Home / Thumbnail Story


Vera's 1972 Will


Vera's Nature Preserve Saga

HAF Revered or Reviled?

Happy 2002

Caveat Emptor

Forum
What's Your Opinion?

HAF Breaks Ground

 

Printable Form to Support Class Action

Open Letter to Supporters

Aug 01 Class Action Suit

APPEAL TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
 

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

 

Invasion Of Vera's Trust Principal


VERA'S WILL

Invasion of Vera's Trust Principal is a `smoking gun issue' in the saga of HAF going `off track' post 1992. The `one' page of Vera's 1972 will that created the Nature Preserve, San Francisco Bank Trust, and HAF (three entities) is a model of simplicity. It has two very specific proscriptions (ground for 'breach' and termination of trust):

1) HAF was to have income only, not to be allowed access to (invasion of ) principal

2) The property, 14.3 acres plus residence were left by Vera to be husbanded in Trust for the public as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, to be maintained in their `native and unspoiled' conditions, not to be despoiled by even a picnic table.

Vera then mandated, `should the letter or spirit of the above be breached at any future date, this trust SHALL be terminated'. With Vera `invasion of principal' was not to happen. It didn't for the first 18 years (Dusick era). Not until the post-1992 version of HAF (with Well Fargo Bank complicity) took over (the Pennekamp era), and needed money to fund their `rethought mission', or `growing the foundation', or `aggressively working prospective donors', the post 1992 go big time `empire building' phase. Then the alleged egregious machinations began.

Vera grew up on the Perrott's 1865 homestead on Table Bluff (near Loleta). She was wise to the world, long on common sense, sagacious, but irascible. She knew and stipulated exactly how she wanted it in her May 1972 `death bed' will. To Vera `principal' was like hens, income was the eggs the hens laid. HAF was to get all the eggs (income), but was not to ever be given access to the hens (principal), for once you start killing hens, there is less eggs, till eventually the hens are gone, then no hens or eggs, end of story, end of Vera's Trust.

When did the chicanery start? Vera's watchdog's research of the Court records lead to their allegation, soon into HAF's post 1992 Pennekamp era.

 

INVASION OF PRINCIPAL TO `MAINTAIN' (DESTROY) THE PROPERTY

 

1) 1994, WFB resigned in favor of HAF as trustees of the 14.3 acres at Indianola ( a breach of Vera's will). Then HAF came up with the muted issue that the property being `principal', HAF should be allowed `access' (invasion) of principal to `maintain' the property. Unfortunately, this should read `destroy' vs. `maintain' the property (nature preserve and residence) as that is what the ensuing invaded principal funded. Then with no Bank oversight, HAF did not `bother' to get Court or California Attorney General's approval of the 1995 `first destruction', only a building permit, masquerading before the Humboldt County Planning Commission as the `owners' of the property, not `trustees' of public land. This first invasion of principal was for the 1995 `north of the house' parking lot fiasco, cutting trees, paving over the nature preserve and architecturally significant landscaping, devastation of the architectural integrity of the Vietor's residence.

2) Then HAF and WFB went before the Court in early 1999 to get the Court's blessing for further destruction of the public's Nature Preserve, the `new office' building, having already outgrown the `harvest' of their 1995 destruction. The building permit was applied for in February 1994. HAF enlightened the Court that HAF (with WFB connivance) had used principal in the 1995 `destruction', so `obviously' the precedent had been set, HAF would (what else) invade principal again in 1999, to further `maintain' (destroy) the property. Vera had no representation in Court. The court so ordered.

The Perrotts allege that HAF is destroying the nature preserve not so much because they hate it, but rather that in a twisted logic HAF have to build `on the property' to have access to (invade) Vera's embargoed Trust Principal. So the root of evil is the invaded principal `money'. Money to fund HAF's rapid increase in staff, the post -1992 `empire building', go `big time' (with other peoples money). So call it `destruction of public property' invasion of principal.

 
DAILY OPERATION INVASION OF PRINCIPAL-`TOTAL-RETURN-POLICY'

But that is not quite all. Vera had the big hunk of money available. There were many other donors, into the thousands, but many were small amounts, often a few thousand dollars, all too often restricted to specific uses, like scholarships, or women's issues, or saving the dunes, or for stray animals, or whatever. Not available for HAF overhead of other boondoggles. Vera's income funding to HAF was unrestricted as to use, except HAF was limited to access to only Vera's INCOME. HAF was building up a big overhead. If they couldn't cover it by new donors (mostly relatively small and restricted donations) HAF had to dig deeper into `other sources'.

HAF went before the court in 1994 to get a `total-return-policy' approved, which stipulated that HAF would receive quarterly, from the (other than Vera's) Trust banks, 6% of all donors money, based on the average of the most recent 16 quarters (four years), irrespective if it was income or principal, UNLESS a specific donor had mandated otherwise. This affected most donors money, but not Vera's as she had a very specific rule prohibiting it. But then `cash flow' got tighter for HAF. And they still had to give away some money or their façade as the Santa Claus of the North Coast would be blown. So HAF egregiously went back to the Court in 1996. With a document that is a classic in smoke screening, `doublespeak', in spurious and duplicitous arguments, HAF conned the Court into extending the `total return policy' to Vera's Trust, even though it clearly and unequivocally breached Vera's will and Trust. Vera had no representation in Court. The court agreed. So there you have it in thumbnail. The Court documents vis-à-vis Vera's will make interesting reading and are available to the public at the Humboldt County Courthouse.

 

SUMMARY

In summary, HAF is `overlooking' that they are destroying the public's nature preserve, mainly because in destroying the property, they can claim to be `maintaining it' and with the aid of a little breach of trust, can invade principal. And HAF do have to grow the Foundation, or well, the North Coast would come to screeching halt, so lets go to the next step of the chicanery, the impressive `total-return-policy'. What is a dog eared nature preserve, and an architecturally significant Vietor residence to stand in the way of HAF's mission to be Santa Claus, the `giver of all things to everyone'. HAF's founder Vera just didn't understand HAF's post 1993 `rethought mission'. Good North Coast folks, HAF the `fox' is in Vera's hen house. The longevity of Vera's Trust is very limited.