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

 

Perrott's Rebuttal To

Alleged HAF Misinformation

 

Below is a critique of HAF public pronouncements, by their post-1993 Executive Director, which the Perrotts allege tries to reinvent Vera Perrott Vietor and her 1972 will creating Humboldt Area Foundation, the San Francisco Principal Trust, and the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, all to cover up or whitewash HAF and Wells Fargo Bank breaches of Vera's will in the post 1992 Pennekamp HAF era. The Perrotts have never been able to cross-examine Pennekamp in court, take depositions or present facts, always being thwarted by not having 'standing.' The Perrotts' case against HAF and Wells Fargo Bank was appealed to the California Supreme Court, but denied review in mid February of 2001. Vera's Watchdogs have 90 days to appeal to the US Supreme Court which they are persuing.

Below the Perrotts cross examine Pennekamp in the 'court of public opinion' using the publicly available documents.

The Documents from which Mr. Penenkamp's statements are taken are:
(A) Court declaration, August 25, 1999
(B) Humboldt Beacon Article June 1999
(C) Pennekamp's building press release 10 June 1999

A) Pennekamp's declaration in Humboldt County Superior Court in HAF's defense against Vera's watchdogs court action for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER to stop HAF from building in and irreparably damaging the public's LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE. Pennekamp's 25 August Declaration (document) is available to the public in the County Courthouse files.

Note: The Court on the basis of the above referenced Pennekamp declaration ruled that HAF had not breached Vera's will calling Pennekamp's declaration "uncontested". This while ignoring the declarations of Vera's five nieces and nephews, who 'knew' Vera and the Indianola site intimately for a combined 150 years after she took residence at Indianola, spending considerable time with their aunt and uncle on the premises. Skullduggery?

The Court further ignored a declaration by Vera's bosom friend and neighbor Dolly Coffelt who knew Vera for 20 years and was at Vera's bedside as Vera instructed the lawyers about her 1972 will. This with special emphasis on the creation of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and Vera's mandates for the preservation of the property and the John Yeon designed, built and landscaped residence 'native and unspoiled', and 'all of it', Vera added. I.e. all the property and the residence. The Court in their ruling said that Mr. Pennekamp's declaration, the 'accused' who never knew Vera, was 'uncontested' (ie. ignoring the six 'opposing' court declarations by the 'accusers' who knew Vera intimately). Did Vera really get a fair shake in the local courts, in trying to preserve her gifts to the North Coast Community?


B) 19 August 1999 Article in the HUMBOLDT BEACON interviewing HAF Peter Pennekamp.



C) HAF's 10 June 1999 press release announcing the building of the 'new offices' within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.



A) Pennekamp Declaration in Humboldt County Superior Court

Before addressing the 25 August 1999 Pennekamp declaration, a general statement is in order as follows. Mr. Peter Pennekamp presumably never met Vera Perrott Vietor. Many of Mr. Pennekamp’s incongruous public and Court statements putatively referring to Vera’s will would lead a knowledgeable observer to wonder if the HAF Executive Director has ever in fact read (or understood) Vera’s will and its clear and unambiguous restrictive provisions in creating the public's Lynn Vietor Nature preserve and HAF. Or alternatively to wonder if as the Perrotts allege he is being intentionally duplicitous to deceive the Court and North Coast public acting contrary to his fiduciary responsibility to protect not destroy the property.

It is disconcerting to Vera’s duly appointed Perrott watchdog nieces and nephews (her voice from the grave) that Mr. Peter Pennekamp can come before the Court and succeed in persuading the Court of his spurious interpretation of Vera’s will which is clearly contrary to the simple, concise and unambiguous stipulations that were mandated by the Perrott's aunt Vera in her will in creating the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and HAF. This is especially so when all of Vera’s five nieces and nephews, and Vera’s very close personal friend Dolly Coffelt had declarations in the same Temporary Injunction court pleading unanimously attesting to the fact that Vera created the public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve of all her property and was adamant about it and her residence being guarded ‘native and unspoiled’. Pennekamp who wouldn't know Vera if she walked into the room, prevailed with his 'bogus' Post 1992 'reinvention and reiterpretation' of Vera and her will. Is this the 'rule of law' in action in Humboldt County?



Mr. Peter Pennekamp in his time at the helm as the Executive Director of Humboldt Area Foundation (since 1993) and his or HAF’s ‘rethought mission’ (quoting Mr. Pennekamp from his interview reported in the Humboldt Beacon of 19 August 1999) has, the Perrotts allege, been a party to breaking the major taboos, proscriptions, or restrictions set out by Vera as follows:

1) Humboldt Area Foundation was to have access only to income, never the Trust principal which was to be under the independent control of San Francisco Trust Bank (Crocker National Bank cum Wells Fargo Bank).

2) The San Francisco Trust Bank was to have the trusteeship over the 14.3 acre public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve (illegally changed to Humboldt Area Foundation in 1994). Vera's interested watchdogs were neither informed nor represented in court.

3) The Nature Preserve was clearly and unambiguously created by Vera with all of her property, property line to property line, including the architecturally significant residence, to be husbanded by her Trustee (San Francisco Trust Bank) in its ‘native and unspoiled’ condition, without man made improvements, NOT EVEN 'picnic tables, barbecue pits, swimming pools, etc.’. In other words Vera mandated that the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve be left as it was with Mother Nature not HAF or Mr. Peter Pennekamp in charge. There is no way that any honest, intelligent or prudent person could interpret that the damage done to and around the residence in the 1995 episode of building a huge parking lot, cutting trees and savaging the John Yeon designed residence for the Vietor two to shoehorn up to fifteen HAF staff into it is allowed. Rather all were clearly and unequivocally proscribed, banned, disallowed by Vera and thus breach Vera’s will’s stipulations, calling for Vera’s clear and unambiguous remedy, the Trust SHALL BE TERMINATED.


 

Following immediately below is a line by line (where appropriate) contesting of the 25 August 1999 court declaration of Peter Pennekamp.

Vera's Perrotts Watchdogs knew their Aunt Vera very well over the years and have all read and are familiar with her will. They are the five of Vera's nieces and nephews to whom she gave a reversionary interest in her will in creating HAF, as her watchdogs to insure that the Foundation in fact adhered to her directives. Below are observations of the 'veracity' (or lack thereof) of comments made by HAF's Executive Director (Peter Pennekamp) in his 25 August 1999 Declaration in support of opposition to the court's issuance of a Preliminary Injunction to stop construction (destruction) of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve heard in Eureka by the Honorable J. Michael Brown, Judge on 27 August 1999.

Mr. Peter Pennekamp's comments are in upper case or bold format.

Vera's watchdog Perrott's critique, which follows, is in lower case.

As backdrop, consider that HAF has ostensibly never heard from Vera's appointed (in her will) 'voice from the grave' watchdogs (nieces and nephews) in 27 years. Vera's watchdogs only surfaced (from HAF's point of view) when the watchdogs by chance saw a copy of HAF's 10 June 99 announcement of plans to despoil a further and significant portion of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve (some 10%) with a 4000 square foot building and huge asphalt parking area within the public's 'keep it native and unspoiled' Lynn Vietor Nature Reserve. Vera's watchdog's 6 August 1999 letter to HAF's Pennekamp (copied to HAF board of director member Jack Selvage), pointed out in no uncertain terms the 'illegality' (vis-à-vis Vera's will) of the HAF proposed plans. So Mr. Peter Pennekamp's 25 August declaration is not naive to these serious questions. Rather the Perrotts allege the declaration could well be self serving, as Pennekamp's exalted position as HAF Executive Director is in question for gross mismanagement, dereliction of fiduciary responsibility, egregious chicanery to misuse of Vera's funds to accomplish just the opposite of what Vera INTENDED in her 1972 will.


 

FROM HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION'S CREATION TO THE PRESENT DAY, HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION HAS TAKEN EXTENSIVE AND VIGILANT CARE TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE VIETOR RESIDENCE AND THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.

Yes, the watchdogs acknowledge that reasonable care was taken through 1992 (the Ellen Dusick era) but since Mr. Peter Pennekamp's days (1993 onwards), HAF has ravaged the architecturally - historically significant Vietor residence (displayed photographically in the prestigious New York Museum of Modern Art in 1940's alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright) and has in the process violated the 'native and unspoiled' public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve as created by Vera's 1972 will, in which she gave her property, 'and all of it' to quote Vera, i.e. her entire acreage, property line to property line, including the residence (cum HAF office) to the Public - Community as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Wells Fargo and the court were presumably bamboozled by HAF to invaded trust principal to illegally fund these transgressions. HAF's 1995 parking lot expansion to the north of the residence cum HAF office flagrantly violated the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. 'Vigilant Care' would not have resulted in HAF cutting down the prominent madrone tree John Yeon had meticulously designed the residence around at the front entrance. The hard facts do not conform to the fictions of Mr. Pennekamp's declaration.


 

THAT IN 1994, HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION AND WELLS FARGO BANK, THE FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE VIETOR REAL PROPERTY, JOINTLY PETITIONED THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR APPROVAL OF A REQUESTED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, AND A PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRUST MONETARY ASSETS (Vera's embargoed principal) TO PAY FOR REMODELING AND RENOVATION OF THE VIETOR RESIDENCE AND ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA.

Vera's watchdog Perrotts have seen the egregious 1994 petition to the Court, and it is as filled with chicanery and distortions of the intent of Vera's will as was the 5 April 1999 Petition to the Court to build within (destroy) the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, again dipping into principal, which the watchdogs have seen and objected to. The Court and the Community have been double duped by HAF and Wells Fargo Bank, in 1995 and now again in 1999, by nature preserve 'destruction' funded by 'invaded' principal. Vera's will is clear; Wells Fargo Bank was entrusted with the fiduciary responsibility to be the trustee over the 14.3 acres of land and residence (the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve), never HAF. The switch of the real estate trusteeship from Wells Fargo Bank to HAF was a violation of Vera's will, of Vera's intent to have protective 'checks-and-balances' and independent oversight. The illegal switch set up a 'conflict of interest', wherein HAF could self servingly interpret Vera's will to their interests (and did) soon embarking on despoiling the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Mr. Pennekamp admits that Wells Fargo Bank was inveigled into releasing trust principal to HAF, absolutely taboo in Vera's will, in which she stipulated that HAF was to have only income for their 'activities or purposes', to use her words. HAF was not to be allowed to invade principal, which was to be guarded intact by the Bank trustee. And how about HAF mismanagement? HAF violated (despoiled) the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve to put in parking, and seriously violate the historical and architectural integrity of the John Yeon designed house (1995 and after) and now HAF tacitly admits it was wrong, that HAF have now to expand elsewhere (like three years later). Mr. Pennekamp weakly offers HAF's faux pas (mismanagement) as a reason to now violate Vera's will again, further violating principle, further despoiling the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. i.e. in 1995 or thereabouts if HAF had respected Vera's will, not violated the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, they would have moved the majority of their planned expansion off site, and never have had the occasion to seriously despoil the residence, and possibly not been tempted or had an excuse to invade principal, all alleged gross mismanagement and dereliction of fiduciary trust and responsibility by HAF and Wells Fargo Bank.


 

THIS REMODELING SERVED TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING WHILE 1) BRINGING IT INTO THE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY CODES FOR RAMPS AND BATHROOMS, 2) CONVERTING THE HOME INTO A USEABLE FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE VIETOR WILL AND 3) PROVIDING THE MINIMUM PARKING NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS THE FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERS AND PROPERTY WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE PROPERTY.

The use of her residence 'contemplated' by Vera was similar to that of the first 18 years up until 1992, with a small staff of three or less that fit Vera's elegant but modestly sized residence designed for two. With Vera's strictures to keep her 14.3 acre public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve 'native and unspoiled', a reasonably managed HAF would have been expected to do the obvious, move their overflow and expansion activities offsite in 1995 rather than gutting her architecturally significant home for ramps and toilets, and shoehorning a dozen or more HAF people that obviously didn't fit. This entailed despoiling the very heart of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve north of the home to accommodate the high traffic crowd attracting activities, just what Vera was rabidly against in her mandates, 'no picnic tables, no barbecues, no swimming pools..', i.e. no crowd, noise, or garbage attracting activities on her property. No man made improvements. HAF is guilty of serious mismanagement in general, which all spawns from their specifically ignoring (in their duplicitous planning) then (actions) violating Vera's will, they the Post 1994 'Interloper' trustee of the property with a fiduciary responsibility to guard it 'native and unspoiled' for the public, and not destroy it.


 

THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE FOR THE REAL PROPERTY WAS AT WELLS FARGO'S REQUEST SINCE EFFORTS TO PRESERVE A HISTORICAL BUILDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THEIR REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT.

The substitution violated the fiduciary responsibility Vera gave to her chosen trustee, the San Francisco Bank. HAF plans were not to 'preserve' the building, but to despoil it (1995), which is what is now evident to any observer. The bank was smart. They did not want their 'fingerprints' on this 'murder'. But the bank breached their fiduciary responsibility to Vera by resigning as trustee and are culpable too. A University of Oregon School Of Architecture historian is currently preparing a book on the works of John Yeon. In this effort he visited the Indianola site within the last two years. He recently reported to R. W. Perrott with dismay the 'architectural' damage that has been done to the residence and intentionally famous architect and conservationist John Yeon's north side landscaping (in HAF's 1995 parking lot fiasco).


 

PRESERVING THE BUILDING WAS HOWEVER A CLEAR PRIORITY OF THE FOUNDATION. DURING THE RENOVATION PROJECT, GREAT CARE WAS TAKEN TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE RESIDENCE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED BY THE FAMOUS PORTLAND ARCHITECT JOHN YEON.

Pennekamp's statements are duplicitous. It was gross mismanagement to despoil the building and the public Nature Reserve as has been done in the 'renovation' process, of an 'architectural masterpiece' that was significant enough to be displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Arts in the 1940's alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright. This by HAF, the 'interloper' trustees (1994) with a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public's treasure. It is an egregious deception for HAF to now boast about what care for the building was taken. HAF should have moved offsite with their planned overflow activities, never, ever consider degrading the historic building and violating the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. If 'great care' were exercised, HAF would not have eliminated the front door madrone tree specifically incorporated into the house location by John Yeon or Vera's dogwood, buckberry and several of her big redwoods or excavated six foot deep into John Yeon's 'fairway lawn'. The facts speak louder than the specious statements and deceptive arguments offered by a 'red faced' and 'caught red handed' Pennekamp and HAF Board.


 

THAT IN PLANNING AND DESIGNING THE NEW FACILITY AND PARKING LOT, GREAT CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW BUILDING IS COMPATIBLE WITH, AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL VIETOR HOME.

Egregious 'double speak.' If HAF had done anything but self-serving planning and empire building (with Vera's 'invaded from principal' funds) they would have respected Vera's will that mandated that the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve be guarded 'native and unspoiled'. There is no room whatsoever for interpreting that a 4000 square foot building and 65 car parking lot can be built within the boundaries of the public's 14.3 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. So in planning the new building, an ugly 'cow barn' structure, HAF was squandering Vera's funds to defy her clear and strict mandates, 'breaching' the 'letter or the spirit' of Vera's will while claiming or obfuscating that 'great care' was taken. Again these are deceptive and hollow words vs. cold facts, gross HAF duplicity and mismanagement of their somber fiduciary responsibilities to protect the public's Nature Preserve and architecturally significant John Yeon masterpiece, the Vietor Residence.


 

THAT GREAT CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN IN SELECTING THE SITE FOR THE NEW BUILDING AND ACCOMPANYING PARKING AREA TO ENSURE THAT THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE REAL PROPERTY IS NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY.

The way to 'take great care' to ensure that the natural beauty of the real property is not harmed 'in any way' is to abide by Vera's strict instructions in creating the public or community Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve of Vera's 14.3 acres, 'and all of it', to quote Vera's will. That is to keep it 'native and unspoiled', and introduce no man made structures whatsoever onsite. The obvious answer, move the man made 'improvements' offsite. Can it be clearer? And if Vera's will was ever to be breached in 'letter or spirit' by her trustees, Vera's remedy was equally clear, the trust shall be terminated, no room for equivocation. For 'real property' Mr. Pennekamp should be using the name public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, that's what is as per Vera's will. Or does Mr. Pennekamp have some power unknown to Vera's watchdogs to change Vera's will or to interpret it as he sees fit to serve his and/or HAF's personal whims and deceptive 'rethought mission' vs. abiding by HAF's dubiously 'inherited' (1994) fiduciary responsibilities and Vera's clear stipulations in creating her Trust, Foundation and public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

The 'real property' that is referred to is all within the Vietor property limits, thus is all part of the the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve that Vera's will mandates to be kept 'native and unspoiled'. Briar bushes happen to occur regularly in 'native and unspoiled' locations, but never 4000 square foot buildings and huge 'asphalt jungle' parking areas. Below are three photos taken by R. W. Perrott in August 1999 (about the time the Pennekamp declaration was dated) of the HAF proposed building site, within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with the camera's back to the hill (east), looking west.

.
1) Facing southwest across the Indianola road


2) Facing west-Humboldt Bay in the background,


3) Facing northwest, the three photos taken together essentially pan the proposed 4000 square foot building and parking lot site. A picture is worth 1000 words.

A check of these photos of the site vis-à-vis Pennekamp's allegations coldly contest the veracity of the statements 'absolutely no native trees exist on the site', 'nor will any trees...be removed'. Like the madrone tree and the dogwood and the buck berry and several large redwoods that were bulldozed and chainsawed by the same post 1992 'double speak' HAF regime that planned and carried out the 1995 north of the Vietor house parking lot fiasco destruction. But is all this missing the real point? Vera wanted the property (and all of it) left 'native and unspoiled'. That's trees, bushes, grass, wildflowers, and briars, whatever. So Mr. Pennekamp's declaration statements all beg the real question, that the proposed site is all part of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve to be husbanded by HAF in its 'native and unspoiled' condition, not despoiled as HAF are brazenly and arrogantly proposing. The site shows recent deer sign, which would warm Vera's heart. This meadow is where Vera used to go to talk to 'Lucy' the lizard (Coffelt Declaration). The currently content deer would be unhappy with HAF's misguided plans to destroy their sanctuary with buildings and asphalt. A Nature Preserve is for 'nature', the Walden Pond type, as Vera intended, not for ugly man made structures of which there are already too many in Humboldt County outside the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.


 

THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION'S POSSESSION OF THE VIETOR PROPERTY, GREAT EFFORT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF VERA PERROTT VIETOR BY MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY IN ITS NATURAL STATE, YET OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT IN A CONTROLLED MANNER.

The property (the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve) has been kept in its natural state selectively since 1992, only if it served HAF's purposes. Often a hundred and eighty degrees from what Vera mandated. But what happened to John Yeon's front door madrone tree, the dogwood, several redwoods, the missing 80% of the North end of the 'fairway lawn' (which now drops six feet to its replacement - the parking lot), the bordering forest when it didn't fit HAF mismanaged aims, HAF's 'rethought mission' when they wanted to replace it all with their scar on nature (the asphalt parking lot - 1995). This is not a 'great effort' on HAF's behalf but a 'great effort' at cover-up, public deception and smokescreening in the view of Vera's watchdogs.


 

EQUALLY IMPORTANT THE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN SITUATED TO SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE CAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN THE AREA OF THE PRESENT VIETOR HOME, WHICH IS MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE PARCEL AND ADJACENT TO THE AREA CONSTITUTING THE NATURE PRESERVE.

What if the HAF hadn't mismanaged this whole affair (the Pennekamp 'rethought mission' era) and had abided by Vera's strictures to keep the property 'native and unspoiled' and HAF had moved (expanded) offsite in the 1995, which was the obvious and probably only viable consideration. If HAF had informed Vera's watchdogs as they should have, HAF would have had a court battle in 1994 (when HAF serreptitiously went to the Humboldt county planning for a permit, never informing the Court) over this issue. But no, HAF clandestinly defied Vera's intent in transitioning HAF from a low over head, low key, plain vanilla charitable-community foundation to one that now dabbles as much in the North Coast economy, 'for profit' business, other non 501-c-3 activities. This faux pas, change of directions is now being used for an excuse to ignore Vera's strictures to keep the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve 'native and unspoiled'. The HAF post 1992 'rethought mission', change in direction, expansion of staff, if reasonable, should have been accommodated elsewhere off site, not by 'despoiling' the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. If built or rented the 'new facility' would take the pressure off the Vietor residence, but unfortunately now only after that historically significant 'architectural masterpiece' has been savaged (irreparable damage) by HAF to cram 10 to 15 of their staff into what is a two-person residence. And when HAF now expands (off site as Vera's will unequivocally does not allow expanding onsite), will the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve get back John Yeon's madrone tree, dogwood, redwoods, the north lawn, etc. And will the asphalt scar of the parking lot be rolled up and taken away and the house 'renovated' back to some semblance of what John Yeon designed and built that got it displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art in the early 1940's? Irreparable damage was done. HAF is tacitly admitting their deceptions and errors of some five years ago in 'inundating' the residence with people (staff and visitors) and vehicle traffic instead of relocating somewhere elsewhere. In Nature Preserves you park outside, and walk in, not attract great crowds of 'non-nature preserve traffic' to come park in the very heart of them, destroying the 'native and unspoiled' for this unwanted traffic.


 

THAT AT NO TIME DURING HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION'S POSSESSION OF THE VIETOR REAL PROPERTY HAS A 'PICNIC TABLE, BARBECUE PIT, SWIMMING POOL' OR OTHER LIKE IMPROVEMENTS BEEN INSTALLED OR PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NEITHER INTENT NOR PLAN TO CREATE OR INCLUDE SUCH 'PARK LIKE' IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENOVATION/EXPANSION PROJECT. IN PLANNING THIS PROJECT, GREAT CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO OBSERVE THE WISHES ARTICULATED BY VERA PERROTT VIETOR, SUCH CARE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE TAKEN.

Vera's watchdogs do not appreciate her Foundation's Executive Director mocking Vera and distorting her words as a deceptive smoke screen to cover up HAF's duplicity. Vera on her deathbed created the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, but called it a 'park' but said not a normal 'crowd attracting' park. She wanted it kept 'native and unspoiled'. No man made improvements, no crowd or trash attracting activities. In the initial 18 year Ellen Dusick era HAF got the picture, and called it the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, i.e. to preserve nature for the Public, more specifically to accommodate individuals that wanted a quiet place to contemplate the travails of life, meditate in a quiet serene setting. But that wasn't good enough for HAF's post 1993 'empire building' and 'rethought mission' phase. HAF's empire building could probably have gone largely unnoticed, if it had occurred offsite, rather than being made a win-lose by HAF mismanagement, where by the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the John Yeon historical residence and the invaded trust principal account in San Francisco were the losers. HAF's plans as announced on 10 June 1999 takes no 'great care to observe the wishes articulate' by their founder, Vera Perrott Vietor, rather only deceives the Court and the Public by speciously claiming to do so. Quite the contrary, HAF is flaunting Vera's every mandate (intent), destroying the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and invading her principle to do it, squandering her funds meant for charity and community good to defy her wishes, while (in the Executive Director's case) pocketing a huge salary paid for out of Vera's funds, in exchange for mismanagement and self serving goals, not those of carrying out HAF's true fiduciary aims and responsibilities to the public as intended and stipulated by Vera in her will.


 

THAT GREAT EXPENSE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO DATE IN PLANNING, PERMITTING AND SEEKING COURT APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION PROJECT.

HAF's Executive Director whines about the 'great expense' of the travesty his mismanagement has created. He has defied Vera's clear mandates. Now he whines over the 'great expense' to not his but Vera's invaded trust funds expended by himself through mismanagement in trying to circumvent and flaunt Vera's directives, and duping the Court and the Community into being an accessory to HAF dipping into principle (strictly outlawed by Vera) to despoil what Vera mandated to be kept in its 'native and unspoiled' condition, the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. This breaches the letter and the spirit of Vera's will, and calls for Vera's unequivocal remedy, the trust 'shall be terminated'. If the Perrott's were ever to get standing they would pursue a Court order for Wells Fargo Bank to make up all the 'invaded' principal they funded to HAF to squander flaunting Vera's mandates. Wells Fargo would further have to provide additional funds to restore the property to the pre 1993 'John Yeon' state. Let the Court or 'public opinion' remove the current HAF trustees and put Vera's true version of HAF and Trust in the hands of her watchdogs or their designees, to appoint a new HAF Board of Trustees that follows Vera's simple guidelines. Since the start of Mr. Pennekamp's era in 1993, HAF and Wells Fargo Bank have proven themselves by their well planned duplicitous acts to be unfit to carry out the fiduciary responsibilities to achieve the charitable intent set out by Vera, and to protect the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and residence in its 'native and unspoiled' condition for the benefit of the North Coast Public and Community.

B) Humboldt Beacon - HAF Article 19 August 1999

Further to contesting Mr. Peter Pennekamp's court declaration of 25 August 1999 above, Mr. Pennekamp in his role as Executive director of the HAF was interview in the 19 August 1999 edition of the Humboldt Beacon, in an article headline 'HAF Expands' in which HAF's Executive Director ostensibly stated what Vera (her watchdogs) regard and allege as and take umbrage of as egregious, deceptive and intentionally misleading statements to the Public (including HAF past and potential donors) vis-à-vis Vera's will and her clear and unambiguous intent for the Foundation (HAF) which she created. These points are addressed below.

It is in a Vera's 'watchdog' capacity that the Perrotts corresponded with HAF after seeing HAF's 10 June 1999 announcement to expand their facilities, building on (within) the Vietor 14.3 acres, which Vera left as a public Nature Preserve, with admonishments that it be kept 'native and unspoiled, i.e. that there be no man made improvements. John Perrott had a phone conversation with Mr. Pennekamp in July questioning the 'legality' of the chosen site, and wrote him at length on 6 August, questioning the projects 'legality'. When Perrott called Mr. Pennekamp on 6 August to continue the dialogue, Mr. Pennekamp chose to abruptly, rudely and arrogantly hang-up on Perrott, and essentially said, 'talk to HAF's lawyer'. This caused Vera's watchdogs to initiate legal proceeding for 'court assistance' in protecting Vera's clear intent that her property including the residence, and all of it (Vera's words in her will) should not be 'despoiled' but rather be husbanded by HAF in its 'native and unspoiled' condition as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and that her trust principal not be invaded by such transgressions.

HAF having cut off communication with Vera's watchdog's (leaving all our questions unanswered), the Perrotts have had to operate on 'minimal information' to carry out their duties to Vera. It is in this circumstance that the Perrotts take advantage of HAF's 'statements' in the 19 August 1999 Humboldt Beacon article for 'clues' of where HAF is coming from vis-à-vis HAF's fiduciary responsibility to run Vera's HAF within her guidelines. Certain portions of said article have been 'highlighted' for reference to Perrott watchdog comments to those particular passages as below.


 

The following is from the Humboldt Beacon article with input from Pennekamp:

THROUGH THE YEARS, AND PARTICULARLY AFTER PENNEKAMP WAS HIRED IN 1993, THE FOUNDATION HAS RETHOUGHT ITS MISSION AND DECIDED IT SHOULD INCLUDE WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE AND AFTER MONEY IS INVESTED IN PEOPLE AND PROJECTS. THE FOUNDATION HE SAID IS BECOMING LESS ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF GRANT MAKING --- THOUGH IN 1997-1998 IT AWARDED $2,694,672 IN GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS --- AND MORE ABOUT USING GRANTS, TRAINING, AND OTHER RESOURCES TO STRENGTHEN THE COMMUNITY.

The IRS 990's for 97 / 98, page 2 line 22 shows 'grants' $1,979,093, not $2.7 milliion as stated. HAF 'rethinking of its mission' in the post Dusick days, or after HAF's first 18 years with the arrival of the current 'Pennekamp era' (1993 onwards) gives Vera's watchdogs real pause. Wells Fargo Bank (1994) abandoned or stepped aside from their fiduciary responsibility over the 14.3 acre public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, transferring that authority and responsibility to HAF, creating a conflict of interest and loss of 'independent oversight'. Wells Fargo Bank and the court have allowed HAF to invade principal (strictly embargoed by Vera). HAF has already violated the the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with their 1995 parking lot project (fiasco), using principal to accomplish their defiance of Vera's mandates for the Foundation, i.e. despoiling the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and unique residence. Then HAF announces (10 June 1999) a plan to further violate the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with their 4000 square foot building and parking lot (to destroy 10% of the Nature Preserve), again using embargoed San Francisco trust account principal. Vera's watchdogs are very suspicious of HAF's 'rethought mission', HAF having clearly 'breached' the 'letter and spirit' of Vera's will's stipulations for the Foundations. This calls for Vera's remedy, the trust shall be terminated, no equivocation. Mr. Pennekamp alludes to 'less grant making' and more in other areas, to do with business, etc. Are these activities 'legal' for Vera's nonprofit 501-c-3? Has Vera's Foundation been taken over by empire builders with their own agenda, trying to use Vera's philanthropic funds for purposes completely foreign to her intent for the Community at large? Court proceedings (discovery stage), not yet permitted would investigate these ostensible problems, Vera's Perrott Watchdogs 'standing' not withstanding.



THIS REDEFINITION OF THE FOUNDATIONS MISSION IS LARGELY A RESULT OF THE COMMUNITY'S RECEPTION OF ITS EXPANDED SERVICES TO DONORS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS HERE AND ITS SATELLITE OFFICES IN CRESCENT CITY AND GARBERVILLE.

 

It is interesting that the HAF reports having satellite offices in Garberville and Crescent City. Meanwhile, 'their expansion plan' (if allowed) would violate their (Vera's) Trust stipulations and despoil Vera's public Nature Preserve using embargoed Trust principal. Why need HAF try to violate the Trust and build within the Preserve when the obvious solution is to create a satellite office (built-leased-rented) in the Eureka vicinity or elsewhere for their expansion requirements (mostly to accommodate HAF's 'rethought mission')?




THE HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION'S MISSION HAS EXPANDED, PENNEKAMP SAID, "TO DO THOSE THINGS THAT HELP PEOPLE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY BE AS SUCCESSFUL IN BUILDING THEIR COMMUNITY AS POSSIBLE." FOR THIS THE FOUNDATION NEEDS MORE SPACE.

HAF's 'expanded mission' is ill defined. It sounds like HAF is going to become a socialist state to do all things for everyone on the North Coast. Vera had in mind a low overhead, plain vanilla 501-c-3 charitable-community foundation, and a passive activity that gave whatever income was available to 'worthy causes'. Vera's watchdogs suspect that HAF is 'off track', getting too proactive, involved in trying the 'save the North Coast', building an empire to do it, and leaving the 'worthy causes' Vera had in mind out of the loop. HAF's invasion of principal to do these 'expanded mission' activities is outlawed by Vera's trust and spells doom for the principal trust funding in a few years. Vera would put it thus; the principal is like hens, the income like eggs. Let the chickens grow in number, for more eggs, for more to give to the Community. HAF has invaded principal (killed hens) so the income (eggs) to distribute has to be less. Once the fox (HAF) gets into the hens, there is no stopping until the hens are all gone, the end of HAF, or at least Vera's principal trust portion of it. In the interim, less of that 'less' income is available for the broad Community, as HAF seems to be saying that they put priority on the other business, training, 'rethought mission' type activities and the Pennekamp 'empire building'. Guess what? Pennekamp will pay his overhead cost first, grant making will be reduced to what is left, if nothing. Neither Vera nor her watchdogs are impressed. And if HAF needs more space, move offsite, don't build in and destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.



 


HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION 'HOPES TO BREAK GROUND' ON THE NEW FACILITY IN AUGUST 1999.

To do so HAF would have been breaking Vera's Trust stipulations, violating the public's Nature Preserve, and violating it again by using embargoed principal. And the main 'need' for the building is all the 'new or rethought mission' requirements, adding up to gross mismanagement on the part of Vera's fiduciary trustee, HAF. However, the tractors Pennekamp had poised to break ground in August 1999 are long gone, thwarted (at least temporarily) by Vera's watchdog court actions. With public awareness and support, this could be permanent.

THE 'NEW CENTER' IS TO BE FUNDED SOLELY BY THE VIETOR TRUST. HAF is invading Vera's principal (illegal) to build a new center that despoils her Nature Preserve (illegal) all to accommodate the 'new or rethought' mission, which is not within Vera's 'intent' when she created the Foundation. Vera's watchdogs need Court or 'public opinion' assistance in putting Vera's Foundation back on track, curbing an alleged mismanaged, spendthrift, corrupt and out of control fiduciary trustee, HAF with Wells Fargo Bank complicity.

Vera's trust mandated that her property become the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the whole 14.3 acres, property line to property line. Vera wanted it left 'native and unspoiled', read no man made improvements. The proposed site for the new building is the most open part of the 14.3 acres, but it does have trees on it. But this is academic. Vera mandated that the Nature Reserve be left 'native and unspoiled', no mention of how many trees, just no 'improvements' inconsistent with a Nature Preserve. Thus HAF's statement that 'WE'RE NOT CUTTING ANY TREES SO HAF'S PLAN WAS FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE TRUST' is not true, but rather is a specious statement intentionally misleading the Public. And HAF is guilty of cutting many big and mature trees in their 1995 faux pas of adding a parking lot north of the Vietor residence (HAF office). In 1995 HAF cut a madrone, a dogwood, a buck berry, and several huge redwood trees in violating Vera's mandate to keep it all 'native and unspoiled'. HAF has thus proved themselves unworthy of carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities as mandated for her Foundation by Vera.

Mr. Pennekamp said, "THAT THE EXPANSION WOULD ALLOW SERVICE PROGRAMS TO GROW." To Vera's watchdogs 'service' programs are the 'empire building' HAF activities that will take more of the 'fewer eggs' (having invaded principal-killed hens), and leave less for what Vera wanted, the North Coasts 'little guy', people in Hoopa, Bridgeville, Alder Point, or Vera's grave site on Table Bluff.

Pennekamp's statement above gives an insight into the 'rethought mission'. Vera's intent was to create a Foundation for the Community and so it was for the first 18 years to 1992. For Vera's watchdogs HAF's post 1992 'rethought mission' is to create a 'private bureaucracy', to out bureaucrat the existing government and other bureaucracy. Neither Vera nor her watchdogs are amused.

Vera would (probably) be surprised and happy with the 'apparent' success of her (then) fledgling 1972 Foundation, but not with the violation of principal funds, the despoiling of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the ravaging of Vera's and now the public's John Yeon designed residence as displayed in the New York Museum Of Modern Arts in the 1940's. Is there another such home on the North Coast? Vera Watchdogs believe the whole 'rethought mission' needs close scrutiny, as the violations have all occurred on the Pennekamp watch, during the 'rethought mission' since about 1994.

C) HAF 10 June 1999 Press Release Announcing The New Building.

Further to refuting Mr. Pennekamp's public statements in the 19 August Humboldt Beacon, Mr. Pennekamp's 10 June letter to 'friends of the foundation' of which HAF is reported to have sent out 4000 copies (none to any of the Perrott heirs with reversionary interest in the property and Trust). This is more than 20% of the circulation of the largest local paper, the Times Standard. The Perrott heirs, Vera's appointed watchdogs, have challenged HAF's statements in this particular letter in detail in court filings and more recent Temporary Injunction Court filings (declarations), which the Perrott watchdogs repeat below, repeating the specific statements being contested, reprinting Mr. Pennekamp's statements in boldface capital lettering and rebutting the offensive statements in lower case or normal lettering.


 

WE HAVE CONFIRMED (i.e. The Foundation) THAT THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VIETORS' INTENT FOR THE LAND AND TRUST.

This is a misleading, deceptive, disingenuous, and specious statement in that the 'land' is the 14.3 acre public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve which was unequivocally and unambiguously created by Vera with her property, and all of it, to quote Vera, property line to property line. Equally clear it was to be husbanded in its entirety in its 'native and unspoiled condition', i.e. Vera proscribed, outlawed, banned, disallow any man made improvements. Vera's public Nature Preserve was not even to be despoiled (to quote Vera) 'by picnic tables, barbecue pits, swimming pools, or like improvements usually associated with public parks'. No reasonable person could ever interpret that a 4000 square foot building and 65 space asphalt parking lot could be introduced into, be allowed to despoil the public's Nature Preserve that disallowed even a picnic table. Vera's watchdogs find it sad that the Court would choose to credit Mr. Peter Pennekamp's fallacious interpretation of Vera's will over the Founder of HAF's own clear and unambiguous mandate to keep it 'native and unspoiled', and all of it.


 

IT WILL NOT INVOLVE CUTTING ANY REDWOODS OR INTERFERE IN ANYWAY WITH THE LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE.

Pennekamp apparently has or should have a guilty conscience for having cut several big redwoods in the 1995 parking lot fiasco. Vera's criterion for what was or what was not within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve never mentioned any species of tree, i.e. the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve was not where there were or were not 'redwood trees'. It was everywhere. Vera's criterion was that the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve would consist of the absolute totality of her 14.3 acres, to be guarded in its 'native and unspoiled' condition, and all of it, Vera emphasized. Again Pennekamp, Vera's fiducially responsible trustee, offers a deceiving and fallacious interpretation of Vera's clear and unambiguous 1972 will's intent, proscribing man made structures, disallowing even a 'picnic table etc.' to keep it 'native and unspoiled'


 

WE (i.e. Foundation) ARE ABLE TO AFFORD THIS BUILDING BECAUSE OF THE RAPID APPRECIATION OVER THE PAST 26 YEARS OF THE VIETOR TRUST, CREATED BOTH FOR GRANT MAKING AND FOR SUPPORTING THE FOUNDATION'S OPERATION.

This is further sophistry, using deceptive, specious and misleading statements to trick and deceive the unsuspecting Public including past or future prospective donors to HAF by Mr. Peter Pennekamp. He does not enlighten the Public that HAF and Wells Fargo Bank have used specious statements and chicanery to dupe the Court into going against the 'letter and spirit' of Vera's will by invading principal to fund 100% of the building project he claims HAF can 'afford', without pro-Vera representation in court. Vera's will is absolutely clear, no equivocation, it is unambiguous, as she gives her money to the San Francisco Trust Bank to be held and administered for the following uses and purposes: 'The income but not the principal, of said trust fund shall be paid to the HAF, hereinafter called 'foundation' for the purposes of the Foundation'. Vera, born in 1901 was about 28 to 31 years of age by the crash of 1929 to 1932 and struggled through the depression. She grew up on the Perrott ranch and knew fiscal conservancy. To Vera 'principal' was like hens, 'income' was like the eggs the hens laid. Vera didn't want HAF to get greedy and get to the hens (principal); they only got the eggs (income). As the flock of hens (principal in the San Francisco Trust account) grew, great, there were more eggs (income) for HAF to budget their operation. But HAF since their 'rethought' mission' (1993) onwards have become undisciplined, greedy, arrogant, and HAF are not content with what Vera gave them to spend, limited to just the eggs (income). Vera knew if you ever let the fox (HAF) into the hen house with access to the hens, HAF would not stop till it has eaten all the hens (principal). Sagacious Vera knew that first hand. Wells Fargo Bank and HAF have breached the terms of Vera's will in invading principal for HAF 'activities'. See Navigator site 'Invasion of Vera's Trust Principal' herein. HAF have egregiously and unambiguously breached the 'letter and the spirit' of Vera's stipulation in creating HAF. Vera's remedy is equally clear and unambiguous, the trust shall be terminated.


 

AND WE WILL NOT REDUCE OUR GRANT MAKING.

HAF's Mr. Pennekamp should go into the chicken business. He indicates he can eat the hens (principal) and still have the same number or more eggs (income) to cover his ever-growing empire building overhead staff and still have left over income (eggs) to not reduce grants. But grants should grow, with low overhead, uninvaded principal, and income growth. Neither Vera nor her watchdogs believe Mr. Pennekamp's deceptive but arrogant rodomontade.