Home / Thumbnail Story

Vera's 1972 Will

Vera's Nature Preserve Saga

HAF Revered or Reviled?

Happy 2002

Caveat Emptor

What's Your Opinion?

HAF Breaks Ground


Printable Form to Support Class Action

Open Letter to Supporters

Aug 01 Class Action Suit


Vera's Lament

Save the Nature Preserve

Protest Humboldt Area Foundation Building Permit To Supervisors

Invasion Of Vera's Trust Principal

Dolly Coffelt Declaration

Watchdogs Declarations

Timeline Of Humboldt Area Foundation Saga Development

Vera's Watchdog Rebuttal To Humboldt Area Foundation Public Misinformation

Bogus Attorney General's Letter

Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon

Contact Us To Join The Class Action Suit

Perrott Family Album

Standing (Courtroom Rights)

Humboldt Area Foundation Board Of Governor Appointment

Who Owns The Property

Tell A Friend

Relevant Links

Contact Us






First and foremost, as delineated in the Attorney General's office (letterhead) correspondence below in this section dated 20 April 1999, the Attorney General Of California (AG) as the `representative of ultimate beneficiaries of charity' is the one and only entity (not the Courts) that can approve the `modification' of a Trust or Foundation.

The AG's office is also the ultimate upholder of the law of the State Of California. Thus someone like Vera with a will, that creates a public Nature Preserve like Vera did (or whatever), looks to the AG's office as the `ultimate' protector to insure that no one `breaches' Vera's, or whoevers, intent. The AG has the DUTY to assure that the wills of all the deceased are honored and upheld.

Another area that comes into play, Foundations (like HAF et al) have over the years gotten laws on the books to protect themselves from `frivolous lawsuits', or other hassle from disgruntled people of whatever strip trying to disrupt the `philanthropic mission' (for the public good) of Foundations or other 501-c-3's (non profit organizations).

But remember the AG is a busy bureaucrat in Sacramento, with these and many other duties and responsibilities in play, along with a bit of politicking. He has all these and many more powers and duties, but how does he get into the details? This is done like with any bureaucracy, rather passively, not actively. Certainly not investigating each routine request for approval of a `change' in a foundation or charity that crosses the AG's desk. Do you really think the AG has ever read Vera's will or has a clue that HAF is destroying a public Nature Preserve with invaded principal? HAF's correspondence that the AG has seen has egregiously clamed the opposite.


Before Vera's watchdogs came onto the scene (first legal action August 1999), HAF had gotten the attached `form letter' correspondence from the California AG's office (20 April 1999), signed by not the AG but an assistant, to give a routine `rubber stamp' to what the Perrott's allege was a bogus Eureka Court approval of the building in (destruction of ) the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Why bogus? No one with Vera's interests (as her nominated Watchdog heirs with a reversionary interest in her will if HAF et al `breached' Vera's Trust's provisions), was legally informed of the proceeding or thus present. Vera's heirs(and Vera's will and its intent) were thus denied their 'due process and equal protection under the law', not given a chance to appear in court and protest toward protecting Vera's will's intent, to in turn protect her gift of her property to the public (Nature Preserve and residence) in a 'native and unspoiled' state. This was a bogus clandestine court proceeding in Eureka as far as the Perrotts are concerned. They were not legally informed nor present when HAF went before the court, and HAF and WFB duplicitously did not disclose to the court that their building plan was really to destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with illegal `invaded' funds out of Vera's San Francisco Trust Principal, clearly and unequivocally embargoed by Vera.


What would the Perrotts have argued if present in the Court in April 1999? That is clearly document herein, with the Perrotts providing the rebuttal that they would have presented if they had been in Court in early 1999. See `navigator' site `HAF/Bank 1999 Chicanery--Joint Petition To Instruct Trustees'. Therein Vera's watchdogs make 27 specific objections to HAF's duplicitous seven page April 1999 JOINT PETITION TO INSTRUCT TRUSTEES document to the Eureka Court, as blessed (rubber stamped) by the AG in Sacramento. Just visualize HAF going to the Court playing their `holier-than-thou white knight' role, the 'Santa Claus' of the North Coast, duping the Court to agree that HAF could do what they were proposing. That is construction within (destruction of) the Nature Preserve funded 100% by Vera's invaded Trust Principal by completely misrepresenting Vera and her will for their own self serving purposes, with no one representing Vera present to cry FOUL!

The Perrott's thus allege that the AG's `rubber stamp' letter that HAF is so proud of is as bogus as the duplicitous HAF April 1999 document that mislead the Court to approve HAF's destruction of the `keep it native and unspoiled---not even a picnic table' public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.


So take HAF's incessant claims that they are white knights, not `wolves in sheep's clothing' because they have the AG's complicity in their chicanery with a large grain of salt. It is all part of HAF's post 1992 skullduggery resulting in HAF duping the Court (the AG and the public) to join HAF in the destruction of the public's Nature Preserve with invaded Trust Principal. All clearly and unequivocally outlawed in Vera's will in creating the Principal Trust and HAF in her 1972 will.

HAF has gotten the AG to back them and their chicanery, against the Perrotts, with HAF claiming the Perrotts are just bringing up a `frivolous' lawsuit. Is it a frivolous lawsuit when the trustee of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with the fiduciary responsibility to guard it `native and unspoiled' have in fact duplicitously destroyed it in 1995 and have announced plans to further destroy it in 1999? This second travesty has been stopped (if temporarily) only by Vera's Watchdogs 21 months of litigation to save the public's Nature Preserve including the architecturally significant Vietor residence.

The AG as the public's guardian of the `rule of law' should be upholding Vera's will. This would lead him to prosecute HAF and Wells Fargo Bank as having not full filled their solemn fiduciary responsibilities, that is not GUARDING but rather DESTROYING the public's treasures (Nature Preserve and Vietor residence) funded by invaded principal.

Should the Perrotts get `standing' and be able to cross examine certain mendacious characters, and present facts and evidence in a court of law, before judge or jury, the bogus AG's letter would evaporate as a non issue, one of many HAF smokescreens, swept way by the light of justice on the FACTS (not HAF fictions) via the due process of law.

A footnote: Only the AG can 'modify' a trust, right? HAF scrapped Vera's 1972 (trust document) method of appointing the HAF Board of Governors (Post-1992). They did it inhouse, no Eureka court involvement. But ONLY the AG has such power. HAF's selective chicanery. See HAF Board of Governor Appointment


This order went into effect on April 30th, 1999.