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


Standing - Courtroom Rights

Standing is a very important if arcane legal concept used by HAF, the Trust bank and the Courts to thwart attempts to put the HAF and Wells Fargo Bank back on track after their post 1993 shenanigans. Vera's will clearly gave her Perrott 'watchdog' nieces and nephews standing to provided Vera's intended 'checks and balances' on a banking and HAF bureaucracy Vera mistrusted, and which the Perrotts allege have gone amok post 1993, destroying the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve funded by invaded Trust principal, etc.

Prior to the 1999 through current Vera vs. HAF and Wells Fargo Bank legal actions, the post 1992 (Pennekamp era), HAF and Wells Fargo Bank unilaterally 'decided' (no court proceedings) to deny standing to Vera's watchdogs, i.e. the Perrott's were never given proper legal notice of clandestine court proceedings so Vera's side and interests could be represented in court wherein HAF and Wells Fargo Bank sought to do acts breaching Vera's will and trust, resulting in destroying the public's Nature Preserve with Vera's invaded Trust principal.

Lack of legal notice is contrary to a paramount principle of California and USA 'rule of law' providing 'equal protection and due process' under the American justice system.

Had the California Supreme Court (Vera's case against HAF and Bank was appealled but denied review) affirmed the Watchdog's standing, all of the 1994 through 1999 'questionable' court orders breaching Vera's will without Vera's Watchdogs knowledge (not being given notice of legal proceedings) would have been void because Vera's interests did not have representation in court, or equal protection and due process of the law. The Perrotts have 90 days from the mid February 'Denial to Review' by California. They plan to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

In current legal wrangling, HAF and Wells Fargo Bank, the same entities that did not give legal notice and did unilateral wrongful acts, are now seeking to hide behind their misdeeds by claiming Vera's watchdog Perrott's have no standing, and can not question those acts in any court of law, a procedural 'whitewash' of alleged fiduciary irresponsibility and chicanery.

From Vera's point of view this exemplifies the post 1992 HAF and Wells Fargo Bank regime, including dereliction of fiduciary responsibility and violation of trustee duties by way of destruction of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with invaded trust principal. Vera unknowningly created a Frankenstein monster, which in Post-1992 HAF is destroying what Vera created.

Some Perrott Watchdog Footnotes

(1) i.e., no HAF 'invasion' of principal allowed

(2) Vera Neuer signed the Declaration of Trust on 3 May 1972 when she signed her will. Vera died on 21 June 1972. The Declaration of Trust on file at the Courthouse is signed by White of Crocker Bank on 13 July, 1972 (no Vera signature). This is a bogus document? HAF have stated they are running affairs by the Declaration of Trust, not Vera's will?

(3) The 14.3 acres and residence are not owned by HAF but held in trust for the North Coast Public as part of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, HAF as trustees, to protect not destroy. Note: HAF has the 'use', not ownership (and abuse) of the residence.