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

 

VERA'S WATCHDOG'S DECLARATIONS

Vera's five watchdogs (Perrott nieces and nephews) named in Vera's 1972 will took HAF and Wells Fargo Bank to Court in August 1999. Their objective to obtain a 'Restraining Order' to keep HAF from breaking ground for HAF's 'new office building' (announced June 1999) within the limits of Vera's gift to the public her Lynn Victor Nature Preserve. That is to prevent irreparable damage to Vera's now public Indianola property. In turning down Vera's watchdogs 'restraining order' request in September 1999, the Judge offered the following comment:


"As to the second question (he had opined that Vera's watchdogs did have standing-the first question-later to be reversed) the Court finds no breach of the conditions of the will. According to the declaration of the Executive Director of the Humboldt Area Foundation, whose declaration is uncontested, the project in no way despoils the property by installing of picnic tables, barbecue pits, swimming pools or like improvements usually associated with parks."

Vera's watchdogs got two shocking revelations: 1) That the Court went along with the chicanery and duplicity that HAF could destroy 10% (1.4 acres) of the to be guarded 'native and unspoiled' public 14.3 acre Nature Preserve as long as HAF didn't install one picnic table. An egregiously specious argument by Pennekamp, parroted back to Vera's watchdogs by the Judge. Read Vera's will. She created a 'native and unspoiled' public nature preserve that was not to be despoiled by EVEN a picnic table. Pennekamp's' statement in his Declaration essentially amount to HAF contending they as the Trustees of the Indianola property with a fiduciary responsibility to guard it 'native and unspoiled' for the public can in fact destroy the total nature preserve as long as HAF don't' do it byway of installing a 'picnic table'. What kind of HAF 'double speak' is this? This comes from the HAF that claims ad nausea to 'honor' their Founder and to 'serve' the Community. Vera's watchdogs have critiqued the Pennekamp Declaration. See 'Vera's Watchdogs Rebuttal To HAF Public Misinformation'. See also HAF/Bank Chicanery-Joint Petition To Instruct Trustees.

2) The Judge's bizarre contention that Pennekamp's Declaration was 'uncontested'. This is proved false by the fact that all five of Vera's nieces and nephews as well as Dolly Coffelt submitted signed Declarations in the same Court proceeding (August 1999) as Pennekamp's 'uncontested' Declaration. That is six independent Declarations by persons who knew Vera intimately over a combined 170 years, saying just the opposite of and strongly contesting Pennekamp's version of the facts. Did Vera get a fair shake in the Humboldt Courts? Vera's Watchdogs allege there was duplicity and chicanery involved. Following are the declarations of the five watchdogs in the August 1999 Court presentation opposing Pennekamp's:

By Robert William (Bill) Perrott, John Richard Perrott, Sally Perrott Hammack, Henry Albert Perrott, and Carol Perrott Armstrong. Dolly Coffelt's Declaration is posted on another page, see 'Dolly Coffelt Declaration'