November 5, 2015
How we got into this mess: a subjective first-person account
The following is a first-person subjective account of the
“mess,” the public confrontation between Jonathan Vernick and me (Harry
Petersen). It involves an unlawful eviction which began on February 24, 2015. Although
I strive for accuracy, because of the impressionistic nature of the following
account, I will veer into speculations and making inferences. At times, I will
be in error about these and thus I invite the readers to offer corrections.
When I refer to Jonathan Vernick, the Execuitive Director of Baker Places,
Incorporated, I will usually refer to him as “Vernick.” Also, there will be a
melding of references to Baker Places and Jonathan Vernick; the reader is asked
to read the context to determine if I intend a reference to Baker Places when I
write Vernick. Finally, when I refer to Baker Places, Incorporated, I will
often use the term “Baker.”
1. As I write today I do not take any drugs, medications, or other toxic substances. As an officer in a 12-step program at 1800 Market Street, I assist others in maintaining their soberity. This program is modelled after the 12-step program of Alcoholic Anonymous. The program is located in the “LGBTQ Center” in which I have taken courses such as the “Last Drag” (which is a smoking cessation course) and attended various meetings.
2. In 2014 because of anxiety surrounding the possible
selling of the building of the Baker-owned duplex at 54-56 Francis Street,
under the advice of a physician, I took prescription medication involving THC.
This is the psychoactive substance in cannabis. I obtained my medication at the
“Green Cross,” located near 56 Francis Street. As one who does not use
recreational drugs, I was unfamiliar with the effects of THC.
3. While my medication did allay my anxiety, it also affected my cognitive functions. Apparently, I reveal different parts of my personality which I normally do not display. The timing of my first use of THC could not have been worse since it was a couple of months later when I encountered Jonathan Vernick.
4. Because the selling of the property meant I would have to work directly with Baker representatives as well as realtors, I had dozens of interactions with Verncik and others. Most of these interactions were via telephone and occurred between January 27, 2015 and February 24, 2015. It is my impression that Vernick immediately could tell my cognitive functions were affected by my THC use.
5. Also, I dealt with Fancher Larson, a Client Rights Advocate (sic) at 1663 Mission who was working with Vernick. In our numerous meetings, it is my impression she developed the understanding that I was using cannabis. It is likely she conveyed this impression to Vernick.
6. Apparently, because they knew of my THC use on April 9, 2015, Fancher read a letter purportly written by Vernick over the telephone while he shouted into the phone “Stop the bullshit, Harry.” The motivation of doing so would be for me to accept the contents of letter which would have me part of the AILP (“Assisted Independent Living Program”). After consideration, I accepted the letter (April 13, 2015) with the understanding that I would be both a tenant at 337 Fulton Street and in his program. [ Update: SEE NOVEMBER 10, 2015 POST.]
7. This turned out to be a major miscalculation upon my part as his intent on getting me to return to the program was not for funding purposes as I thought, but apparently to have Masami Endo, my former case manager, to administer a drug test and then use the program rules to force me out of the studio apartment. Although I have no clear idea what the rules are since Verncik refused to provide them to me after requesting a copy to Masami on July 27, 2015, I have been recently informed that they prohibit the use of THC. Consequently, I would be out of compliance with the rules of the program and thus could easily be compelled to leave my studio apartment.
8. When I had my first meeting with Masami Endo on May 1, 2015 it was very clear something was completely wrong. She and I had an excellent working relationship for several years, and now she was shouting at me! Also, she conveyed in clear non-verbal language to “get the fuck out of this program.” In defense of Masami, she did not directly say this, but when you have worked with someone many years, communication is often nonverbal.
9. So I tested Vernick honesty by having him send me an authenticated copy of the March 31, 2015 Letter—which had allegedly been signed by the Chair of the Board, Nick Lederer; this was an Internet letter handed to me by Fancher. Needless to say,Vernick never did send me an original copy probably because he could not do so; Mr. Lederer never signed it.
10. Because of Masami’s nonverbal communication and Vernick’s refusal to send me a copy of the March 31, 2015 letter I returned to the status quo ante. This meant that Baker and I would remain in landlord-tenant relationship without my also being in his program.
11. After my insistence of keeping to the January 27, 2015 agreement which I memorialized on January 28, 2015, the fight began anew. At this point, Vernick sent letters filled with lies about our agreement and even disputing the fact that there had been an agreement! Of course, the existential fact that I had been in a studio apartment at 56 Francis Street and was now in a studio apartment at 337 Fulton Street put the lie to his nonsense. It also made me mad.
12. Things came to a head with his July 21, 2015 letter in which he essentially threaten me with nonpayment of rent if I did not return to his program; of course, the whole point of the agreement on January 27, 2015 was I would not be in his program. Why would I give up a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco only to be dependent upon government subsidizes?
13. The reader should understand that I left the apartment out of good will to Baker Places. I did not have to do so as under the Ellis Act it would have taken several months in order to force me to vacate; I did so because I had been deceived that Baker would honor their agreement. But all I had was Vernick’s word—which turned out to be worthless.
14. The July 21, 2015 eviction threat led me to file a report with the Rent Board on August 10, 2015 in which I alleged that Vernick committed fraud in unlawfully evicting me from 56 Francis Street. The reader can read the report which I have posted on this blog; note that the supporting documents, which primarily comprise of Vernick’s letters are not included since they are filled with numerous false statements. However, any reader who would like to view them for legitimate reasons, may email me at safeway7354@gmail and obtain a copy of them.
15. The decision to go public with the Vernick fraud case occurred on the very next day: August 11, 2015. On this day: a) I became persona non grata as I was refused entrance to the Baker Office at 120 Page Street; moreover, the representative of Baker answering the door lied to me and claimed that Masami Endo was not in the building. b) Within two minutes I saw Masami Endo leave 120 Page Street and go into a nearby convenience store. When I followed her into the store, she refused to acknowledge my existence and refused to speak to me! This is my former case manager with whom I had a close bond for several years. I became and remain outraged beyond words…
16. My public outing of myself and the fraud case occurred on August 19, 2015 when I revealed to the “Last Drag” (a smoking cessation group) at 1800 Market Street that a) My brain is wired to the truth and not directly connected to human beings; according to one brain researcher, my neurological difference represents an evolutionary advance of 500 years and is labelled “Asperger’s Syndrome.” b) I informed the group that Jonathan Vernick had defrauded me out of my apartment at 56 Francis Street.
17. On the next day, August 20, 2015 I met with a member of the group, an attorney, M.C. Hall at his law office. While he could not assist me with my case, he did refer me to three other tenant rights attorneys in San Francisco.
18. Eventually, an attorney did accept my case. The first option under consideration was a buyout in the range of $30,000 to $200,000. I would not accept this option as it would call my honor into question; it would appear as though I was attempting to blackmail Vernick which is an unacceptable course of action.
19. The second option was to look at the legal merits and see about suing Baker Places, Inc. The justification for suing Baker included:
a. Its representative, Jonathan Vernick, made a real estate exchange with me (moving from 56 Francis Street to 337 Fulton) without a written contract. This is by the “statues of Fraud” laws illegal in a prima facie sense.
b. I was provided with an illegal unit at 56 Francis Street, what Vernick referred to as a “nonconforming unit” in four of his letters: March 31, 2015; April 9, 2015; June 18, 2015; July 21, 2015. The attorney could not believe he acknowledged in writing to having provided me with an illegal unit!
c. Because Vernick is not an attorney he did not have the authority to offer me any deal of any kind on January 27, 2015. So the oral agreement was ipso facto illegal.
d. The act of getting me to vacate the studio apartment without a buyout or invoking the Ellis Act was probably illegal.
20. While the legal merits to sue Baker Places, Incorporated were clear, from a legal strategy view, there were downsides:
a. Because I had been provided with a studio apartment upon leaving Francis Street, it would be difficult to prove substantial damages.
b. Because Baker could falsely claim I had been receiving subsidized funding for my housing at 56 Francis Street, his attorneys could make the case to a jury that I was not entitled to collect any damages. Of course, we both saw this as a false claim since on February 12, 2015 Vernick had sold the Baker-owned building to pay the IRS $825, 577 in back taxes; had there be government funding the government would have been entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of the building. Please note that he had sold the building 12 days before I vacated on February 24, 2015.
c. Because Baker is a nonprofit providing housing assistance to various population such as those who are HIV+, his attorneys could use this as a means to confuse the merits of the case before a jury.
d. I could only collect substantial damages upon being evicted from 337 Fulton Street and then sue for Breach of Contract. This course of action had its own problems as the above three points a)-c) could be invoked in a courtroom.
21. From the above legal analysis, I concluded that because Baker is a nonprofit funded by the City and County of San Francisco for about $12 million annually, the optimal strategy was to inform the public and various government officials about the fraud Vernick is engaging in.
22. On September 2, 2015 I fired the first public salvo by filing an embezzlement charge with the San Francisco Police Department. The investigator indicated that I would need to bring him additional documents in order to support the claim but did indicate that he would go to 1000 Brannan Street, Suite 401 and question Jonathan Vernick about the alleged charge.
23. On September 3, 2015 I wrote a letter to Vernick attorney, Mike Lee (readers could read the letter posted on my blog) in which I demanded Vernick retire by December 31, 2015 and that Baker honor its agreement with me; I indicated that if this were not done, I would be compelled to go public with my charges. In this letter, I left my home telephone number and expected an immediate response.
24. Indeed, I did receive an immediate response: From my attorney, Michael Spalding, I was informed by Mr. Lee that Vernick was threatening to file libel and slander charges against me! I respectfully told my attorney that I welcomed such charges as the truth is always a defense and thus I looked forward to confronting JonathanVernick with the truth of his outrageous conduct. Please note that I gave Mr. Lee until September 18, 2015 to contact me and resolve the situation in a peaceful manner.
25. When September 18, 2015 came and I had not heard from Mr. Lee or any representative from Baker I started my blog www.defundbakerplaces.blogspot.com . I decided that using the social media would be the most effective strategy for the public to be informed about Jonathan Vernick.
26. Please note that an attorney informed me that I would have to go after the entity, Baker Places, Incorporated and not Vernick. Although I am a supporter of Baker—this is why I was willing to leave a rent-controlled apartment without a contract and without either a buyout or having Baker invoke the Ellis Act—my public campaign had to be against Baker.
28. In my public info sheets, (see November 1, 2015 post on this blog), I make it clear my outrage is directed towards Jonathan Vernick and not Baker Places. In fact, I do not wish for Baker Places to be defunded, but if Vernick stays as the executive director, then I believe it needs to be so. The 10 programs which Baker administers via the Department of Public Health can be given to another nonprofit such as the Progress Foundation.
28. Besides the threat to my housing the following reasons in order of importance is why I have gone public:
- Vernick has hurt Masami Endo.
- Vernick has disrespected me directly and treated me as a little boy.
- Vernick has corrupted his employees at Baker by having them engage in unethical and unlawful conduct.
- Vernick is in cognitive decline with dementia. It is obvious that when he started as the executive director 25 years ago he probably was a very sharp conman; today his various manipulations are fairly transparent to anyone with a sufficiently high I.Q. (my I.Q. is 135).
- Vernick has corrupted officials at Clients’ Rights Group (sic) at 1663 Mission to do his bidding.
- Vernick has likely corrupted some attorneys in legal circles as they refuse to assist me in my case because they indicated they were beholden to him.
30. For the public record, the following is a list of individuals and/or representatives of agencies whom I have contacted from February 24, 2015 to November 5, 2015:
a. Fancher Larson of the Clients’ Rights Group (sic) at 1663 Mission—on numerous occasions.
b. Matthew Orlander of the Human Rights
Commission—in February and March of 2015.
c. Jim Faye, a paralegal for the Legal Aid to the Elderly on May 18, 2015.
d. Michael Spalding, an attorney for the Homeless Advocacy Project—on numerous occasions.
e. M. C. Hall, an attorney whom I visited at his law office on August 20, 2015.
f. Auditors at Controller’s Office at City Hall on October 21, 2015 and with Terrance McDowell on October 23, 2015.
g. Adam Taylor, a legislative aide to Supervisor Scott Wiener, on October 15, 2015.
h. Officials with the Eviction Defense Collaborative at 995 Market Street several times.
i. A representative of the SRO Collaborative at 48 Turk Street to obtain the assistance of attorneys Steve Collier and Randy Shaw in the event Baker uses Tisker to evict me.
Please note that I have not included names of some attorneys I have consulted in my case as well as intentionally not mentioning various representatives whom I have contacted.
No comments:
Post a Comment