due to the schematic nature of Ms. Starr and her abusive defamation on this website - I will do a thorough background check on your email address, as well as your ip address before any correspondence ensues. This is generally for my own protection as Ms Starr and her co-hort have been known to open bogus email accounts to try and contact me in the past, as someone else, just like they've tried to do with this so called complaint on Ripoff Report Dot Com. Furthermore, I won't be "joining" the "Advocate" program "offered" at a NOMINAL FEE to the companies on this website who have had claims filed on here against them to "argue and comply" with, to satisfy complaints that are erroneous to begin with and totally unsubstantiated. A word of advice to consumers who read these Ripoff Reports. You will notice that all TRUE CON ARTISTS will give you a smidgen of truth wrapped inside of their lie, in order for the story to be believeable. React with caution, utilize the appropriate channels available to research the supposed company who has "taken" consumers and make up your own mind about that company based purely on FACTS. I have a sterling background - professionally and personally - and invite anyone to do their own research into my background as you wish, for I have nothing to hide and only look forward to proving once again, that my character is firmly intact, and trustworthy. The Truth Will Set You Free. It's out there, go find it. I currently have a pending suit in draft form ready to file against Ms. Starr for the defamation on this website, she has already been demanded to remove the statements (or otherwise because this site does not allow this to take place - which is highly suspicious) to file a formal and notarized retraction to stop the suit from taking place. Currently, Ms. Starr has not responded and has 30 days to decide what she plans to do about it. I will be glad to update this site as the trial is completed, until such time as that will take place, I will only respond to factual requests on these slanderous and unsubstantiated claims by Ms. Starr. Frankly, the amount of time I have had to set aside tonight on this website to protract bogus claims of "fact" is just another reason that fraudulent statements of fact should be dealt with in a court of law, where the people involved know the difference between Fact and Opinion. I'll be adding this to my damages when I file the suit in the US district court of the United States. Have a good evening, Holly Godwin Follow Through, Inc. License Number filed by Ms. Starr is also incorrect. That is called the "REGISTRY NUMBER". If you contact the CCB or Oregon all pertinent information is public record. Have at it, I approve.

Unsubstantiated, Slanderous and Defamatory Claims Don't stand up to the Facts. Fact number 1 The following rebuttal statements are soley my own opinion, unless otherwise stated as such, which will show the bold words "Fact". Definition of "Fact" : Taken from reference by "Lectric Law Library" Fact or Opinion In libel and defamation actions it's a general rule that no remedy can be had for a statement that was issued in the form of an opinion. The distinction between a statement of fact and one of opinion is frequently difficult. In characterizing a statement, courts must look at it not as lawyers and judges but by placing ourselves in the position of the hearer or reader, and determine the sense or meaning of the statement according to its natural and popular construction. In short, the measure is not the effect of the statement on a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader. (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 260.) Accordingly, "what constitutes a statement of fact in one context may be treated as a statement of opinion in another, in light of the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 601.) "For these reasons, California courts have developed a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine whether an alleged defamatory statement is one of fact or of opinion. First, the language of the statement is examined. For words to be defamatory, they must be understood in a defamatory sense. Where the language of the statement is 'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency,' the statement is less likely to be reasonably understood as a statement of fact rather than opinion. Next, the context in which the statement was made must be considered. Since '[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used,' the facts surrounding the publication must also be carefully considered. "This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed. '"[T]he publication in question must be considered in its entirety; '[i]t may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate unit.' It must be read as a whole in order to understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader, and construed in the light of the whole scope and apparent object of the writer, considering not only the actual language used, but the sense and meaning which may have been fairly presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it. If the publication so construed is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense, [the statement is not actionable]. (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 260-261.) Given the trial court's special role in ruling on dispositive motions in libel cases (the distinction between fact and opinion is a question for the court, not the jury) (Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 260). Fact number 2 State of Oregon case number C06-0970DR (A Public Record) Washington County Oregon, was recently overturned due to Judge Keith Raines "Blatant Judicial Bias" against Matt Cunningham in the referenced child support case in the court of appeals, in the State of Oregon. Fact number 3 Matt Cunningham, approximately 3 years ago utilized (my own) ripoff report account without my knowledge to lodge his opinions about his ex Girlfriend and mother of his children Christina Starr (Blankenship). Fact number 4 In retalliation, and some two years after the fact, Ms. Starr filed this "anonymous" complaint on ripoff report dot com in an attempt to slander and defame my company Follow Through, Inc., on January 19th 2008. Ms. Starr currently lives in Clackamas County Oregon, not Killeen Texas as she posted when she filed this defamatory and erroneous complaint. She has also recently (4 months or so after filing the original complaint here ) changed or modified the body of the complaint, thinking that she is saving herself from a lawsuit. Fortunately, I have already entered that original complaint into a court record, have saved the original documented slander and am saving the rest for the court record. Being a good person in my own life has allowed me to be tipped off by an association who happened to find this slander on this website and contacted me immediately to inform me of the bad mouthing and lies being posted about myself and my company. Thank God for living right, Jon - you are an angel for informing me about it, thank you agian !! Fact number 5 Ms. Starr was contacted by Sheriff Service in Clackamas County Oregon and served a US District court Subpoena for information regarding the "anonymous" posting. She propmptly provided a sworn and notarized affidavit in that case admitting that she had posted this slanderous statement on ripoff report in retalliation for her ex boyfriends statements on this site. I will happily provide a copy of that sworn and notarized affidavit to whom ever requires the information be backed by factual evidence and not some slanderous opinion of a scorned ex-spouse. Fact number 6 Matt Cunningham has no criminal history, has no history of violence and has never been incarcerated, charged or otherwise jailed, taken into custody or tried on any charges even remotely related to the slanderous opinions Ms. Starr states as fact in her report. Fact number 7 Usually, when a person has EVIDENCE they provide that evidence to substantiate their claims. Ms. Starr has not. Fact number 8 Ms. Starr was "taken into custody" in 2005 by Tillamook Oregon Police to advise her to stop the phone harassment that I had documented and filed a police report on with Washington County Oregon Sheriffs Office. This was during my short lived marriage to her ex boyfriend Matt Cunningham, which I disolved less than one year after the nuptuals, for obvious reasons (harassment). Fact number 9 Ms. Starr during her first visitation with her son in Matt's custody in my home in 2006 since he had been given custody, attempted to lauch a scheme to try and defame my reputation as co-parent of their son (whom I had been taking care of financially for two years without the help of Ms. Starr's child support owed to Matt) The scheme, during that visitation was to call a anonymous report of child abuse in on our home (for the second time in one year) and stated to the child support hotline that she feared her son was in danger and was in the home with his father (my home). After research into the report made, it was verified with the Gresham Police Department and the Washington County Police Department, that Ms. Starr had stated to the hotline that she was the childs mother and that she wanted a home check done on Matt and her son immediately. Problem was, that Ms. Starr had her son in her own physical custody at the time the phone call was made. Later that week she refused to bring her son back to the legal custodial parent and then filed an erroneous emergency custody suit in Washington County Court (Public Record) which was overturned at hearing due to no evidence of abuse whereby we subpeoned the childs own teachers, playmates parents and others, including his school counselor to testify on our behalf. After three months Matt was able to bring his son home due to Ms. Starr's availability of the child advocate system which allows unsubstantiated claims to be tried without evidence, purely by persuasion. Fact number 10 Domestic Courts do not have to allow evidence nor are they required to follow the rule of law in domestic support cases, in the state of Oregon. This is a playground for ex-spouses who find enjoyment out of harassing so called "dead-beats" through the court system. Thankfully, the state of Oregon Appeals courts know this and act accordingly when they file their opinions. Fact number 11 I suffered a heart attack on December 6th, 2006 (documented through my health Care provider) due to the two years of severe harassment and stress Ms. Starr and her co-hort inacted against me by way of their ex through legal, financial and seridipitous character attacks by Ms Starr) (Matt's other ex-spouse from the early 1990's Amy Andrew's) One day after the courts found that the emergency order filed by Ms. Starr was bogus and threw it out of court, returning custody to Matt. Fact number 12 Three months later in early 2007, Matt offered custody of their son back to Ms. Starr in an attempt to distance his ex-spouses toxic behavior from our lives. Eventually that case wound up in court again and has been recently overturned (the decision of the judge she states as if it is current). (Public Record) State of Oregon Appeals. Fact number 13 Matthew Cunningham was invited to become a partner in the business Follow Through, Inc. in 2004. By 2005, February not 6 months after the inception of my own company he had made mistakes in building a project for a client that offered light into the fact that he did not have enough experience to continue to do business on my behalf in the company and was removed corporately through documentation with the State of Oregon. (Public Record). in My own professional opinion (17 years experience) he did not have enough experience to continue to work as my partner and he was removed. Follow Through, Inc. is a general contracting company who is exempt from having employees, therefore, Matt could not have been characterized as such, and was not. Additionally, Ms. Starr is unaware of how a business operates and so to give a educational lesson here on doing business in Oregon, it really a waste of my time. Fact number 14 Unfortunately, Ms. Starr does not have the capacity, nor the personal knowledge of my character, my business dealings or the opinions of my closest friends and family to make assumptions about my business character or my personal life. She wouldn't therefore know that Ive held a business license as a land developer and home builder for over 17 years in the state of Oregon, or that my clients are exceedingly happy with the service I have provided them over the years, or even that I do not do residential work, which would allow the "theiving" of people's personal property" as she claims I am Matt's accomplice in "the con". Whatever that supposed con she states is fact ? Additionally, I find all my own work by word of mouth and referral which in and of itself is a testiment to who I am as a person, whether personally or through business dealings. I'm highly ethical, love to cut to the chase and only work within environments that are trustworthy and longterm associations. I do thorough background checks on any subcontractor's I use in my business (as I did on Matt in the beginning of our partnership) and refuse to associate with dramatic, hostil or toxic people in my life and is why Matt & I are no longer together, by proxy. Fact number 15 Ms. Starr provides example's of statement from affidavit's in child support hearings that I have filed in the past. Those statement are true and factual. Matthew Cunningham since February 2005 is not associated with Follow Through, Inc. He was never paid a salary (because he didn't make any money in that first 6 months) and is not subcontracted to for any work I have ever provided services for. Matt is not a licensed contractor and was only a partner to me (the license holder), therefore I cannot hire him, nor would anyone else be able to legally in the state of Oregon. As far as I know at this time he is currently doing work as a handyman, which I believe he is fully capable of that line of work, on small home related projects, but again I wouldn't know since I have not spoken to him in over 6 months thanks to the abusive tactics of ms. Starr and her co-hort, again and again. Fact and Opinion number 16 Ms Starr believes that in order to be a couple, who once worked together as partners in a business, but no longer do..... must be hiding their income from her empty hands, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed together for almost 3 1/2 years. Unfortunately for Ms. Starr, it appears that she may not have ever had a genuinely mature relationship in her past, in order to come to this type of belief system whereby if a couple doesn't agree in every aspect of their lives, then that means they shouldn't be together. That's a very sad oppositional stance to take in a world where there are many millions of people who all have their own worth as a human being, whether a woman happens to be "the contractor" or not. In my own opinion, I believe this is the basis for Ms. Starr's constant harassment and slandering of my name personally and professionally. I believe she is inherently jealous that her ex spouse ended up with someone who is successful, when she is not. It's an envy that probably eats at her ever day, and in the past during my relationship with her ex. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT SEEK YOUR ENVY MS. STARR and you've created this obsession with me all by your own faculties. I would suggest, woman to woman - that you find something in life you are good at, and go do it instead of following after mine. Anyone who would like me to substantiate any of the FACTS in this case are welcome to comment in the rebuttal form and leave an email address so that I may contact you with the information you seek. Unfortunately, due to the schematic nature of Ms. Starr and her abusive defamation on this website - I will do a thorough background check on your email address, as well as your ip address before any correspondence ensues. This is generally for my own protection as Ms Starr and her co-hort have been known to open bogus email accounts to try and contact me in the past, as someone else, just like they've tried to do with this so called complaint on Ripoff Report Dot Com. Furthermore, I won't be "joining" the "Advocate" program "offered" at a NOMINAL FEE to the companies on this website who have had claims filed on here against them to "argue and comply" with, to satisfy complaints that are erroneous to begin with and totally unsubstantiated. A word of advice to consumers who read these Ripoff Reports. You will notice that all TRUE CON ARTISTS will give you a smidgen of truth wrapped inside of their lie, in order for the story to be believeable. React with caution, utilize the appropriate channels available to research the supposed company who has "taken" consumers and make up your own mind about that company based purely on FACTS. I have a sterling background - professionally and personally - and invite anyone to do their own research into my background as you wish, for I have nothing to hide and only look forward to proving once again, that my character is firmly intact, and trustworthy. The Truth Will Set You Free. It's out there, go find it. I currently have a pending suit in draft form ready to file against Ms. Starr for the defamation on this website, she has already been demanded to remove the statements (or otherwise because this site does not allow this to take place - which is highly suspicious) to file a formal and notarized retraction to stop the suit from taking place. Currently, Ms. Starr has not responded and has 30 days to decide what she plans to do about it. I will be glad to update this site as the trial is completed, until such time as that will take place, I will only respond to factual requests on these slanderous and unsubstantiated claims by Ms. Starr. Frankly, the amount of time I have had to set aside tonight on this website to protract bogus claims of "fact" is just another reason that fraudulent statements of fact should be dealt with in a court of law, where the people involved know the difference between Fact and Opinion. I'll be adding this to my damages when I file the suit in the US district court of the United States. Have a good evening, Holly Godwin Follow Through, Inc. License Number filed by Ms. Starr is also incorrect. That is called the "REGISTRY NUMBER". If you contact the CCB or Oregon all pertinent information is public record. Have at it, I approve.

The person who posted this is Matt's Ex- wife who is trying to "slander" them. She was probably drunk or on crack when she filed this....or both. Matt was trying to get his kids back because he was worried about the influence she was having on his kids. Its already affecting them. She has also hired people to try and hack Holly & Matts home computer, and other family members. If this happens....I will begin to take this "very" personally. This is her last warning.