August Amended Class Action Suit

Below is the AMENDED CLASS ACTION lawsuit filed 2 August 2001

First, a brief lead in to the two years `stop HAF' saga to date:

A) August 1999-February 2001: Vera's heirs' legal intervention blocked HAF from breaking ground in August 1999 (tractors and clearing crews mobilized at the site) with legal actions in first the Humboldt Court, then San Francisco Appeal Court, then an appeal to the California Supreme Court. Vera's heir's strategy was to stop destruction of the Nature Preserve. HAF's strategy was to `kill Vera's messenger', take away Vera's `watchdogs (heirs) standing, never let HAF and WFB breach of trust be adjudicated in Court. With the California Supreme Court's refusal to take the case (Feb 2001), Vera's heirs were at a `stone wall'.

B) January 2001-June 2001: However, HAF had acquired an `alleged' illegal (to destroy a public Nature Preserve) and fraudulent (did not disclose public ownership of site) building permit from Humboldt Planning in 1998 to `further' despoil the Nature Preserve (having first violated it in 1995). The permit had expired during the legal actions in (A) above. It was up for extension in January 2001. Vera's heirs appealed the extension as `illegal and fraudulent' with Planning (Jan 2001), Humboldt Supervisors (March 2001), then California Coastal Commission (June 2001).

C) June 2001: Vera's Coastal Commission appeal was heard in Los Angeles on 14 June 2001. Unfortunately the `staff' in the Eureka California Coastal Commission office took it upon themselves to parrot HAF chicanery, and refused to even forward facts like Vera's will to the Commission. The Eureka staff after six weeks of `diligent work', and some 44 pages (plus attachments) or Orwellian doublespeak, sided with the destroyers HAF, and against Vera the creator of a public Nature Preserve, and claimed (recommended) that there was `no significant incident' to the 12 Coastal Commissioners, who (with no time to read such a voluminous document) rubber stamped the bogus recommendation into a `decision'. No relief for the public in saving their Nature Preserve from our Coastal Commission `guardians', essentially ruling that it is okay to destroy a public nature preserve with a `fraudulent and illegal' building permit, without an Environmental Impact Report! This is a high order travesty, defying the letter and spirit of what California tax payers voted in as Proposition 20 in 1972, creating the Coastal Commission, with a mandate to protect not destroy nature and cultural edifices (Vietor residence). More bureaucratic chicanery to cover up HAF `dirty' tracks. Stories of a corrupt Coastal Commission abound. You have just read another one.

D) Seeing the alleged Coastal Commission duplicity coming, SAVE THE PUBLIC'S LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE (STPLVNP) was formed and filed a class action suit the day that California Coastal ruled against Vera' (14 June 2001). It requested a `temporary restraining order' (TRO) to stop HAF breaking ground. The Judge did not grant the TRO (19 June 2001). HAF took advantage and `broke ground' the first week of July 2001. Native Americans were able to stop HAF construction a couple of week later, the current early August 2001 status.

Below is the text of the Amended Class Action suit as filed on 3 August 2001. It is some 45 pages. The actual document is over 300 pages, with some 21 exhibits, information which is mostly found elsewhere on this site in other formats.

I. Introduction and subject of action:

The standing of Save The Public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve ( STPLVNP ) is being attacked. STPLVNP believes that in the past, post-1992, defendants Humboldt Area Foundation ( HAF ), Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ), Humboldt County Planning Department, the Humboldt County Board Of Supervisors, the California Coastal Commission, and to a large degree public opinion, have "missed the forest for the trees" in their focus on legal actions to stop HAF from destroying the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

The Nature Preserve was initially created by Vera Perrott Vietor (Vera) in the 1940's as her "nature sanctuary" at Indianola. Vera's 1972 will made a gift of the 14.31 acre Nature Preserve to the public ( Humboldt Superior Court case numbers 19874 and 94PRO389; In The Matter Of The Trust Created Under The Will Of Vera Perrott Vietor, Decedent ). The Nature Preserve has trails with native plants, shrubs and a redwood grove. This area provides special protection for birds and animals. This action seeks to preclude conduct which will jeopardize the presence of such plants, shrubs, trees, birds and other animals in the Nature Preserve.

HAF was never intended to be the sole owner of the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence. Vera did not intend for HAF to even be "land trustee", as the property ownership records now indicate, as a result of HAF's and WFB's 1994 surreptitious filings in the Humboldt Superior Court probate cases. Please see attached exhibit 1, 1972 will of Vera Perrott Vietor at pages 5-6; exhibit 2, Who really owns the 14.41 acre Indianola Property- Humboldt County Tax Assessor documents for Vietor property located at 373 Indianola Road, Bayside, California 95524; exhibit 3, HAF acknowledgment of Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve: A. 10 June, 1999 HAF press release, with comments; B. Current HAF internet site, www.hafoundation.org, with comments; exhibit 4, Wells Fargo resigns as land trustee of the public Nature Preserve, in favor of HAF, thereby creating conflict of interest on the part of HAF; Petition, 13 October, 1994; Court order, 7 December, 1994; exhibit 17, Declarations of Dolly Coffelt and five of Vera's Perrott nieces and nephews, which contested Mr. Pennekamp's declaration of 25 August, 1999 regarding the Nature Preserve.

STPLVNP alleges that HAF is pusillanimously dissembling and hiding behind the law and California Attorney General's actions in protecting "charitable trusts" from attacks by the public, while in fact it is a very different HAF, the bogus, post 1994 "land trustee" version of HAF, which is being attacked. Yes, HAF is acknowledged to be a bona fide charitable trust in their main avocation as a charitable foundation, as established in Vera' s will in 1972. That is not the HAF, which this lawsuit addresses. This is a glaring case of mistaken identity.

STPLVNP is attacking HAF, aided and abetted by WFB, not in HAF's legitimate capacity as a "charitable trust", but in regard to post-1992 HAF's usurped ( circa 7 December, 1994 ) "trust and will breaching" status as the improperly appointed land trustee of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

Few people know the complete facts concerning HAF"s clandestine foul play in making an alleged improper and fraudulent building permit application to despoil the public's Nature Preserve in February, 1994. Plaintiffs allege that the building permit was awarded by a misinformed and duped Humboldt Planning Department in June, 1994. Please see excerpts from the 1994 Humboldt County Planning Department file in exhibit 21.

Issuance of the June, 1994 building permit led to a major despoliation of Vera's creation, the public's sanctuary for Mother Nature and the architecturally significant Vietor residence, in 1995.

HAF's egregious actions in 1994 and 1995 have created a glaring conflict of interest over land use or abuse, vis-a-vis what was clearly and unequivocally stated by Vera, the one and only 1972 founder of both the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and the charitable gift giving operations of HAF. Specifically, the 14.31 acre Lynn Vietor nature Preserve was to be guarded "native and unspoiled, not even to be despoiled by a picnic table." Attached exhibit 1, will of Vera Perrott Vietor, page 6. The Nature Preserve was to be held in trust, with Crocker Bank as trustee. HAF was never envisioned or authorized by Vera to be trustee of the public Nature Preserve. Exhibit 1, bottom of page 5, through page 6. The change of the trustee of the Nature Preserve from WFB to HAF, and the despoliation of the Nature Preserve by HAF and WFB have breached the will and trust, leading to Vera's mandate that "this trust SHALL be terminated." Exhibit 1, page 6.

History shows that for its first 22 years ( 1972-1994 ), the public's Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence were scrupulously guarded "native and unspoiled" under the purview of Vera's selected "legitimate"trustee, Crocker Bank. However, with Wells Fargo Bank buying out Crocker in 1994, and HAF surreptitiously and covertly usurping the land trusteeship ( exhibit 4 ), this circumvented and destroyed the independent trustee status which Vera had created. Vera's will and trust were breached because HAF simultaneously became beneficiary and trustee of the Nature Preserve, which created a glaring conflict of interest.

This opened the door to significant damage that followed to the Nature Preserve and architecturally significant residence. Please see attached exhibit 10, Internationally acclaimed architect John Yeon; Resume of the Vietors' Portland architect, and the architectural and historical importance of the Vietors' residence, photographs of which were shown at the New York Museum Of Modern Art in the early 1940's, along side works of Frank Lloyd Wright.

In early 1995, HAF committed what was up to that time the first major despoliation and breach of the will and trust, without approval of Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General. HAF, as the newly appointed land trustee, ignored their fiduciary responsibilities to protect the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve in its "native and unspoiled" condition. Instead, HAF and WFB irreversibly despoiled the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence. Please see attached exhibit 7, Pre- and post-1995 Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and residence; 1995 HAF despoliation of Nature Preserve and Vietors' architecturally and historically significant residence and landscaping, for expanded office and parking, with "smoking gun" visuals and commentary.

For HAF to now claim that STPLVNP is attacking HAF as a charitable, gift giving entity is a specious argument, and a smoke screen designed to divert attention from their clearly wrongful conduct toward the public Nature Preserve. STPLVNP is attacking the post-1994 usurper of the land trustee position, which is guilty of and is now engaged in a conflict of interest. With the post-1992 version of HAF as trustee of the Nature Preserve, HAF and WFB have a record of breaches of the terms of the Founder's will and trust, and egregious destruction of property which they have a fiduciary responsibility to hold for the benefit of the public. HAF, as the post-1994 trustee of the land, has breached its fiduciary duties to the public. WFB has participated in this wrongdoing by improperly abandoning their status as trustee of the land, and turning over the position to HAF. This has "put the fox in charge of the hen house", with complicity of the Probate Court.

Under these circumstances, HAF is not to be afforded the special legal protections normally available for a charitable foundation which is engaged in gift giving operations. In regard to the Nature Preserve, HAF is not engaged in any charitable gift giving, but rather is engaged in destruction of the public's Nature Preserve. To use an analogy from Robert Louis Stevenson's book Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, HAF as the gift giving operation which the public sees is the magnanimous, altruistic Dr. Jekyll, while HAF as trustee of the Nature Preserve is the opposing personality, Mr. Hyde, engaged in a ruse to despoil the public Nature Preserve.

As is set forth more fully below in section II, Standing of plaintiffs, the Court should allow a class of beneficiaries of Vera's trust, who have a special interest in preserving it, to protect the Nature Preserve from the interloper land trustee version of HAF ( "Mr. Hyde" ). The real issues are land misuse or abuse, and breach of fiduciary duty, by HAF as the land trustee. This is not a case of the public critiquing HAF's charitable gift giving operations. Rather, a special group of beneficiaries of the land trust and Nature Preserve is attempting to save their Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and Vietor residence, which were given as a gift from Vera in 1972. If there is a rule of law, their case should be heard by the Court.

II. Standing of plaintiffs:

"Save The Public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve" ( "STPLVNP" ) is an unincorporated association which was co-founded by plaintiffs and heirs of the founder, John R. Perrott and R. William Perrott. The association includes people who own property in or who reside in Humboldt County, California. This organization has the following purposes, among others, in regard to this lawsuit:

A. To save and protect the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve from further despoliation, preserving the public's Nature Preserve and historically and architecturally significant Vietor residence in their "native and unspoiled" condition;

B. Requiring defendants Humboldt Area Foundation ( HAF or Foundation ) and Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ) to follow the expressed terms of the 1972 will and trust of Vera Perrott Vietor, founder of the public's Nature Preserve, principal trust and HAF;

C. To obtain a National Historic or Heritage Site designation for the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence, to protect it for future generations.

The class that plaintiffs represent is composed of beneficiaries of the land trust and Nature Preserve who have a special interest in protecting the site, including, but not limited to, certified members of the "Save The Public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve" organization, who have signed a membership agreement. Most of the members of "Save The Public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve" own real estate in Humboldt County or live in Humboldt County. Members of this organization include people such as:

A. Family members of testatrix Vera Perrott Vietor, neighbors, or people who personally knew the testatrix and her nature loving propensities, who appreciate the Nature Preserve and Vera's architecturally and historically significant residence, and who seek to protect the land and house in their native and unspoiled condition, with no man made improvements, as mandated in Vera's will;

B. People who have used, intend to use, and or presently use the Indianola Nature Preserve property, and who appreciate the architecturally and historically significant Vietor residence, and who seek to protect the land and house in their native and unspoiled condition, with no man made improvements, as mandated in Vera's will;

C. People who may have only recently become aware of the Nature Preserve and Vera's nature loving propensities through the publicity which has been generated by this case, including through Humboldt Superior Court probate case numbers 19874 and 94PRO389, and through the internet site www.humboldtexposed.com , and who seek to protect Vera's gift of the land and residence in their native and unspoiled condition, with no man made improvements, and who seek to uphold the terms of Vera's will and trust;

D. Native Americans who have heritage interests in the Nature Preserve, who object to violation of the terms of Vera's will and trust, and who seek to protect the land and residence in their native and unspoiled condition, with no man made improvements.

On or about 20 July, 2001, Native Americans caused HAF to stop the new construction project in the public's Nature Preserve. Because the Native Americans and STPLVNP share the same basic aims regarding guarding Mother Nature in its "native and unspoiled" condition within the 14.31 acres at Indianola, STPLVNP is in contact with the Native Americans, and is hopeful that the two organizations can join forces to stop HAF despoliation.

Many of the people who visit the Nature Preserve do so because of the presence of native plants, shrubs, trees, birds and animals, or because of the architecturally significant Vietor residence. These people are concerned about jeopardizing the presence of the above-described plants, trees, birds, animals and residence.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the California Attorney General, who is charged under the laws of California with the duty of enforcement of the terms of charitable foundations and trusts, is not enforcing the provisions specified by Vera in unambiguous language in her 1972 will. Please see attached exhibit 13, How is the Attorney General of California ( not ) involved in the HAF and trust bank saga-

The terms of Vera's will and trust have clearly been violated by HAF and WFB, whose actions have either been ignored or aided by the local Judiciary. Please see attached exhibit 16, Humboldt Superior Court ruling of the Honorable J. Michael Brown, dated 27 September, 1999, which accepted Mr. Pennekamp's declaration as being uncontested; exhibit 15, Declaration of Peter H. Pennekamp dated 25 August, 1999, in opposition to request for injunction to prevent construction in the Nature Preserve.

Plaintiffs allege that the Honorable J. Michael Brown, the Judge of Humboldt Superior Court who has presided over much of the probate case in recent years, has a conflict of interest in this matter because he has a personal relationship with members of the HAF Board Of Directors. Pursuant to Code Of Civil Procedure section 170.1, Judge Brown should not have continued to hear disputes in the case and issue rulings thereon. In the present case, plaintiffs have filed a peremptory challenge to the Honorable J. Michael Brown pursuant to Code OF Civil Procedure section 170.6.

The reasons for the California Attorney General not enforcing the terms of Vera's will and trust are unclear, and discovery is needed. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to be appointed in place of the California Attorney General to protect the public's interests and to enforce the terms of the will and trust which are set forth in ex. 1, pages 5-6.

On approximately 15 April, 2000, plaintiff counsel sent a letter to the Deputy California Attorney General asking for an internal review to explain why the California Attorney General office was not enforcing the terms of the will and trust, and was not protecting the public's interests in Humboldt Superior Court probate case numbers 19874 and 94PRO389. No response was received to this inquiry. Numerous phone calls by plaintiff counsel to the California Attorney General's office were not returned. In July of 2001, the office of the California Attorney General only told plaintiff counsel by phone that an internal review had been performed, and that their position had not changed.

No written explanation was received regarding the facts which were considered, or the reason for their position. All of the filings of the California Attorney General in the Humboldt Superior Court probate case have been mere "rubber stamp" approvals of HAF's and WFB's actions, without any explanation of the facts which have been relied on, and without any written response to issues which plaintiffs have raised in papers which were sent to the California Attorney General office.

III. Proposed Class Action:

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class includes people who own property in or who reside in Humboldt County, California, and who use or may use the Nature Preserve, and who have a particular interest or concern about observing native plants, shrubs, trees, birds and other animals in said Nature Preserve, or in conserving the architecturally significant Vietor residence.

Due to the number of persons who use the Nature Preserve or who may desire to do so, the joinder of all such persons is impractical. Disposition of claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties and the Court by protecting the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and historically and architecturally significant public property, including the former Vietor residence.

There is a well defined community of interest in questions of law and fact involved, affecting the plaintiffs and proposed classes. These questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual class members. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of those of the class, and plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent interests of the class.

Plaintiffs contend that the major and most appropriate remedy herein consists of orders regarding defendants' conduct, the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence, which will benefit the members of the proposed class.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the damage to most members of the class is relatively small and intangible, consisting of:

A. Being deprived of the full and fair use of the "native and unspoiled" public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and unspoiled architecturally significant Vietor residence, without man made alterations;

B. Being deprived of the ability to continue the observation of plants, shrubs, trees, birds and other animals within the Nature Preserve.

These benefits were envisioned, intended and mandated by the founder, Vera Perrott Vietor ( Vera ), in her will and testamentary trust in 1972.

There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy, other than by maintenance of this class action. It is not economically feasible or effective to pursue remedies other than in this class action. Therefore prosecution of individual remedies by members of the plaintiff class is not practical or possible, and the rights of all beneficiaries who have a special interest in the unspoiled Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and former Vietor residence are more appropriately considered together. There would be a failure of justice and a failure to protect unique public property without the maintenance of the present class action.

The plaintiff class has been frustrated and thwarted by the California Attorney General, Probate Court and other government agencies' failure to enforce the terms of the will and trust, and failure to protect public property and treasures.

IV. Factual background:

A. The Public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and HAF

What is now known as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve was created by the will of testatrix Vera Perrott Vietor, who passed away on 21 June, 1972. Vera's will mandated that the 14.31 acre public Nature Preserve was to be kept as it was, "native and unspoiled, not even to be despoiled by a picnic table". These requirements were Vera's "death bed" quid pro quo with trustee Crocker Bank, which Crocker faithfully followed for the first 22 years of operation of the public Nature Preserve in trusteeship. This Ellen Dusick era ( of HAF's first Executive Director from 1974-1992 ) was under the "land trusteeship" of Crocker Bank. Pre-1992 HAF was operated as a low key, low overhead, skeleton staff operation, using, but never abusing, the Vietor residence and landscaping, as Vera's will specified.

The architecturally significant Vietor residence, as well as the immediate landscaping, all part of the 14.31 acre public Nature Preserve, were scrupulously guarded in their pristine state. This was as clearly and unequivocally required by Vera's 1972 will, which created: 1 ) the public Nature Preserve; 2 ) a principal Trust from Vera's liquid assets; and 3 ) HAF as a charitable Foundation, to operate from trust income only, not from principal.

Vera's will ( a copy of which is attached as exhibit 1, at page 6, top of page ) specified that only "income, but not the principal of said trust fund... shall be paid to the HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION, ... for the purposes of the Foundation." There are no other known signed instructions from the testatrix which state how the principal is to be used.

In Vera's will, in the second paragraph, she stated that she had executed a declaration of trust on the same date as signing the will, 3 May, 1972. However, that document was reportedly not ready for Vera's "death bed" signing, and Vera did not sign any such document. The only copy of a declaration of trust in Vera's probate courthouse file (Humboldt County Superior Court case number 94PR0389 ) was signed unilaterally by Mr. White of Crocker Bank in July of 1972, well after Vera had signed her will and then passed away on 21 June, 1972.

The limitations of the will and on the trustee were Vera's "pact with the devil" with the Trust Bank ( originally Crocker Bank ), in exchange for their shouldering the solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve (including the Vietor residence ), in its "native and unspoiled" condition. This was Vera's foremost and heartfelt objective, which was "in Vera's genes". ( Please see attached exhibit 18, Pioneer Perrott family history: How it was in Vera's genes to create the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve at Indianola in her 1972 will ). Her long standing, lifelong intent was clearly and unequivocally stated in her will ( exhibit 1, page 6, third paragraph ).

Vera's will showed what was important to her. Her will states that if the "letter or spirit" of her will is ever breached, "this trust shall terminate, and vest ... ( in her heirs). Emphasis added. This is very clear, and with no equivocation. The public Nature Preserve was Vera's most urgent and heartfelt preoccupation in drafting her "death bed" will.

B. HAF's first Executive Director ( 1974-1992 )

HAF's first Executive Director, Mrs. Ellen Dusick, and the early Board Of Governors which appears to have been legitimately appointed based on Crocker Bank's July, 1972 declaration of trust, were so strict in preserving the sanctity of the public's Nature Preserve, that a bosom friend of Vera's was chastised for picking a few rhododendron blossoms to put on Vera's grave on Memorial Day in the pre 1992 days.

Mrs. Dusick and early HAF Board members knew Vera and her nature loving and tree hugging eccentricities. Mrs. Dusick witnessed Vera's 1972 will. She and the early HAF Board carried out HAF's operations strictly in accordance with the "letter and spirit", and intent, of Vera's will.

The tradition of protecting the Nature Preserve and residence in their original, "native and unspoiled" condition changed abruptly starting in 1992 when HAF transitioned to "rethinking their mission" and to aggressively "growing the Foundation," with the termination of the first Executive Director, Mrs. Ellen Dusick. Please see attached exhibit 19, HAF's cost of giving - Is it high-, and Empire Building.

After the departure of Mrs. Dusick and the transition to new HAF management, the second Executive Director took control in 1993, with a rapidly changing makeup and attitude of the HAF Board Of Directors. Plaintiffs allege that the change in the method of appointing the Board Of Directors to the current method is not within the "letter and spirit" of the terms of Vera's will and trust. The initial method was created by Crocker Bank's July, 1972 declaration of trust, and it was followed for approximately 20 years. That method appeared to have some checks and balances, because people were appointed from a variety of sources within the North Coast Community, including the appointment of one member by the presiding Judge of Humboldt Superior Court. Interestingly, this prior, seemingly more open and Democratic procedure was quietly scrapped by the new, post-1992 management, without the approval of Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General. Plaintiffs allege that the current, post-1992 procedure of appointing Board members was implemented to allow the Board to be "stacked" with individuals who have not followed the terms of the will and trust. Plaintiffs allege that the post-1992 procedure marked the start of HAF's self serving "empire building", as outlined below. Please see attached exhibit 12, Method of appointment of HAF Board Of Directors as originally established in 1972, which was scrapped by HAF post-1992, without the knowledge or approval of Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General; also exhibit 19.

As the current and most egregious manifestation of HAF's post-1992 "rethought mission" and "growing the Foundation", HAF has broken ground in July, 2001 to add a new 4,000 square foot office building and 65 stall paved parking lot within the public's Nature Preserve. This was approved by the Humboldt County Planning Department in 1998 and by Humboldt Superior Court in 1999, without the knowledge of Vera's heirs and the public, the true owners as beneficiaries of a "native and unspoiled" Nature Preserve ( please see Vera's will in exhibit 1, pages 5-6 ). This amounted to a denial of due process and equal protection of the law. This is not what Mrs. Vietor envisioned in her will, which mandates that no improvements are to be made within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Not even a picnic table is to be added, per Vera's will. Exhibit 1, page 6, third paragraph.

If current ( post-1992 ) HAF management wants or needs more office and meeting space, that should be obtained outside of the public's Nature Preserve. It is not necessary to breach the terms of Vera's will and trust and to despoil and pave over the public's Nature Preserve in order to run a charitable operation. HAF's operations can and should be moved off site in order to not violate Vera's will. Mother Nature and the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and the architecturally and historically significant Vietor residence, cannot be moved.

The will of Vera Perrott Vietor, exhibit 1 at pages 5-6, is very clear in regard to this issue. By testamentary trust it created the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and stated that no improvements are to be made. Post-1992 HAF has breached the terms of Vera 's will and trust. Please see attached exhibit 14, pages 1-2, Critique of Mr. Pennekamp's 25 August, 1995 declaration which claimed that the 4,000 square foot building and 65 stall paved parking lot in the Nature Preserve are consistent with the Vietor will and trust. Mr. Pennekamp's declaration in the Humboldt Superior Court probate case was contested by six declarations of people who either knew Vera very well, or who were also related to her ( five nieces and nephews ). These people knew Vera closely and personally for a combined 170 years during Vera's residence at Indianola. Attached exhibit 17.

With this background, the public's Nature Preserve and unique Vietor residence should not have to endure the degradations which are a result of post-1992 HAF management "going off track", becoming the bogus land trustee, and recklessly violating the "letter and spirit" of Vera's will and trust. This is especially true when the current management, with HAF as an interloper land trustee as of 1994, has in 1995 despoiled the Nature Preserve and residence, and now as of July, 2001 has broken ground to further despoil the public's Nature Preserve. These activities are being egregiously funded by invaded Vietor trust principal ( the "hens" ), that will no longer produce as much income ( "eggs" ) to fund future charity which Vera intended.

For these reasons, the HAF gift giving and "other" operations should move entirely out of the Vietor residence and outside of the public's Nature Preserve.

C. Method of appointing Board Of Directors

At about the time of Mrs. Dusick's 1992 exit as the first Executive Director, a change of method of appointing HAF Board Members ( previously known as Board Of Governors ) was adopted, without the knowledge or approval of the Court or the California Attorney General ( please see attached exhibit 12 ). The number of Board Members has been increased from 7 to 9.

All was fine for some 20 years with Crocker Bank as the first trustee, Ms. Ellen Dusick as the first Executive Director, and a seven member Board Of Governors. Please see exhibit 12. Although Vera never signed a declaration of trust, in 1972 trustee Crocker Bank created a declaration of trust by which members of the Board Of Governors were appointed by various groups: A. The trustee committee ( trust banks); B. Humboldt County Board Of Supervisors; C. Presiding Judge of Humboldt Superior Court; D. President Of Humboldt Council Of Chambers Of Commerce; E. President Of Humboldt State University; F. President Of College Of The Redwoods; G. President of United Way of Humboldt County. For unknown reasons, this procedure was all quietly scrapped by HAF in its post-1992 chicanery. Discovery should be conducted to expose these will and trust breaching activities.

The new, post-1992, procedure for appointing HAF's Board Of Directors, no longer called a Board Of Governors, seems to be secret because it does not appear that the procedure is made known to the public. The change in this important procedure was done without the knowledge or approval of Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General. The change in procedure should be declared by this Court to be void because it was done in violation of applicable laws governing operation of trusts. Because the California Attorney General has failed to act to protect the interests of the public, and to restore the public' s confidence in the propriety and integrity of the procedure for appointment of HAF's Board Of Directors, this Court should appoint plaintiffs herein to protect the rights of the public in regard to this issue.

The change in method of selection, and increase in the number of Board Members, were significant violations of the terms of Vera's will and trust, because HAF was then enabled to pack the Board with "like minded" individuals, with no oversight to ensure adherence to Vera's will. Plaintiffs allege that the post-1992 Board members have been more in favor of expansion and unauthorized ( by Vera's will ) development, than protecting the Nature Preserve in its "native and unspoiled" condition, as mandated in Vera's will. The post-1992 HAF Board "reinvented" Vera and re-interpreted her will to suit their own purposes, in HAF's post-1992 practice of the art of "dissembling1". Please see attached exhibits 19 and 20 regarding cost of giving and plans for groundbreaking.

The above transformation ( please see attached exhibit 14, pages 1-2 ) was the start of significant breaches of the terms of the will and trust, in HAF's own self serving interests of "growing the Foundation". There was a glaring conflict of interest in land use, activities and priorities between "resident in the Nature Preserve" HAF as an expanding "commercial" entity, be it nonprofit and charitable, and HAF as "interloper" land trustee over a public Nature Preserve, to be kept "native and unspoiled". Is it HAF as a charity, or HAF as a land trustee which is despoiling the Nature Preserve- It is HAF taking advantage of their dual, but distinctly different, roles to despoil the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence.

The violations included first despoiling the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence ( please see attached exhibit 7 ) with invaded trust principal funding in 1995. The 1995 despoliation was done by HAF without the knowledge or approval of Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General. Court approval was only sought after the fact. See exhibit 6, Joint Petition filed 5 April, 1999, at page 2, line 26 to page 3, line 5. Also please see attached exhibit 5, HAF 1996 Petition to modify trust to total return policy, a euphemism for invading trust principal; exhibit 11, HAF breaches of Vietor will and trust by invasion of principal to: A. "Maintain" the property; and B. For normal operations ( total return policy ).

Dissembling is evident in HAF's post-1992 Court filings, wherein Vera's character and intent were "reinvented" and her will was "reinterpreted", often 180 degrees from what Vera clearly stated and unequivocally intended. Please see attached exhibit 6 regarding HAF's 1999 Joint Petition To Instruct Trustees for new office building; also exhibit 14 re: critique of 1999 declaration of HAF's Executive Director.

HAF became an interloper land trustee in December, 1994, and played out the potential for conflict of interest in land use ( protection v. destruction ) in HAF's own favor as despoilers, to the detriment of the public's treasures and Vera's intent to keep everything "native and unspoiled".

HAF's becoming land trustee in 1994 ( exhibit 4 ) and the adoption of the "total return" policy" in 1996 ( exhibits 5, 11 ), a euphemism for invasion of Vietor Trust principal, along with the 1999 "Petition TO Instruct Trustees" ( for the building expansion, exhibit 6 ), were all carried out without the public, as beneficiaries of the Nature Preserve, or Vera's heirs, being informed. These interested and affected parties were egregiously and intentionally denied their due process and equal protection of the law. Yes, Vera's heirs had their standing officially taken away in November, 2001, but not six years earlier in 1994.

D. Breaches of the terms of the will and trust

After 22 years of operation ( 1972-1994 ), HAF, as a new, "interloper" land trustee, engaged in an improper scheme to physically expand HAF's facilities and operations within, and to despoil, the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence. This constituted a conflict of interest over land use (abuse). These actions breached the terms of Vera's will in at least two ways which mandated that the public's Nature Preserve be kept "native and unspoiled".

Vera spelled out two "Thou Shalt Nots" in her will, the violation or thwarting of which was a breach of the "letter or spirit" of the terms of Vera's will and trust. These limitations are:

1. The "native and unspoiled" 14.31 acres, "and all of it", Vera admonished was not to be despoiled, even by a picnic table.... !;

2. HAF was only to have access to income, never Vietor trust principal.

Vera's penalties for violation of the above requirements: "this trust shall terminate...." ( emphasis added ).

E. 1994-1995 era damages

The files at Humboldt County Planning and in the Courthouse contain the clear paper trial available to the public. Please see attached exhibit 21, Portion of Humboldt County Planning Department file material regarding Humboldt Area Foundation 's applications for building permits, within the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

It is a real "eye opener" to learn from the Humboldt County Planning Department files ( exhibit 21 ) that on 15 February, 1994, HAF lodged a building permit application with the Planning Department, the effect of which would be to despoil the Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence. This almost surely was unknown to the then-current land trustee, Crocker Bank, under whose purview the public' s Nature Preserve had been guarded in its "native and unspoiled" condition for some 22 years.

Wells Fargo Bank bought Crocker Bank, and became the replacement trustee of the land and liquid assets in May, 1994. HAF had an ill acquired permit to despoil the Nature Preserve from Humboldt Planning by June, 1994. The permit was ill acquired because HAF was not trustee of the Nature Preserve or Vietor residence, and HAF was acting outside the scope of its authority in seeking and obtaining a building permit. Nor did HAF disclose to the Planning Department the public ownership of the land in trust.

Wells Fargo Bank then petitioned the Court to be allowed to resign, in favor of volunteer HAF as land trustee, on 13 October, 1994. The request was granted by Humboldt Superior Court on 7 December, 1994. Exhibit 4. Thus, HAF became the interloper land trustee with the solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard the public property "native and unspoiled", while having a prior permit in hand to despoil it. In 1995, HAF egregiously engaged in a conflict of interest. With its bogus building permit and ignoring its fiduciary responsibilities, HAF used chainsaws, bulldozers, wrecking bars and paving machines to despoil the public's Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence. These actions were taken almost immediately after HAF became the interloper land trustee. HAF made a mockery of their fiduciary responsibilities and their appointment as trustee of the land. Please see attached exhibits 7, 10 and 21.

Plaintiffs allege that the 1995 building permit process was illegal because it involved despoliation of a public Nature Preserve, HAF was not trustee of the land when the building permit application was initiated, and HAF did not disclose the public ownership nature of the property. HAF was acting outside the scope of its authority and did not have the right to seek to become trustee of the land. If the beneficial and legal ownership interests in a trust merge in the same entity, the trust is terminated. HAF has given all appearances that the trust of the Nature Preserve and residence are terminated because of the way they have damaged the property. However, HAF does not now have, and is not entitled to have, legal ownership of the Nature Preserve or Vietor residence, as HAF is acting. These were left by Vera for the public.

Plaintiffs further allege that the 1995 building permit was obtained by misrepresentation, because HAF did not disclose to the Planning Department the true nature of the land as being held in trust as a Nature Preserve for the public benefit. HAF did not disclose these actions to the probate Court until several years after they had happened. Please see attached exhibit 6, Joint Petition filed 5 April, 1999, at page 2, line 26 to page 3, line 5. HAF's 1994-1995 will and trust breaching activities were unknown to, and thus not approved by, Humboldt Superior Court or the California Attorney General. HAF's 1998 building permit was equally improper as a breach of the terms of Vera's will and trust, and because it was obtained without notice to the interested and affected parties being involved, thereby denying them due process and equal protection of law.

The June, 1994 granting of this egregious and improper permit ( only after HAF had become the interloper land trustee, some months later ) led to HAF's early 1995 cutting of redwood trees, a major despoliation and paving over of John Yeon's 1940's landscaping north of the Vietor residence, and major devastation of the integrity of the Vietors' architecturally significant home. ( Please see attached exhibit 7, "Despoliation Visuals" ). Photographs of the architecturally significant residence had been displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art in the early 1940's, along side works of Frank Lloyd Wright. Please see attached exhibit 10, John Yeon Brief.

At the time of HAF's building permit application in early 1994, HAF was still only a charitable Foundation, merely a "resident" within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Vera's will only gave HAF the use ( but not ownership or abuse ) of the Vietor residence as their headquarters. The Board Of Directors of HAF, and the then land trustee ( Crocker Bank ), had the obligation to manage and protect the surrounding 14.31 acre public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Where is the HAF Board Of Directors now, in its self created conflict of interest between a "Foundation" and "land trustee"- Why is HAF not carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities to protect the public's Nature Preserve- Instead, the HAF Board is guilty of carrying out its improper plans to destroy the public's Nature Preserve for its own empire building. Please see attached exhibit 19. Post-1992 HAF "management" ( or lack thereof ) has not provided proper oversight over HAF 's own egregious, conflict of interest activities.

Throughout the post-1992 period, including in HAF's 1994 and 1998 building permit applications, HAF often made references to "the HAF property." However, HAF did not own the Nature Preserve as they dissembled, as an unhindered owner. ( Please see attached exhibit 2, Tax Assessor Record ). Rather, the public Nature Preserve and Vietor residence are owned by the public in trust. Vera's 1972 will made Crocker Bank trustee of the land for the benefit of the public, with HAF having only the right to "use" the Vietor residence as a headquarters. Exhibit 1 at page 5, last paragraph, through page 6 beginning of third paragraph.

In HAF's first 20 years, under the management of Mrs. Ellen Dusick and the first Board Of Governors, which had been appointed based on Crocker Bank's July, 1972 declaration of trust, there had been a maximum of four employees in the Vietor residence ( with one, the groundskeeper, living in the basement ), a cozy two bedroom residence which was designed for two people, Lynn and Vera Vietor. ( Please see attached exhibit 19 ). After the 1992 departure of Mrs. Ellen Dusick, HAF's post-1992 "rethought mission" involved knocking out walls and scabbing on rooms and other devastation, in order to shoehorn some 12 or more HAF employees into what was until then the Vietors' pristine, architecturally and historically significant residence. This was done to accommodate HAF's "growing the Foundation" mantra, while egregiously breaching Vera's will and trust by despoiling the residence and public's Nature Preserve with invaded trust principal. Please see attached exhibits 5 and 11.

In February, 1994, when HAF initiated a building permit application at Humboldt County Planning Department ( exhibit 21 ), HAF stated dissembled by giving the impression that Crocker Bank was the owner of non-public land. There is no indication that Crocker Bank knew of this chicanery by HAF on behalf of Crocker Bank as land trustee. Nowhere does the permit application divulge that the property is a public Nature Preserve, held in trust. Nor is there any reference to Vera's will and the fact that the property is to be guarded in its "native and unspoiled" condition.

HAF's despoliation of the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence were carried out under the guise of "maintaining" the property, dissembling to accommodate the invasion of Vera's trust principal, which was off limits to HAF. Please see attached exhibits 5 and 11 regarding invasion of trust principal, which explain egregious post-1992 breaches of Vera's will and trust.

Neither Vera's heirs ( who claimed a Power Of Termination under her will at that time ) nor the public were informed of the 1994 activities before the Humboldt County planning Department, thereby violating their due process and equal protection rights under the law. Dissembling HAF never divulged their 1994-1995 plans to the Humboldt Superior Court, which retained jurisdiction over trust matters, or to the California Attorney General. Had they known about said activities at the time, heirs of the testatrix would have opposed the proposals as a breach of the terms of the will and trust, and as despoiling the public's Nature Preserve.

The 1994 proceedings which resulted in issuance of a June, 1994 building permit and change of trustee of the public's Nature Preserve, including Vietor residence, from Wells Fargo Bank to HAF itself ( 7 December, 1994 Court order, exhibit 4 ), egregiously and improperly deprived Vera of the right to control how her gifts would be used and conserved for the public. This deprived Vera's memory, testamentary intent and the public ( as owners of the Nature Preserve ) of due process and equal protection of the law.

Had HAF not resorted to dissembling and properly informed the Humboldt County Planning Department that the property was a public Nature Preserve, a complete Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) would have been required. Because of deliberate lack of disclosure by HAF, the Planning Department issued the permit in 1994 as a result of HAF's false pretenses, and without an EIR. This led to despoliation of a public Nature Preserve in the sensitive California Coastal Zone!

Plaintiffs R. William Perrott and John R. Perrott, heirs of the Founder Vera Perrott Vietor, allege that HAF obtained said 1994 building permit under false pretenses because HAF intentionally did not disclose that the property was held in public trust by Crocker Bank, and then by Wells Fargo Bank, as a trustee, and that the property was designated as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Exhibit 21. HAF misrepresented the status of ownership of the land to the Humboldt County Planning Department, as though Crocker Bank was a full, unhindered owner of private property. ( Wells Fargo Bank replaced Crocker Bank as trustee of the real estate in May, 1994. HAF replaced Wells Fargo Bank as trustee of the real estate on 7 December, 1994. Exhibit 4).

Plaintiffs R. William Perrott and John R. Perrott, et. al. further allege that post-1992 HAF had a prior and predetermined plan to despoil the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence ( with embargoed but invaded trust principal ). When HAF "volunteered" as a replacement land trustee in October, 1994, HAF already planned ( with a June, 1994 building permit in hand ) to ignore their responsibilities as interloper land trustee to guard the Nature Preserve and residence in their "native and unspoiled" condition. Rather, HAF already intended to despoil the public's nature sanctuary.

Plaintiffs allege that HAF volunteered to and became "land trustee" on 7 December, 1994 ( exhibit 4), expressly in order to accommodate their self serving plan to control the public's Nature Preserve and to "grow the Foundation" by expanding within the boundaries of the Nature Preserve, which would despoil the public's treasures with invaded trust principal. This was a violation of HAF's land trustee fiduciary responsibilities, which were to guard the public's Nature Preserve in its 'native and unspoiled" condition.

Immediately after becoming the interloper land trustee on 7 December, 1994 (exhibit 4 ), and under the premise of performing "maintenance" ( HAF's dissembling) to accommodate invasion of trust principal ( please see attached exhibits 5 and 11 ), HAF assaulted ( "maintained" ) the public Nature Preserve and Vietor residence with wrecking bars, chainsaws, bulldozers and paving machines. Please see attached exhibit 7, Despoliation Visuals. This was dissembler HAF's ruse for "maintenance" of the public's Nature Preserve, "native and unspoiled, not even to be despoiled by a picnic table...."

Using the improperly obtained 1994 building permit, in 1995, without the knowledge or permission of the Court or the California Attorney General ( please see attached exhibit 13 regarding involvement of California Attorney General ), HAF management significantly violated, disfigured and despoiled the Vietor residence by "remodeling" it, knocking out walls and enclosing an outside sleeping porch in order to add a room, all to shoehorn a staff of 12 people, "bull pen style", into the two bedroom Vietor residence. Please see attached exhibit 7, Despoliation Visuals.

In 1995, HAF cut down large redwood trees, a dogwood tree, a buckberry tree and a madrone tree near the house, which had been part of the forest and landscaping of architect John Yeon's design, and destroyed 80% of John Yeon's "golf fairway" lawn landscaping ( which was excavated six feet deep in the process ), in order to install a parking lot where there had been long established, John Yeon 1941 era landscaping and forest.

The above actions by defendants HAF and Wells Fargo bank have destroyed the ambience of the Nature Preserve by encouraging heavy "commercial" ( non-Nature Preserve ) vehicle use and pedestrian traffic in the very heart of the public's "native and unspoiled" Nature Preserve, in ways which are inconsistent with the preservation of the area as a Nature Preserve and as the testatrix intended.

The overall effect of conduct by defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank has been to cause substantial irreparable damage to the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence, contrary to the zoning regulations, with an unwarranted reduction in the public's right to full use and enjoyment of the Nature Preserve and historical Vietor residence. This occurred, thanks to HAF's dissembling, without an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR ), within the sensitive California Coastal Zone area, and has been contrary to the California Coastal Plan and California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ).

HAF's dissembled and "self created" mandate to build within the public's Nature Preserve is further indication of HAF's post-1992 chicanery. Please see exhibit 14, pages 1-2 regarding details of 1992-1995 and 1998 despoliation; also exhibits 19-20. As is discussed below in section 2, HAF became trustee of the land in 1994 and persuaded Wells Fargo Bank to fund HAF's activities with embargoed trust principal to "maintain" ( but actually despoil) the property, even though Vera's will mandated that HAF was to have access only to income ( exhibit 1, page 6 at top of page ). Please see attached exhibits 5 and 11 regarding invasion of principal.

What "maintenance" is there for tall standing trees in a Nature Preserve- HAF's and Wells Fargo Bank's actions and plans have made a mockery out of the limitations and terms stated in Vera's will. At the same time, HAF is putting its own self serving, expanding business operation interests ahead of the interests of the true owners of the real estate, the public, in being able to enjoy a completely "native and unspoiled" Nature Preserve. HAF is currently insisting on building more office space within the public Nature Preserve instead of simply moving or expanding their office and entire operations outside of the Nature Preserve.

F. Change of trustee of the real estate

Crocker Bank was bought by Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ) in mid 1994, with WFB inheriting the trusteeship of the property ( the public's Nature Preserve and residence). Plaintiffs allege that the post-1992 management of HAF ( after Mrs. Ellen Dusick had left), persuaded defendant Wells Fargo Bank to resign as trustee of the real estate, in favor of HAF itself becoming trustee.

After the first 20 years of operation of the trust ( 1974-1994 ), HAF, a charitable foundation, took over the land trusteeship of the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence from Wells Fargo Bank ( successor to Crocker Bank ). On approximately 13 October, 1994 ( please see attached exhibit 4 ), defendant Wells Fargo Bank, in violation of its fiduciary duties to Vera and the public, petitioned Humboldt County Superior Court to make this change.

HAF, as 1994 replacement, ( "interloper" ) trustee of the land, had no "fiduciary" track record to act as trustee. What was worse, HAF had already shown its intent to despoil the public Nature Preserve and Vietor residence by HAF's "unilateral" building permit application in early 1994, some months before becoming trustee of the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence, with the clear intent to despoil what they were becoming trustees of. This was as though Wells Fargo Bank has petitioned the Court to "put the fox ( HAF ) in charge of the hen house"!

HAF's 1995 despoliation activities were carried out and funded by invading Vera's trust principal. Wells Fargo Bank resigned as trustee of the public's Nature Preserve in favor of a "replacement" trustee, HAF, which was intent on despoiling the public's Nature preserve with invaded trust principal, all in violation of the terms of Vera's will and trust. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank is liable for the ensuing irreparable despoliation.

Despite this, Wells Fargo Bank's petition to allow HAF to become trustee of the real estate was granted. ( Please see attached exhibit 4 ). This constituted a breach of the terms of Vera's will and testamentary trust. Exhibit 1 ( the 1972 will ) at page 5, in the last paragraph, stated that Crocker Bank was to be the trustee. This also created a conflict of interest between diametrically opposed land use for the public's Nature Preserve on one hand, and expanding "commercial" activities of HAF on the other hand. As of 7 December, 1994 ( exhibit 4 ), HAF, as interloper land trustee, was the sole arbitrator on this issue, in a glaring conflict of interest.

Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the December 7, 1994 order changing the trusteeship of the real property from Wells Fargo Bank to HAF, Humboldt County Superior Court case number 94PR0389. A copy of said document is attached as ex. 4.

As of approximately 7 December, 1994, after HAF had taken over as trustee of the public's Nature Preserve and Vietor residence ( exhibit 4 ), HAF's actions constituted a conflict of interest in regard to the trustee's obligation to safeguard the Vietor property and Vietor residence as a public Nature Preserve. The will had specified that the Vietor 14.31 acre property should be kept in its "native and unspoiled" condition, "and all of it", and that not even a picnic table could be placed in, or despoil, the Nature Preserve. Exhibit 1, page 6. Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the testatrix's will which was filed in a petition for probate in approximately June, 1972, in Humboldt County Superior Court case number 19874 ( Estate of Vera P. Vietor ).

HAF was then ( in 1994, and continues to be ) an "ad hoc" organization, with an unknown method of selection of its Board Of Directors, and with no outside oversight, compared to a well established, seemingly reliable, trust bank ( Crocker Bank ), which had been Vera's choice. HAF had no experience, and a conflict of interest, in becoming and then acting as trustee of this public Nature Preserve. Defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank failed to carry out their fiduciary responsibilities as trustees, to keep the land "native and unspoiled", and to safeguard the architecturally significant Vietor residence. Instead, they did the opposite, resulting in irreparable despoliation of the public treasures.

Starting in 1994 and continuing to the present time, HAF, with embargoed or "invaded" funding from Wells Fargo Bank as trustee of the principal, has pursued its own self serving interests to physically expand the "commercial office" type operations within the public's Nature Preserve, destroying it by cutting trees, paving over, and devastating the architecturally and historically significant Vietor residence. Please see attached exhibit 7, Despoliation Visuals, and exhibit 19 re: "Cost Of Giving/Empire Building".

As is referred to above in section "1. 1994-1995 era damages", as the new interloper trustee of the real estate, HAF ( commencing on 7 December, 1994, exhibit 4 ), violated its fiduciary responsibilities to the public by dissembling to obtain a building permit without full and proper disclosure. This led to significant, irreparable damage to John Yeon designed landscaping, forest and the architecturally and historically significant Vietor residence, all with improper use of Vera's trust principal, which is prohibited by the terms of Vera's trust. This significantly damaged the heart of the public 's Nature Preserve.

The above wrongful conduct was not enough or the end of HAF's machinations to thwart the "letter and spirit" of Vera 's will and trust, and to destroy public property. Please see attached exhibit 5.

But before we leave the 1992-1995 takeover by HAF via an illicit change of the HAF Board to a Board which was not legitimately appointed, and the 1994 bogus HAF volunteering to become the illicit land trustee, plaintiffs want to address HAF's and WFB's often stated but dissembling assertion, that it has all been approved by the Court. The facts tell a different story:

1. 1992-1995 takeover by HAF and WFB. Post-1992 chicanery which was not approved:

a. HAF made an illegal application to the Humboldt Planning Department in 1994 which was based on misrepresentations and significant omissions of information which HAF was obligated to disclose;

b. The Court was not advised in advance of the will and trust breaking activity in the form of building and destroying landscaping;

c. The California Attorney General was not informed in advance of these actions, and did not approve of them;

d. The invasion of principal to fund the construction or destruction activities was not approved in advance by the Court or by the California Attorney General. This was only tacitly whitewashed through the Court in 1999, four years after the fact;

e. HAF's scrapping of the method of appointing the HAF Board by 1994, if not earlier, was a breach of the terms of the will and trust, which was not exposed to the Court or California Attorney General scrutiny. This was surreptitiously and covertly done by HAF "in house".

f. Vera's heirs and the public, owners of the land intrust, were not informed, and thus were denied their due process and equal protection of law rights, as a result of HAF's and WFB's shenanigans starting in 1994;

g. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, based on IRS form 990s, that HAF loaned $100,000.00 to Peter Pennekamp to help him buy a house when he was being hired by HAF and moving to Humboldt County. This is outside the scope of HAF's charitable operations, and further evidence of abuse of the public's interests and breach of fiduciary responsibilities by HAF.

2. Post-1994 legal chicanery which misled the Court:

The change of land trusteeship in 1994; the change to a "total return policy" in 1996, indicating a continuation of invasion of trust principal; and the 1999 building plan, which is being done with invaded Vietor Trust principal, groundbreaking for which occurred during the first week of July, 2001. Please see attached exhibit 8. Court orders for all of these activities were obtained improperly, because the owners of the property, the public, and Vera's heirs, were not informed or able to be present in Court. They have been egregiously deprived of due process and equal protection of the law.

It is time that these acts of chicanery on the part of HAF and WFB see the light of day in Court. Otherwise the public is being unfairly deprived of what Vera left to them and their progeny. The above list makes a mockery of the rule of law.

G. Wrongful conduct from 1998 to present

By 1998, less that three years after HAF's 1995 "remodeling" or "maintenance" irreparable damage ( administered with chain saws, wrecking bars, bulldozers and paving machines ) which devastated the public's Nature Preserve forest, John Yeon designed landscaping and Vietor residence ( please see exhibit 7 ), defendant HAF furthered its plans to despoil the Nature Preserve by applying for a second building permit ( again without proper disclosures ) to obliterate 10% of the public's Nature Preserve. The application was made, as before, with dissembler post-1992 HAF not divulging to the Humboldt County Planning Department the true nature of the 14.31 acre property as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve ( in trust ). The completed project would attract the wrong type of crowds into the Nature Preserve, with noise and disturbances, and would destroy its "native and unspoiled" ambience.

HAF again resorted to dissembling, and misrepresented itself to the Humboldt County Planning Department, which led the Department to process the permit application as though HAF was a full, unhindered owner of private property, without any restrictions on it.

HAF did not divulge that the proposed building site is within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. HAF did not disclose the fact that HAF itself, the applicant for the building permit, was in the process of becoming the trustee of a public Nature Preserve, held in trust, with HAF assuming the solemn fiduciary responsibility to protect it for the public, "native and unspoiled" ( exhibit 1, page 6, will of Vera Perrott Vietor), instead of despoiling it, which has been the result of HAF's building permit and construction activities.

Vera's heirs and the public ( as true owners of the trust property ) were intentionally not informed of the 1998 Planning Department application and 1999 Court proceedings by HAF and Wells Fargo Bank ( please see attached exhibits 6, 9 and 14 ). This again is an intentional denial by HAF and Wells Fargo Bank of "due process and equal protection of the law." Vera's heirs only came to know of the 1998-1999 chicanery when HAF announced on 10 June, 1999 their plans to further despoil the public's Nature Preserve. Please see attached exhibit 3, HAF's 10 June, 1999 HAF press release.

The construction plan, which was held up from ground breaking from August, 1999 to July, 2001 by Vera's heirs' litigation, is to build a 4,000 square foot ( ground floor "footprint" ) building and 65 stall paved parking lot within the Nature Preserve, which will obliterate 1.4 acres, or 10% of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Please see attached exhibits 6, 8, 14 and 17 regarding the recently started construction project.

Spencer Engineering, HAF's engineers, specifically indicated in their 1998 site plans ( exhibit 8 ) that 15 small trees and a fir tree are to be removed by the "construction footprint" within the approximately 1.4 acres involved. This is juxtaposed with HAF practicing the art of dissembling by telling the Court in 1999 ( 25 August, 1999 declaration of Executive Director, Humboldt County Superior Court case number 94PR0389; exhibits 14-17 ) that "the building plan will in no way interfere with the forest and meadows that Vera held dear" ( to be guarded "native and unspoiled" as the public's Nature Preserve ). Does dissembler HAF propose to suspend the "development" in mid air with helium balloons-

Vera's heirs have had HAF and Wells Fargo Bank in Humboldt Superior Court for much of the past two years ( case number 94PR0389 ), in order to stop HAF's intended August, 1999 ground breaking and further despoliation of the public's Nature Preserve. But despite the ensuing exposure of HAF's egregious post-1992 "rethought mission" activities, defendants HAF and WFB persist in their dissembling and intended plans to despoil the public's Nature Preserve, while squandering invaded Vietor principal funds in legal fees which Vera intended to produce income to fund charity.

In the interim, from August, 1999 to the year 2001, HAF's improperly obtained 1998 building permit expired, but was extended, over objection, by the Humboldt County Planning Department on 18 January, 2001. Extension of the building permit application was upheld on appeal to the Humboldt County Board Of Supervisors on 27 March, 2001. This was over the protests of Vera's heirs and members of the public.

Government authorities involved in this process ostensibly reasoned that "nothing had changed" since the 1998 permit was originally granted, and renewal of the permit was "just an extension of the 1998 approval." ( Exhibit 9 ). This despite exposure in 2001 hearings of facts that HAF is guilty of egregious and cunning non-disclosure of the property's Nature Preserve status and true ownership in public trust, and that the 1998 approval was thus based on flawed information, and was improper. HAF's 1998 building permit was improperly obtained by an egregious, intentional lack of disclosure!

Said government entities chose to ignore the "now exposed" duplicitous nature of HAF's prior building applications in 1994 and 1998, in which HAF dissembled in order to disguise the fact that the banks and HAF were at various times the trustee of real estate for the benefit of the public, but were asking permission to destroy the public's Nature Preserve, in violation of their solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard it in its "native and unspoiled" condition.

In January, 2001 the Humboldt County Planning Department staff did seem to belatedly deal with the trustee issue by quoting Webster's dictionary definition of what a trustee is, but then subjectively stated that it was Humboldt County Planning Department policy to accept and not question trustees as having the right over property. Exhibit 9. However, dissembler HAF has never acknowledged to the authorities that HAF is only the trustee of the real estate for the benefit of the public.

In 2001, the Planning Department made a quasi-legal judgment about ownership of the land, but ignored what is within their jurisdiction, "land use". In order to rule on "land use", the Department should know who owns the land, such as a public Nature Preserve which is held in trust, not HAF masquerading as an unrestricted owner. Please see attached exhibit 9.

The Humboldt County Planning Department skirted or ignored the objective of the 2001 challenge to the building permit application, which is one of a land use or abuse nature. The trustee ( HAF ) is improperly destroying the public's property which is held in their trust, in order to support their "rethought mission" and expanding Foundation", by adding facilities for meetings and seminars.

However, the terms of Vera's will and trust do not allow such abuse of the public's Nature Preserve and residence, in the form of expanded office construction for any reason. These activities have all been brought about by the post-1992 HAF mismanagement, with HAF becoming the bogus land trustee in 1994. Please see attached exhibit 14, pages 1-2. This is why all of HAF's activities should be moved completely out of the Vietor residence and outside of the public's Nature Preserve. You can give away money and hold meetings anywhere. You cannot move Mother Nature and the public's 14.31 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and Vietor residence.

Because of the misrepresentations in HAF's applications for building permits, the Humboldt County Planning Department never required an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR ) in either 1994 or 1998. Since when can anyone get a permit to destroy a public Nature Preserve in the California Coastal Zone without an EIR- Dissembler, post-1992 HAF did so only through chicanery. What competent agency would issue an EIR recommending the destruction of a public Nature Preserve- Not unless the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the California Coastal Plan have become mockeries.

Who owns the Indianola property ( Nature Preserve )- The Humboldt County Planning Department took HAF at its word, and presumably never researched to discover the true nature of the Vietors' Indianola property, which was left in trust in 1972 as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. ( Exhibit 2 ). HAF has egregiously admitted that the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve does exist in their self serving, public relations propaganda ( exhibit 3 ), although true to their dissembling nature, not to the Planning Department.

HAF continues to falsely claim that it is in no way damaging the Nature Preserve, even while they have been cutting or plan to cut redwood and other trees, and have detailed plans to do further and more extensive despoliation with the most recent (1998 permit ) construction project, which is part of the object of this lawsuit. Ground was broken on said construction project during the first week of July, 2001.

The attached exhibit 9 sheds light on the facts as presented to the Humboldt County Planning Department in the 2001 HAF building permit extension appeal process, but which were essentially ignored by the Planning Department as being "legal or civil" questions outside their purview and jurisdiction. The Planning Department says that their jurisdiction is restricted to only land use. How about land abuse, in which a trustee is permitted to destroy a public Nature Preserve which is held in trust for the public- That is the current situation with defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank, vs. the public's Nature Preserve and the Vietor residence.

Plaintiff John Perrott, as an heir of testatrix Vera Perrott Vietor, has appealed the granting of the building permit to the California Coastal Commission. Please see attached exhibit 9 re: Coastal Commission appeal. This appeal was heard on 14 June, 2001 in Los Angeles, and denied.

HAF has no right to destroy the public's Nature Preserve for their own self serving purposes, whether for a "rethought mission", to "grow the Foundation", or for whatever reason, within the site of Vera Perrott Vietor's gift to the community. Please see exhibit 14, critique of declaration of Executive Director, regarding damage to the public's Nature Preserve.

There is nothing wrong with HAF expanding. However, the expansion is a fallout of HAF's post-1992 alleged "empire building". Please see attached exhibit 19. This is not an excuse to despoil Vera's "Walden style" gift of a Nature Preserve to the public.

It is egregious for HAF to dissemble and falsely claim that they have to destroy or sacrifice the public's Nature Preserve in order to give away money as the "Santa Claus" of the North Coast. Vera's gift to the community has limitations on how it is to be used. The current HAF management, as interloper land trustee starting in 1994, is exploiting their "conflict of interest" position related to land use, and is intentionally thwarting Vera's clear and unequivocal limitations regarding use of the Nature Preserve and architecturally significant residence.

Therefore current HAF management should be removed as land trustees, and HAF's entire operations should be moved completely outside of the public's Nature Preserve.

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank is participating in these events by breaching Vera's will and trust, and wrongfully disbursing principal to HAF to be used for the building projects ( exhibits 5 and 11 ), in addition to having improperly abandoned its fiduciary responsibilities under the will as trustee of the Nature Preserve and residence ( circa 1994 ). This has contributed to the current land use and abuse conflict of interest, and breach of will and trust situation: 1 ) Despoliation of the public's Nature Preserve; and 2 ) Which is funded by use of embargoed and invaded Vietor Trust principal.

In applying to the Court to expand in 1999 ( exhibit 6 ), HAF divulged that they had, without prior Court approval, ( and thus also without the California Attorney General's knowledge and approval ), invaded principal for the 1995 "destruction." This was done with participation of defendant Wells Fargo Bank as trustee of the principal, or liquid assets. In 1999, HAF disclosed their prior actions to the probate Court, and asked for Court approval to "invade principal" to continue with their expansion plans in the public Nature Preserve. Please see attached exhibits 6 and 11 regarding HAF's 1999 Court petition and invasion of principal.

Thus in their 1999 petition to the Court ( exhibit 6 ), HAF asked for and was given the right to again invade Vera's principal for their proposed 1999 building, with the same egregious "to maintain the property" mantra, which would in effect obliterate 1.4 acres or 10% of the public's Nature Preserve, and ruin the rest of it as far as "Nature Preserve"ambience is concerned. This to the tune of $1.3 million of Vera's trust principal ( the contractor's construction bid at the time ), plus whatever other costs can be "tacked on" as part of "property maintenance", such as two years of significant HAF legal fees to thwart Vera's will and destroy the public's Nature Preserve, with HAF's planned construction ( despoliation ).

This all amounts to an egregious double violation of the terms of Vera's will and trust: A ) Destroying the public's Nature Preserve; B ) With Vera's embargoed, invaded trust principal funding the travesty of destroying public property. For these two "infractions", the remedy in Vera's 1972 will is that "this trust shall terminate...." ( Exhibit 1, page 6, third paragraph ). Do wills and trusts have any validity- Is there still a rule of law- Are Santa Claus HAF and Wells Fargo Bank above the law-

HAF and WFB dissemble with the statements that "all these activities" were approved by the Courts. This is not true. Vera' s heirs' claims in the probate Court from August, 1999 to November, 2000 were dismissed on the basis of lack of standing, and not on the merits, which were never adjudicated. The 1999-2000 claims of Vera's heirs were dismissed on the "very thin" technicality that the standing as "watchdogs", which Vera intended for her heirs, had been lost through negligence of Crocker Bank as trustee in the probate case dating back to 1974. At that time, Crocker Bank was prejudiced by a conflict of interest, and a motive, to avoid the forfeiture clause which is clearly stated in Vera's will.

HAF claims that in prior litigation, plaintiffs challenged the same things which are raised in this class action case: 1. Expansion of HAF's headquarters; 2. The propriety of HAF being trustee of the land; and 3. Adoption and use of the total return policy. Not all the plaintiffs were the same in the 1999-2000 Court challenges, and those challenges were never tried on the merits. HAF's and WFB's dissembling and strategy to "kill Vera's messenger" took up the Court's time. The challenges of will and trust breaching activities were never tried on the merits. Prior Court approvals were improper because the Perrotts did not lose their standing until 14 November, 2000. The public, as owners of the land, and Vera's heirs, were intentionally denied their due process and equal protection lf the law in the 1994 proceedings regarding change of trustee of the land, in 1996 regarding the total return policy, and in 1999 regarding the new building with invaded Vietor Trust principal.

In the current class action suit, HAF and WFB have claimed res judicata at the hearing of 18 June, 2001. Vera's heirs tried for months, August, 1999 through November, 2000 ) to get a judicial review and adjudication of the factual merits of their claims: basically the destruction of a public Nature Preserve. In the end, the opposition "killed the messenger", and prevented Vera's heirs from getting the merits of the case heard in Court. HAF and WFB had blatantly breached Vera's will, despoiling the "native and unspoiled" public Nature Preserve with invaded Vietor Trust principal for funding. Also by the will and trust breaching post-1992 HAF changes of the method of appointing the Board, and by HAF becoming the bogus land trustee in 1994.

This class action suit is an effort to have the light of day of justice on these material facts, which HAF and WFB have avoided in the past with their "kill the messenger strategy", based on standing. The public still wants and deserves to have a trial on the merits, which has yet to happen. This is not a case of res judicata.

Vera's heirs took HAF and WFB to Court in August, 1999 to keep them from further despoiling the Nature Preserve with the new building, despoiling 10% of the 14.31 acres, funded 100% with embargoed, invaded Vietor Trust principal. HAF's and WFB's strategy was to prevent the case from going to trial. Without a trial, the issue of despoliation of the Nature Preserve was never adjudicated by the Court. No discovery or depositions were taken, because they were not allowed. Now HAF and WFB claim res judicata as if the merits of the case had been ruled on. This is more of the "kill the messenger" strategy designed to prevent a trial.

HAF and WFB claim that as a charitable foundation, only the Attorney General can question them in Court. Not the public, as owners of the Nature Preserve which is being destroyed. The current class action suit attacks HAF not as a charitable organization, but rather in HAF's bogus capacity as the post-1994 interloper land trustee of the public's Nature Preserve. HAF should not be able to hide behind its Santa Claus cloak as a charitable foundation, to avoid answering to the public for wanton destruction of public property, as a bogus land trustee. Their defense on these issues is specious.

HAF claims that it obtained Court approval for its appointment as trustee of the trust. This is not correct. HAF on 7 December, 1994 became only the bogus trustee of the land, the 14.31 acres at Indianola. HAF did not become trustee of the liquid assets of the trust, which remain with WFB. As to the improper act of HAF volunteering to become trustee of the land in 1994, this was a breach of the terms of Vera's will and trust, contrary to the legal principles of merger of equitable and legal ownership interests, and created a glaring conflict of interest which should never have been allowed to happen. This amounted to dereliction of duty by WFB, the probate Court and the California Attorney General.

How could the Court allow HAF, which had applied for building permit to despoil the Nature Preserve in February, 1994, become the trustee of the land 10 months later, and then allow HAF in early 1995 to destroy the Nature Preserve which HAF had a duty to protect in its "native and unspoiled" condition- This happened because HAF denied the public, as the true owners, and Vera's heirs, notice and opportunity to be heard on this matter.

Vera's will showed what was important to her. Her will stated that if the letter or spirit of her will were ever beached, "this trust SHALL terminate" and vest in her heirs. This is very clear, with no equivocation. The public Nature Preserve was Vera' s most urgent and heartfelt preoccupation in drafting her "death bed" will.

HAF has egregiously claimed that their actions have not breached the conditions of the will. This is another specious defense. Vera's will states that adding a picnic table breached her will and trust. How does destroying 1.4 acres of the public's Nature Preserve with invaded Vietor Trust principal NOT breach the will- This is doublespeak. This situation is due to HAF's post-1992 chicanery, in which HAF misled the probate Court with false interpretations of Vera's will. Vera's will is still in force, and it clearly outlaws HAF's post-1992 transgressions. Where is the rule of law-

HAF claims that the current class action complaint revisits the same issues as the 1999-2000 litigation. The relief sought by the class members' complaints is similar to the relief sought ( but never achieved ) in the prior litigation. However, the plaintiffs are not all the same, and no trial was ever held in the prior case. HAF and WFB "attacked the messenger" ( Vera's heirs) in the prior case, and took away the "messengers ' " standing, in order to avoid facing a trial on the breach of will and trust issues.

HAF claims that plaintiffs in the current class action case lack standing and are prohibited from maintaining the class action under charitable trust laws. The current class members are simply trying to stop destruction of a public Nature Preserve. The culprit is the bogus land trustee, HAF. HAF is being attacked as an improper, trust breaching land trustee, and not as a charity. This should not be limited by laws of charitable trusts. This case has to do with illegal destruction of public property. HAF should not be allowed to hide behind their charitable facade and destroy the public's Nature Preserve, or to claim to be Dr. Jekyll when they are acting as Mr. Hyde.

HAF claims to be the only trust beneficiary, which is not true. The public is the beneficiary of Vera's property, which is held intrust. HAF is beneficiary only of the income of the liquid assets from the Vietor Trust principal, which is administered by WFB. HAF is trying to muddy the water over the clear distinction between charitable money and public land, in order to cover up their chicanery. This is a very important basic distinction.

HAF claims that it is the only beneficiary of the charitable trust. This may be a true statement. However, plaintiff class members are challenging the bogus land trustee version of HAF which is destroying the Nature Preserve. If that is also HAF, the charity, they should not be immune to challenge because they also run a charity from the Nature Preserve land. A very different situation.

HAF claims that expansion of its headquarters using trust funds, appointment as trustee of the land and adoption of the total return policy are all proper under Vera's will, and that each issue has been adjudicated in HAF's favor. The items listed are all breaches of the terms of Vera's will and trust, which were improperly approved by the probate Court without notice to Vera's heirs or to the public.

Between August, 1999 and November, 2000, when Vera's heirs were parties to the probate case, these issues were NOT adjudicated in Courts. No trial was held on the merits, while HAF and WFB engaged in the strategy to "kill the messenger" and to deprive Vera's "watchdogs" ( heirs ) of standing.

HAF has claimed that Vera created and funded HAF, and devised the remainder of her estate, which included the land, to HAF. This is not true, and is not supported by a reading of Vera's simple will on this issue. Exhibit 1, pages 5-6. The real property was left in trust for the public, not HAF. From 1972, HAF only had the use of the Vietor residence, but did not own it, and could not abuse and destroy it architecturally as they have done post-1992. HAF was never given the rest of the 14.31 acre Vietor land. Crocker Bank was the original trustee, with the duty to keep the property "native and unspoiled" for the public, the property's true owners. Crocker could not have sold the property, because they did not own it. HAF should never have been allowed to become the land trustee in a conflict of interest situation in 1994. HAF has no more rights over the property than Crocker did. HAF has fiduciary responsibilities, and cannot sell the property. Since HAF does not have the right to sell the public's property, they cannot have the right to destroy it!

HAF has claimed that the trust is to benefit all residents of Humboldt County. HAF implies that they are a Santa Claus which gives grants to each and every citizen, and they ignore the existence of the Nature Preserve. HAF is moonlighting as the improper trustee of public land, which is held in trust. It is of no benefit to the North Coast for the bogus land trustee to destroy the public's Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence. The charitable HAF, as an improper land trustee, does not have the right to destroy the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, which Vera left in trust for the public.

HAF claims that they are the sole beneficiary of the trust property. HAF was to receive only income from the Vietor Trust principal. It was clearly Vera's intent that the public be the owners in trust of the property. HAF claims that based on prior Court rulings, not only did Vera's heirs lose standing, but the public has been stripped of their beneficial ownership interest in the Nature Preserve. This is an absurd interpretation of Vera's will, which clearly stated that the land was to be held in trust. HAF should not be allowed to steal this treasure from the public. HAF has demonstrated time and again that they cannot be trusted to care for the Nature Preserve.

HAF has dissembled that their charitable activities are indispensable to the North Coast, and they are obliged to expand their headquarters and offices in the Nature Preserve. This is an incorrect opinion about the need to expand and why it does not breach the terms of the will and trust. The post-1992 HAF has a self serving goal to expand its operations. This is part of its rethought mission. HAF management has created this need, and the Nature Preserve should not be made to suffer for HAF's on site expansion. Let them expand elsewhere.

If HAF had stayed with plain vanilla grant making as in the first 20 years, HAF could still fit in the Vietor residence. The California Community Fund (CCF ) is one of 1.2 million charitable organizations nationwide ( www.calfund.org ). CCF is fourth nationally in the amount of annual gifts, ( currently approximately $100 million annually ), 14th in principal assets. CCF is listed as one of the ten best of 1.2 million such organizations, by knowledgeable authorities. In the most recent year, CCF gave away $100 million with 40 employees. That's one employee to give away $2.5 million. $2.5 million is about the total of what HAF gives annually in recent years. Why does the post-1995 HAF need 12 people shoehorned into the Vietor residence, which was designed for two people, increasing to 21 people with the new building- Based on CCF efficiency, with 21 people, HAF would have the capacity to give away $50 million per year. Who is HAF kidding- Please see more on this issue in attached exhibit 19.

If HAF wants to expand or has to expand, they could have done it without breaching the terms of the will and trust by simply relocating off site. You do not have to breach a will and trust, and pave over and destroy a public Nature Preserve, to give away money. This is egregious mismanagement of the public' s Nature Preserve.

HAF has argued that the probate Court approved the 1999 building plan and authorized the expenditure of trust funds. This order was obtained improperly because Vera's heirs and the public were not given notice of the proposal, and were not given the opportunity to have their objections heard. The probate Court overlooked HAF's glaring conflict of interest. HAF was the bogus land trustee, with a fiduciary responsibility to safeguard the Nature Preserve and Vietor residence. Instead of fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities to the public, HAF self servingly made preparations to destroy the public property with invaded Vietor Trust principal . All of these steps were violations of the terms of Vera's will and trust. HAF's Court petition was egregiously specious, reinventing Vera and her will to accommodate HAF's and WFB's chicanery. Please see attached exhibit 1, will; exhibit 6, 1999 HAF Petition; exhibit 14, critique of Mr. Pennekamp's August, 1999 declaration; exhibit 15, Mr. Pennekamp's declaration; exhibit 16, egregious assertion by Probate Court that Mr. Pennekamp's declaration was uncontested; exhibit 17, declarations by six individuals, including Vera's nieces and nephews, who knew Vera at Indianola collectively for 170 years, and who challenged the declaration of Mr. Pennekamp.

The class action suit is an opportunity for the plaintiffs and for the Court to cure the post-1992 ills of HAF going "off track" and destroying the public's Nature Preserve. If Vera's will is not to be a mockery and if there is a rule of law, this case should be heard by this Court.

V. Overview of remedies sought:

Plaintiffs seek to stop defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank from further destroying the public's 14.31 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence. The site is within the California Coastal Zone, between Arcata and Eureka. Please see maps in attached exhibit 8.

The proposed construction project ( which is based on a flawed 1998 building permit, exhibit 9 ), is in violation of the 1972 will of Vera Perrott Vietor ( Vera ), creator of the public's Nature Preserve, as well as being contrary to the "letter and spirit" of the California Coastal Plan which was voted into law by the California public as proposition 20, in 1972 ( fortuitously the same year in which Vera created the public Nature Preserve). The planned construction ( despoliation ) further is in conflict with the 1960's National Environmental Management Act ( NEMA ) and the ensuing California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ).

Plaintiffs acknowledge that HAF is entitled to continue its grant making and charitable activities. However, post-1992 HAF has resorted to dissembling to cover up for intentional and egregious breaches of Vera's will, and despoiled the public's Nature Preserve in 1995 with embargoed trust principal. In early July, 2001, HAF broke ground to further despoil the public's Nature Preserve with a new 4,000 square foot building and 65 stall paved parking lot. Please see attached exhibit 8. Therefore the Court should make a determination that HAF has forfeited its right to further use and abuse Vera's residence and the public's Nature Preserve.

HAF should therefore be required to relocate its entire office operations outside of the public's Nature Preserve. It is also necessary for HAF's office operations to move off site in order for others to repair and restore the damage which HAF has done to the public's architecturally and historically significant Vietor residence, and Nature Preserve.

HAF should now be replaced as trustee of the land. Plaintiffs seek appointment of a new, bona fide trustee of the Nature Preserve and residence, such as Humboldt State University ( or equivalent ), and the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture ( or equivalent ), in order to repair damages which have been caused by the current trustees.

The historically and architecturally significant Vietor residence and landscaping should be restored to their previous condition ( pre-1995 HAF despoliation ), with a view toward application for a National Heritage Site or equivalent registration. This will protect the "public treasure" for humanity and posterity, as intended in Vera's will. Such a result will be a significant benefit to the community, and will be consistent with the "letter and spirit" of the California Coastal Plan, more specifically the HUMBOLDT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Volume II, HUMBOLDT BAY AREA PLAN Of The Humboldt County Local Coastal Plan. Please see attached exhibit 9.

The replacement trustee of the 14.31 acre Vietor real estate should be chosen with qualifications in order to maintain and operate the property as a public Nature Preserve, such as Humboldt State University ( or equivalent ), with the support of the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture, center of the study of architect John Yeon's works ( exhibit 10 ). The University Of Oregon School Of Architecture is interested in participating in this restoration effort. The faculty and staff at said University, and their "hands on" designees, are experts in "historical-architectural" renovation and the "historical site" application process. Another "fox" ( trustee ) guarding the hen house must be avoided.

As a result of Wells Fargo Bank's breach of the terms of the will and trust of the testatrix Vera Perrott Vietor, said defendant should be ordered to repay to the new trustee of the land:

1 ) All post-1994 invaded principal which was improperly funded to HAF to "maintain" ( actually despoil ) the Nature Preserve property and residence;

2 ) All post-1995 invaded principal under the "total return" policy; and

3 ) The actual future costs to repair and restore the residence, landscaping and Nature Preserve to their pre-1995 condition, as per plans and designs by experts at the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture ( or equal ), and/or by their designated "hands on"restoration architects, such as William Hawkins, Portland Architect. Please see resume attached within exhibit 10.

Plaintiffs seek to enable the new trustee of the land to work with the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture ( which is the center of study of works of architect John Yeon, who designed the Vietor residence and landscaping ), or their designee, to establish the specifications and scope for, and then to direct and supervise renovation of the residence, associated landscaping and 14.31 acre Nature Preserve to the condition they were in before being despoiled by HAF in their 1995 "expansion". This is a mandatory first step, and will increase the feasibility of making a successful application for National Heritage Site status ( or equivalent ), in line with the "letter and spirit" of the California Coastal Plan ( please see attached exhibit 9 ), and the intent of Vera's 1972 will.

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

1. Issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction, prohibiting defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank from proceeding with construction and any further cutting of trees, bushes or foliage within the public's Nature Preserve, or further despoiling of the Vietor residence;

2. A judgment removing HAF as trustee of the 14.31 acre real estate, and appointment of a new trustee such as Humboldt State University or equivalent, who is qualified to act, and who will abide by their fiduciary responsibility to protect the public's Nature Preserve and architecturally significant Vietor residence;

3. A judgment stating that as a result of the egregious post 1992 breaches of the will and trust of Vera Perrott Vietor by HAF, said Foundation has forfeited the further use of the Vietor residence, and must relocate their entire organization completely outside of the public's Nature Preserve, in order to resolve the breach of trust and conflict over land use between HAF and the Nature Preserve; further, that HAF must relocate in not less than six months, in order to let the new trustees renovate HAF's post-1992 despoliation which was inflicted on the public's treasures;

4. A judgment directing the new trustee of the real estate to arrange with the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture, or equal, for repair and renovations of the residence and landscaping to their pre 1995 status, in order to complete said repairs and renovations;

5. For recovery of monetary damages caused by or attributed to Wells Fargo Bank for fiduciary negligence, as follows:

A ) Recovery of all funds distributed to HAF by wrongfully invading principal of the trust after 1994 in order to "maintain" ( but actually despoil ) the public's Nature Preserve;

B ) Recovery of all principal funds distributed to HAF by wrongfully invading principal post-1995 for HAF's "total return policy";

C ) The future, actual cost to restore the residence, landscaping and public Nature Preserve to their previous, pre-1995 condition, with all of the above amounts ( A-C ) to be paid in trust to the new trustee of the real estate for purposes of repairing, restoring, maintaining and operating the Nature Preserve and residence in their pre-1995 status for their owners, the North Coast public;

6. That interest will be added to the total amount of damages owed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank in sections A-C above, pursuant to Probate Code section 16440, as a result of said defendant's breach of the terms of the will and trust, fiduciary mismanagement and abandonment;

7. That the total amount of damages owed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank will be doubled pursuant to Probate Code section 16249, as a result of their bad faith participation in misappropriation of principal of the trust of Vera Perrott Vietor, and abandonment of fiduciary land trustee responsibilities in 1994;

8. A judgment that defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank are immediately prohibited from invading or spending any further Vietor trust principal, on the grounds that said actions are contrary to the terms of the trust and are contrary to the interests of the public in the trust;

9. A judgment that defendants HAF and Wells Fargo Bank are immediately prohibited from further applying the "total return policy" in relation to the Vietor trust, on the ground that said policy is a euphemism for "invasion of principal", and is not authorized by the will of the testatrix, who instead clearly stated that " the income, but not the principal... shall be paid to the HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION...." ( exhibit 1 at page 6, top of page);

10. A judgment that all present members of the HAF Board Of Directors are to be immediately removed and replaced;

11. A judgment that defendant HAF is required to return to and or to follow the method of appointing members of the board of directors ( formerly Board Of Governors, seven vs. currently nine people ) as originally adopted by HAF ( Crocker Bank) in 1972, or as lawfully modified with approval of the Court and the California Attorney General, and that said procedure shall be disclosed to and transparent to the public; that the 7 person Board shall include a member of the Perrott family, to be appointed by the Superior Court, to give oversight and better assurance that HAF's relocated charitable activities will be operated within the "letter and spirit" of Vera's 1972 will, and in the public interest;

12. A judgment that plaintiffs are appointed to represent and to protect the interests of the public regarding the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and Humboldt Area Foundation, instead and in place of the California Attorney General;

13. For payment by Wells Fargo bank of plaintiffs' attorney fees and other costs, as a result of plaintiffs' Good Samaritan efforts since August, 1999 for the protection of important public interests and property;

14. For costs of suit;

15. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

\\

\\

Dated 1 August, 2001. Law Office Of Joseph C. Paladin

By: John Paladin, attorney for plaintiffs