Note to the reader:
Below is a copy of "wrongful eviction" filed with the San Francisco Rent Board on August 10, 2015. It needs to be noted:
August 10, 2015
This is a public document filed with the San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board
25 Van Ness Avenue
Room 320
Harry Petersen
REPORT OF ALLEGED
WRONGFUL EVICTION
Jonathan Vernick, a representative of Baker Places,
Incorporated (“Baker”), unlawfully evicted me through fraud. By fraudulently getting
me to leave my studio apartment, Baker earned an estimated $200,000 which it
otherwise would not have obtained. Moreover, Mr. Vernick committed fraud by
promising me a written contract with the Baker Board which would approve our quid
pro quo before I vacated my apartment; the contract he promised never
came. Below is a summary of relevant
events from January 22, 2015 to August 3, 2015.
1) On January 22, 2015, Masami Endo, a representative of
Baker, telephoned me and requested a face-to-face meeting with the Executive
Director of Baker, Mr. Vernick, in order to discuss the sale of the building at
54-56 Francis Street in San Francisco. Since I lived in a studio apartment at
56 Francis the sale of this duplex would be of concern to me.
2) On January 27, 2015, a meeting to discuss the sale of the
apartments was held with Jonathan Vernick, Masami Endo, Fancher Larson, and
Harry Petersen in attendance. (Please see “Memorandum of Understanding”
attached for a summary of the meeting dated January 28, 2015.) In exchanged for
my vacating my unit I would receive permanent housing at an equivalent studio
apartment while Baker would get a vacant building which would increase the
value by about 20% or an estimated $200,000. At length the discussion centered on what the
written agreement with the Baker Board would look like (e.g., what will happen when
Mr. Vernick leaves his position?).
3) About February 6, 2015 Mr. Vernick left a detailed message on my answering machine
in which he said “ a rental application
is being submitted upon your behalf” and later said “so you will have a new
lease” (recording available for inspection upon request). On February 9, 2015
Ms. Endo left a message on my telephone answering machine requesting that I
“fill out a rental application” (recording available for inspection upon
request). I telephoned Ms. Endo and for the next 20 minutes or so answered
questions on the application. The recording indicated that I would continue a landlord-tenant
relationship but with a new landlord since Baker would no longer be my
landlord.
4) While Mr. Vernick knows very well Baker owned the
property at Francis Street and knew we were in a landlord-tenant relationship
he tells the same lie in all his letters: I was receiving subsidized housing
for 7 years. Because Baker owned the property, there was no subsidized funding
and the rent at Fulton Street is being paid from the proceeds from the sale of
the housing at Francis Street. Apparently, he is of the belief that if he
tells the same lie often enough it will become the truth….
5) Between January 27, 2015 to February 24, 2015 I visited 4 apartments .
Two Baker representatives usually went with me to view these
apartments: Ms. Endo and Luisa Francisco; also, Jessie Ponce assisted in
locating the apartments.
6) On February 24, 2015 I vacated the apartment at 56 Francis
Street and moved into an equivalent apartment at 337 Fulton Street, unit 31.
But there was a problem: Where was the written approval from the Baker Board?
There was not one and this is prima facie
fraud since by the “Statute of Frauds” laws a written agreement is required
in real estate exchanges to avoid possible misunderstanding or as in this case
intentional fraud.
7) On March 20, 2015, I sent a letter (see attached) to Mr.
Vernick requesting a written contract with the Baker Board. I was very concern
that in 2-3 years the oral agreement would not be enforced and there was no way
I could compel Baker to honor its agreement of January 27, 2015.
8) Continuing his pattern of
fraud, Mr. Vernick had a third party hand me a “Letter of Assurance” via the
internet which he refused authenticate by sending an original copy. In this
letter, I was assured that a studio apartment would be provided by Baker on a
permanent basis (see the March 31, 2015 letter). I accepted this agreement on the condition
that an original letter would be sent. After over a month of trying to get him
to send me an original copy (see May 5, 2015 and May 15, 2015 letters) I gave
up and stated clearly from then on the original agreement of January 27, 2015
would remain in place. The question around this document is the second
signature on this letter by Nick Lederer, the Chair of the Board: Did he sign
this Internet copy?
9) Continuing the fraud, Mr. Vernick sent me a completely new deal: I would be provided housing in whatever form he decided. This might include a Single Room Occupancy (S.R.O.), or living in a group setting, for instance. (See the April 9, 2015 letter.) This new deal is one I would have never agreed to on January 27, 2015. This is the foundational basis of fraud: would I have agreed to the original deal if I subsequently received something different from it? In my case, the answer is a resounding “NO!”
10) Continuing the fraud, he now claims that the April 9, 2015 letter represents the original deal! (See the July 21, 2015 letter.) Although this false memory ploy is clever, the question I have is this: Is it possible he is in cognitive decline to such a degree that due to memory loss he believes his invented story?
11) In his last two letters (see
June 18, 2015 and July 21, 2015) his inventions are curious because they
directly contradict his previous written statements (see March 31, 2015 letter).
Does he not know to whom he is writing? Yes, other people who were not involved
might believe his misstatements, but how could he con me? Does he not know that
while the March 31, 2015 letter was not authenticated (there is doubt if Mr.
Lederer signed it), it still is a letter sent from him to a third party on my
behalf? Maybe he is not conning—perhaps
he has worse memory loss than I had observed through dozens of interactions
with him. These interactions included allowing a real estate broker, Iver, to
view my apartment, agreeing to see various apartments, and trying to get him to
send me a written agreement (which he always said he would but never did). My
hypotheses:
a) Mr. Vernick was writing these
two letters to other audiences other than me (perhaps staff or legal) as they
would not stand up in court since they contradicted his own written words.
b) Maybe he’s confused and someone
is helping him compose these letters.
12) The “letter of assurance” (the
one he refused to authenticate) made a curious reappearance: On May 18, 2015 I
went to Legal Aid to the Elderly (LAE) and spoke with a paralegal, Jim Faye,
who was handed this document by Ms. Larson. Here was a curious situation: By
written word, Mr. Vernick repudiated the March 31, 2015 letter (see April 9,
2015 letter) and yet someone presented this letter as a defense against fraud!
A fraud defended by another fraud….
13) Because Baker is a non-profit
funded by the City and County of San Francisco to provide housing to the
homeless, I have refused to file a lawsuit. In one case, an attorney wanted to
file fraud charges, but I refused to do so; instead, I attempted to make due
with a “Master Agreement” (see July 3, 2015 document). The dear reader might
have guessed it: in a few days, Mr. Vernick broke this agreement (as he did
with the January 27, 2015 and the March 31, 2015 agreements).
14) It is fascinating to see how
Mr. Vernick pulls off this fraud: a) First he promises a permanent studio
apartment with a contract from Baker (January 27, 2015) and then b) shifts his
position to saying I have a permanent studio apartment with subsidize funding
(March 31, 2015) , and then c) shifts his position to saying I am entitled to
any form of housing he chooses to give me (April 9, 2015) and then d) shifts
his position to where it is unclear if I am entitled
to any housing since no agreement had been made in the first place! (See
June 18 and July 21 letters.)
15) Mixed up with this continuing
saga, are other people who might have been hurt:
a) There were 5-7 people vacated
from 54-56 Francis Street with lies about why they needed to be relocated (such
as repair to the building). Were they entitled to relocation money under the
Ellis Act?
b) Lisa Perry (please confirm
correct spelling), a charismatic African-American woman who was director at 120
Page Street, was dismissed around the time the building was being sold. She is
quite engaging and charming and I wish her well.
16) It needs to be noted that I went to the Human Rights Commission (25 Van Ness Avenue suite 800) and spoke with Matthew Oglander several times in March of 2015. He refused to assist me since it was pointed out I had not been receiving subsidized funding from the government since I was in a landlord-tenant relationship at Francis Street.
