SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

LYDIA GANS, RON MENDES, CHARLES GARY, CROW BOLT, DAVE WEDDINGDRESS, DONALD HUGHES, WALTER SPRINGER, SAM WHEAT, USHA MULIYIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FLORENCE WINDFALL, DAVID OERTEL, MICHAEL KELLY, JAMES COSNER, ROWLAND HILL, EDWIN MASSEY, JR., THE FELLOWSHIP OF HUMANITY, a California non profit religious corporation, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants ______________________________________________ | | | | | | |     Case No. 05214032 | |     COMPLAINT FOR        DECLARATORY RELIEF,        INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, |     ACCOUNTING,        REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS           AND EJECTMENT | | | |

Come now plaintiffs, and each of them, and allege as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1.  Plaintiffs, Lydia Gans, Ron Mendes, Charles Gary, Crow Bolt, Dave Weddingdress and Don Hughes, are members of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship of Humanity, a California, non profit, religious corporation, duly elected in accordance with the bylaws of the organization after an annual meeting convened in two parts on or about September 19, 2004, and on or about  January 23, 2005. 2.  Plaintiffs, Walter Springer, Sam Wheat and Usha Muliyil are long standing members of the Fellowship of Humanity, a California, non profit, religious corporation, who were wrongfully purged of their membership rights by Defendants, and each of them, after September, 2003.  They bring this suit individually and behalf of all other members similarly situated. 3.  Defendants, Florence Windfall, David Oertel, Michael Kelly, James Cosner, Rowland Hill and Edwin Massey, Jr., are individuals who reside in Alameda County, California, and who are purportedly members of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship of Humanity, a California, non profit, religious corporation. 4.  Defendant, the Fellowship of Humanity is, and all times herein mentioned was, a non profit corporation organized for religious purposes under the laws of the State of California, and has its principal place of business in Oakland, Alameda County, California. 5.  Defendants, Florence Windfall, David Oertel, Michael Kelly, James Cosner, Rowland Hill and Edwin Massey, Jr., are and at all times herein mentioned were, the agent and servant of each other and of defendant, the Fellowship of Humanity, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting within the scope of such agency and service. 6.  Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sue those defendants by such fictitious names.  Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 7.  Defendant, the Fellowship of Humanity (hereafter Fellowship) was founded as a corporation organized for religious purposes under the laws of the State of California in 1935.  Its religious exemption for real property was challenged by local County authorities in the early 1950's.  However, the Fellowship's religious exemption was upheld by the courts.  See Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957) 153 CA 2d 673; 315 P.2d 394. 8.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship were adopted on or after 1938 and were modified in the early 1950's.  A true copy of that Constitution and Bylaws are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 9.  The purpose of the Fellowship as stated in Section 4 of its Constitution and Bylaws is: To establish and maintain a free fellowship for the study of human relationships from the point of view of religion, education, and sociology; to establish, propagate, and nurture the ideals of The Fellowship of all peoples in a changing world order, and without any distinctive creed or religious formula, but in with the idea that the times need a common faith under which all peoples may unite; to affirm as religious Humanists the Humanist objectives promulgated the International Organizations, such as the American Humanist Association and other organizations of Humanists located in Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, and other countries which provide a philosophy of religion that all peoples of the world may unite in a common faith. To promulgate Humanism by means of public meetings, lectures, programs, study classes, publishing and distributing literature, and other means as may be deemed practical for the dissemination of constructive and progressive thought. 10.  The aforesaid Constitution and Bylaws also provided, in pertinent part, that members of the Board of Directors be elected by the membership at an annual membership meeting (Section 6, paragraphs 3 and 4); that membership could be denied or members expelled only after written notice, with a hearing before the membership of the Fellowship and which required a 2/3 vote of those members attending to deny membership or expel members (Section 5, paragraph 8); that members of the Board of Directors could be removed/recalled from office only after written notice, at two consecutive Sunday meetings with a vote of the membership at the second meeting with a minimum of 25 votes or 2/3 of the votes if at least 40 members voted as being necessary to remove/recall a Director (Section 6, paragraph 8); and, that the Constitution and Bylaws could be amended only after a written proposal signed by at least 5 members be submitted to the Board of Directors at least 45 days before the annual membership meeting and posted for at least two consecutive Sunday services with vote by secret ballot requiring 2/3's of those present to vote in favor for the amendment to be adopted (Section 16). 11.  An annual membership meeting was held in September, 2003, at which the following persons were elected to the Board of Directors:  Charles Gary, Donald Hughes, Florence Windfall, David Oertel, Rowland Hill, Michael Kelly and Edwin Massey, Jr. 12.  At that meeting, a draft of proposed revised Bylaws was presented to the membership by Defendants Florence Windfall, David Oertel and others with the understanding that said revised Bylaws were in draft form only and were a work in progress. 13.  At no time were the proposed revised Bylaws adopted by the membership in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 14.  Thereafter, Defendants, and each of them, conspired to gain control of the Fellowship by utilizing the proposed revised Bylaws to purge all members of the Board of Directors and all members of the Fellowship who disagreed with the political and other views of Defendants, and each of them, from the Fellowship. 15.  Between September, 2003, and December, 2004, the following persons were expelled from the Board of Directors by Board members and not by the vote of the membership, all without written notice or a hearing:  Charles Gary and Donald Hughes. 16.  The following persons all members in good standing with the Fellowship were purged from the membership of the Fellowship by individual directors, since September, 2003, without written notice or hearing before the membership and without a full vote of said Board, as required by the Constitution and Bylaws attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein: Walter Springer, Sam Wheat, Yusha Muliyil, Lydia Gans, Ron Mendes, Bert Herman, Mary David Walters, John Michels, Charles Gary, Crow Bolt, Daniel Sheridan, Debra Slone, Terri Compost, Joseph Liesner, Dave Weddingdress, Maalik Al Maalilk, Dana Merryday, Elaine Pector, Brianna Cavanaugh, Frances F. Lee, Ingrid Evjenelias, John L, Kala Levin, Ed Rippy, Creekwater, and others. 17.  Since the purge of the aforesaid members, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, have occupied the real property of the Fellowship and have permitted Defendants, Florence Windfall and David Oertel, to live in said property rent free in violation of City Zoning laws; to rent the premises to third parties for revenue which has been used for the personal benefit of said Defendants, and each of them, and not for the benefit of the Fellowship; and, without any accounting to the Fellowship or appropriate non profit regulatory agencies. 18.  On or about September 19, 2004, the annual meeting of the membership was held by Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class, at the Fellowship Hall, after notice as reguired by the Constitution and Bylaws attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.  Said meeting was attended by approximately 35 members of the Fellowship all of whom were expelled and purged of their membership in the Fellowship by said defendants, for attending said meeting.  A full agenda was followed including but not limited to the passage of amendments to the proposed revised Bylaws prepared by defendants.  The meeting was then adjourned to allow Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class to mediate the schism in the Fellowship before the election of the new Board. Defendants and each of them rejected all attempts at mediation. Thereafter, on or about January 23, 2005, at the continued annual meeting of the Fellowship, the following persons were elected to serve on the Board of Directors of the Fellowship for the current year:  Lydia Gans, Ron Mendes, Charles Gary, Crow Bolt, Dave Weddingdress and Donald Hughes.  All of said persons have so served from the date of their election to the present time as an Ex Officio Board of Directors of the Fellowship. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as set forth below: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY RELIEF 19.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint. 20.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in the Plaintiffs contend they are rightful members of the Fellowship and members of its Board of Directors, said members having satisfied all membership requirements and said directors having been duly elected after an annual meeting consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship which are the legitimate Bylaws of the Organization; whereas, Defendants dispute these contentions and contend that Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class are no longer rightful members of the Fellowship and that Defendants, and each of them are the members of the Board of Directors; and, the revised Bylaws adopted at the September, 2003, annual meeting are the legitimate Bylaws of the Organization. 21.  Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights and duties, and a declaration that they are members in good standing with the Fellowship and members in good standing of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship and that the Constitution and Bylaws attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein are the legitimate Bylaws of the Organization. 22.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights and duties under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship and that they may gain access to the real property owned by the Fellowship and to the books and records of the Fellowship. 23.  Plaintiffs have previously met with Defendants and have offered to mediate this dispute through an agency of the City of Oakland which has been rejected by defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as set forth below: SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 24.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint. 25.  Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf as members in good standing of the Fellowship, and on behalf of all members thereof, other than those named as defendants in Paragraph 3, above who have been threatened with expulsion or who have wrongfully been expelled from membership by Defendants and each of them.  This class is so numerous that it is impractical to bring them all before this court.  There are questions of law and fact of common and general interest to the class, and the claims and defenses of Plaintiffs and Defendants are typical of the claims and defenses of the class and Defendants.  The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 26.  Defendant, the Fellowship of Humanity, holds title to the real property of the Church known as Humanist Hall located at 411 28th Street, Oakland, CA and to the personal property of the Church for the benefit, use and enjoyment of its members, including plaintiffs. 27.  The Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship provide for an annual membership meeting for the election of directors which was held by Plaintiffs and members of plaintiff's class on September 19, 2004, and January 23, 2005; no annual meeting was held by Defendants in 2004 to elect members of the Board of Directors.  Said Defendants, and each of them, arbitrarily refused and neglected to call or participate in an annual meeting in 2004 for the election of directors as required by the Constitution and Bylaws and the proposed revised Bylaws. 28.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that Defendants, and each of them, have conspired to eliminate all competition for the election of the directors of the corporation by holding an election by absentee ballot of a minority of the members of the Fellowship and arbitrarily terminating and expelling Plaintiffs and other members of their class from membership in the Fellowship; the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein provide that removal of members can only be by vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting, after written notice and hearing. 29.  A fair election and a fair decision cannot be reached by an election or hearing on the issue of expulsion of Plaintiffs and other members of their class from the Fellowship, in that Defendants consist of a minority group of the organization acting in opposition to the majority of the membership; and, refuse to hold a membership meeting to consider the expulsion and termination of the membership in the Fellowship of Plaintiffs and members of their class.  Unless restrained by this court, defendants will continue to manage and operate the Fellowship to the detriment of Plaintiffs and their class without a fair and impartial hearing by persons having the authority to set and hear the matter before them and to exclude them from participation in the affairs of the Fellowship. 30.  Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in that, unless restrained by this court the actions of Defendants will cause Plaintiffs and the class they represent to suffer irreparable injury in that they are excluded from membership in the Fellowship and on the Board of Directors of the Fellowship and cannot avail themselves of the benefit of the use and enjoyment of the property of the Fellowship and participation in the community created by the Fellowship. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as set forth below: THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - ACCOUNTING 31.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein Paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint. 32.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, have not accounted for the revenue and expenses of the Fellowship since assuming office, have not filed necessary and appropriate tax returns as required by law and by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship; and have not made the books and records of the Fellowship available to the membership all in breach of their fiduciary duties under non profit law of. the State of California. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as set forth below: FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS 33.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein Paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint. 34.  Defendants, and each of them, knew that the proposed revised Bylaws under which they have operated and managed the Fellowship since September, 2003, were not lawfully adopted by the members of the Fellowship as required by its Constitution and Bylaws and violated basic due process protections as codified in the Constitution and Bylaws attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 35.  Defendants, and each of them, have nevertheless used the authority in said proposed revised Bylaws to purge plaintiff s and members of their class from membership in the Fellowship without written notice, a hearing and a vote of the membership of the Fellowship and, accordingly, have reduced the membership of the Fellowship to a small group of followers who do not dissent from any act of defendant's, and each of them, and to themselves so that they run the Fellowship for their own private benefit and not for the benefit of the organization. 36.  The acts above constitute a violation of Corporations Code, Section 9223, breach of the duties of a director of a non profit, religious corporation and constitute grounds for removal of Defendants, and each of them, as directors of the Fellowship by this court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as set forth below: FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - EJECTMENT AS FLORENCE WINDFALL AND DAVID OERTEL, ONLY: 37.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein Paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint and Paragraphs 34-36 of the Fourth Cause of Action of the Complaint. 38.  Plaintiffs, and each of them, are rightful members of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship entitled to possession of the real property located at 411 28th Street, Oakland, CA., Alameda County, State of California, known as Humanist Hall. 39.  Defendants, Florence Windfall and David Oertel, now occupy and reside at the aforesaid real property as a dwelling and have had possession of said real property within the past two years when they ousted Plaintiffs from peaceful possession of the property. 40.  The aforesaid real property is not zoned for inhabitation as a dwelling place and said defendant's occupation and use of said property as a dwelling place is wrongful and illegal. 41.  Plaintiffs have demanded that said defendants vacate the property and remove themselves from the premises but said defendants have ignored these demands, have refused Plaintiffs admission to the premises and still unlawfully hold possession of the premises as a dwelling place all without payment of any rent to the Fellowship. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY RELIEF: 1.  For a declaration that Plaintiffs and members of their class are rightful members of the Fellowship; that Plaintiffs, Lydia Gans, Ron Mendes, Charles Gary, Crow Bolt, Dave Weddingdress and Donald Hughes are the rightful members of the Board of Directors of the Fellowship; and, that the Constitution and Bylaws attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A are the legitimate Bylaws of the organization. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 2.  For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from: a.  Calling or conducting any membership meeting without giving notice to Plaintiffs and all of the members of Plaintiffs class as required by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship; and, b.  Expelling Plaintiffs or any other members from defendant Fellowship in any manner except by vote of 2/3 of the members voting after written notice and hearing as required by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Fellowship. 3.  For an Order compelling Defendants to reinstate and restore all Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class to membership in good standing of the Fellowship and to restore Charles Gary and Donald Hughes to membership on the Board of Directors of the Fellowship. 4.  For an Order compelling Defendants, and each of them, to call and conduct an annual membership meeting of defendant, Fellowship, including all Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class, for the purpose of electing the directors thereof and conducting any other proper business in the manner provided in the Constitution and Bylaws of the organization. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - ACCOUNTING 5.  For an Order requiring Defendants, and each of them, to make the books and records of the Fellowship available for inspection by Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs class; and, to account for all revenue and expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the property of the Fellowship for the past four years; and, to be personally surcharged for all amounts used for their personal benefit and not for the benefit of the Fellowship. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS 6.  For an Order removing Defendants, Florence Windfall, David Oertel, Michael Kelly, Rowland Hill and Edwin Massey, Jr., and James Cosner from the office of director of the Fellowship. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - EJECTMENT 7.  For an Order removing Defendants, Florence Windfall and David Oertel from possession of the premises of defendant, the Fellowship, and for restitution of the premises to the lawful Board of Directors of the Fellowship as recognized by this Court. ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 8.  For costs of suit herein incurred, including an award of reasonable attorney's fees. 9.  For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. Dated:  May 20,  2005 /s/ MARK HIMELSTEIN, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Lydia Gans, Ron Mendes, Charles Gary Crow Bolt, Dave Weddingdress, Donald Hughes, Walter Springer Sam Wheat and Usha Muliyil

! Justice is Ours !   She may be Blind, but she’s not Stupid     Hunter Pyle   Attorney at Law with Sundeen Salinas & Pyle www.ssrplaw.com   ! rescued the Fellowship from impending disaster!        Hunter Pyle is President of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the   National Lawyers Guild       and   defended the Fellowship of Humanity against the plaintiffs' complaint       In 2007 a second lawyer came on board to finalize the lawsuit   Linda Hope Clarke     a lion at heart   and the lawsuit was dismissed August 15, 2007   The damages of the lawsuit to the Fellowship and its Board are told below.

East Bay Food Not Bombs

Sues the Fellowship of Humanity

In Order to Take Over Humanist Hall

 

 

The leadership of East Bay Food Not Bombs has been attempting to take over Humanist Hall for years now.  Most of the nine plaintiffs in the 2005 lawsuit against the Fellowship of Humanity were originally expelled from the Fellowship for disruption of the Annual Meeting 2003, disruption of other Fellowship meetings, programs and events, and for conspiring to take over the Fellowship in an underhanded way, that is, without winning elections at the annual election meetings of the Fellowship.  The plaintiffs consist of four former members and former Board members of the Fellowship experiencing sour grapes – Walter Springer, Sam Wheat, Usha Muliyil, and Ron Mendez – and five participants of East Bay Food Not Bombs experiencing an irresistible urge and greed, a deep craving to grab Humanist Hall for the price of a lawsuit for their own purposes, including money in case they sell the Hall to developers – Charles Gary, Lydia Gans, Dave Weddingdress, Don Hughes, and Crow Bolt.

 

So it must be said that most of the plaintiffs and their friends are participants of East Bay Food Not Bombs.  The leadership of the East Bay chapter of Food Not Bombs form  a predatory and parasitic cult expanding when needed into a mob, preying on the resources and property of others, as capitalists too.  Again it must be emphasized that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit against the Fellowship are the leadership of East Bay Food Not Bombs and their allies, the Old Guard of the Fellowship (who took offense at being displaced on the Board in democratic elections).  They want to take over Humanist Hall now in order to take credit for its current success and pretend to be the people behind its current prestige in the greater progressive community.. 

  

The nine plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against the Fellowship in May of 2005 citing their damages as being:  “plaintiffs [will] suffer irreparable injury in that they are excluded from membership in the Fellowship and on the Board of Directors of the Fellowship and cannot avail themselves of the benefit of the use and enjoyment of the property of the Fellowship and participation in the community created by the Fellowship.”  In other words, the damage to them is that they cannot immediately take over the Fellowship and cannot enjoy the Fellowship property and community.  No harm was ever done to plaintiffs except barring them from membership in the Fellowship – barring them from harming the Fellowship any further:  it must be emphasized, no harm was done them.  But they have consistently played the victim while being the aggressor against the Fellowship of Humanity

 

So the Fellowship never substantially harmed any plaintiff(s), only blocked them from harming the Fellowship any further.  We never attempted to ruin their lives; ruin their careers;  ruin their reputations;  ruin their financial stability;  drain them of all their resources and income;  demoralize them;  put them in mental institutions; kick them out of their homes;  render them homeless;  destroy their property;  slash their tires day after day to ruin their transportation;  vandalize their property;  steal from them;  conduct  a wide spread smear campaign against them;  set the Oakland police against them with phony assault charges,  set Oakland’s Building Department and its Fire Department upon them for years for more and more code violations;  we never filed complaints with the City of Berkeley that Crow Bolt allows people to live in his bakery and that Daniel Sheridan and Don Hughes live illegally in the attic of a house;  we never alerted Health Departments to the fact that East Bay Food Not Bombs’ cookhouses are unsanitary, having no standard of cleanliness and allowing people with hepatitis to handle food;  and so on and so on.  We never demonized these people and treated them like criminals. 

 

Using their lawsuit, the plaintiffs attempted to destroy every institutional structure of the Fellowship, including destroying our church status, and ruin the lives of those of us who created and sustain today’s Humanist Hall.  The Fellowship’s stance against this aggressive war waged upon it has always been defensive.

 

But consider the 33 egregious harms (damages) done by the plaintiffs to the Fellowship listed below – when the only thing the Fellowship did to them was to deny them membership and prevent them from trying to destroy the Fellowship as an institution.  The only measure we took against them was to expel them from membership.  They attempted to tear down every institutional structure of the Fellowship and ruin the lives of those of us sustaining the Fellowship.

 

In contrast to the alleged “damages” endured by the plaintiffs, mentioned above, what the Fellowship suffered at plaintiff hands include the following 33 horrific injuries:

 

Damages to the Fellowship

Done by the Phony Fellowship

Including the Leadership of

 East Bay Food Not Bombs

 

1)   Disrupting Major Fellowship Meetings to the Point of Dysfunction –

      The plaintiffs disrupted Fellowship meetings to the point where they were, or should have been, shut down.  The meetings were destroyed for all practical purposes.  In particular, the Membership Meeting of June, 2003;  the Annual Meeting of September, 2003;  the proposed Annual Meeting of September 2004;  and the Annual Meeting of September 2005.  Plaintiffs destroyed many other regular meetings as well, both Sunday meetings and Board meetings, interrupting people, pitting people against one another, and talking loudly and with as much rudeness as possible.  Minutes and documents regarding these meetings are available upon request.

 

2)  Writing Bylaws under the Direction of a Non-Member in order to Throw out the Board of Directors –

      The plaintiffs wrote bylaws out of spite to detract from the New ByLaws 2003 that Florence Windfall wrote for the Fellowship.  Florence’s New Bylaws were a revision of the Old Bylaws that had been in effect for perhaps 50 years and were seriously outdated.  The plaintiffs’ bylaws, spearheaded by Henda Lea, a non-member who had planned to take over the Fellowship in behalf of Secular Humanists of the East Bay, were written with provisions to abolish the current Board of Directors, one member at a time, and make it easier to install their own candidates.  Their proposed bylaws are available upon request.

 

3)   Conducting a Far-Reaching Smear Campaign –

      The plaintiffs’ smear campaign against Florence WIndfall and David Oertel, demonizing them both, turned perfect strangers against them all around Berkeley and Oakland.  Innocent people were convinced that Florence and David were evil monsters, demons, despots, dictators, tyrants, monarchs, and embezzlers because of the plaintiffs’ dogged campaign to ruin their reputations.  So far from being a dictator, Florence has been super lenient with all kinds of people, promoting people who had no regard for her and allowing people contemptuous of her to run for Board seats.  And so far from embezzling from the Fellowship, David has been one of the very few major donors in its history.  In fact, no one today can name anyone in the history of the Fellowship who has put more money into it than David.  He contributed over $150,000 to maintain, repair, and improve Humanist Hall, making it usable for the public, including paying salaries of workers and bringing it up to code.  The Fellowship of the new millennium, under the leadership of Florence and David, has made every effort to pay workers rather than expect workers to be volunteers.  The money David added to the Fellowship came from his own retirement income.  People who were brought under the spell of the plaintiffs’ smear campaign, accusing David of embezzling, may be interviewed today and their testimonies taken.

 

      It was particularly grievous for many Fellowship members to hear time and again, even from strangers, that David, one of Humanist Hall’s major donors of all time, was an embezzling, greedy business ogre, someone to be despised, a criminal.  He gave money to the Fellowship liberally, generously, and whole-heartedly, sacrificing his own possibility of having any retirement income.  But he did not give money to hire bookkeepers, accountants, auditors, or other experts of finance.  This job fell upon himself and Florence, both of whom were overburdened with other jobs.  No one volunteered to do the books.  Also, because most of the money used to repair and improve the Fellowship came from David Oertel, he did not feel he owed any accounting of money to himself.  Nevertheless, in spite of all hardships, Florence was able to do the Fellowship's financial accounting for one year, from July 2005 to July 2006.  The financial report for this period was given to the Board and to the Fellowship's lawyer.  These Fellowship records are available upon request.  It must be noted that the very people who started this smear campaign against David Oertel, Walter Springer and Lydia Gans, did no financial accounting themselves when they were in charge of the Fellowship and responsible for its finances.  Lydia, the Fellowship Treasurer in her day, never reported on expenditures, only on bills.  Every financial transaction other than bills she held in complete secrecy in her house.  She would not report them even to the Board.  Yet in her lawsuit against the Fellowship, she demands professional financial records from David Oertel and auditing of the Fellowship.  This glaring hypocrisy of key plaintiffs reveals their complete lack of integrity.      

 

4)   Pitting Nancy Nadel Against the Fellowship –

      In a meeting of Charles Gary (who was President at the time), Florence Windfall, and David Oertel with Nancy Nadel [a meeting which Florence called in order to inquire whether 27^th Street was likely to be re-zoned by the condo developers], Charles verbally attacked and insulted Nancy Nadel so much that she had the City Manager shut down the Fellowship two days later.  Charles Gary lied in his testimonial, claiming that Florence went "ballistic" in the meeting with Nancy Nadel.  No such thing.  Florence was practically mute in the meeting while Charles held forth finding fault with Nancy Nadel.  She is Oakland’s City Council Member for District Three, the district of the Fellowship, and the most progressive of Council members – and therefore an important ally.  Relations with Nancy Nadel have never improved even though she ran for mayor of Oakland and twice spoke in Humanist Hall as a mayoral candidate.  The City has shut down Humanist Hall’s rental business numerous times but we have fought back and because of our tremendous efforts continue to hold rental events nevertheless. 

       

5)   Walter’s Big Letter –

      Walter Springer wrote his Big Letter of 35 pages in August, 2004, to spread false accusations and slanders against Florence Windfall and David Oertel.  In this insane letter, Walter compared Florence to Stalin and other mass murderers and threatened Florence with removal from the Fellowship by force.  Walter distributed his letter to 60 people and organizations, spreading his own single-handed smear campaign nationwide.  Florence wrote a reply to this letter but sent it only to Walter.  Walter’s letter and Florence’s reply are available upon request.

       

6) Threatening a Lawsuit in a Letter/Petition with Several Unauthorized Signatures –

      The plaintiffs’ letter or petition of November 7, 2004, threatening a lawsuit had 30 names on it, members or ex-members, some of whom did not know of the existence of the letter even though their name was on it as if they had signed it.  It was intended to scare David Oertel and Florence Windfall so that they would hand over the Fellowship to the plaintiffs without the cost of a lawsuit.  It was delivered to the Fellowship during a party that the Fellowship was holding for members.  Some 15 plaintiffs and their entourage protested the party for hours outside the grounds of the Fellowship.  This letter/petition is available upon request.

 

7)   Filing a Lawsuit –

      The plaintiffs filed a vicious, slanderous lawsuit against the Fellowship and served it to Florence Windfall and David Oertel on May 25, 2005, claiming that they, the plaintiffs, were the true Board of Directors and that the current Board should be removed.  They also complained that David Oertel, the only major donor for the Fellowship, was embezzling money from the Fellowship.  And they also complained, as mentioned, that the plaintiffs could not enjoy the property of the Fellowship!  Their claims that the current Board did inadequate accounting, that David Oertel embezzled money and used it for his personal benefit, and that Florence and David should be evicted from Humanist Hall were refuted by the Court in the process of the plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment against the Fellowship.  The lawsuit and all documents related to it are available upon request.

 

8)   Lying Under Oath:  Perjury by All the Plaintiffs –

      Every plaintiff perjured himself or herself in their depositions, under oath, most of them many times.  They lied verbally and in every other document they wrote as well but lying under oath is exceptionally egregious.  Almost all plaintiffs claimed in their depositions that they thought the New Bylaws written by Florence Windfall were a draft and not to be taken seriously.  Lydia Gans in particular emphasized the "draft" nature of the New Bylaws in her deposition, something she never mentioned or concerned herself with at the time of the vote on the New Bylaws.  It was obvious that the plaintiffs' lawyer had urged all the plaintiffs to lie about this just because the word "Draft" was on the front page of the New Bylaws.  This is a despicable lie since no one but no one was concerned about the word “Draft” on the front page of the New Bylaws at the time they were first voted on.  Another lie Lydia told was that she kept her Treasury records at the "office" of the Fellowship.  There was scarcely an office to speak of in her day, no file cabinet or box to keep papers in, and in any case she kept her Fellowship records at her home. 

 

      Other despicable lies told by many plaintiffs concerned the character of the Annual Meeting 2003, the worst meeting of any kind that has occurred so far in this century.  People who blocked the meeting from proceeding – with shouting and loud interruptions and filibustering to keep others from talking – were heralded as heroes by some plaintiffs in their depositions, long after the fact.  At the time of the meeting, they were, like most people at the meeting, suffering.  In Charles Gary’s deposition, he declared himself to be President of the Fellowship of Humanity (Florence was then President) – a sick and twisted lie.  Charles also declared that he earned only $10,000 as handyperson for the Fellowship from 2001-2004.  In fact, he earned from $300 to $500 a week, over $40,000 in a couple years' time.  The savings account used by the Old Guard Fellowship (to pay Hall bills) paid for much of his job and supplies.  In Dave Weddingdress' deposition, he declared that Florence had denied him and/or his wife membership when coming to the Hall.  He declared that Florence was sitting at a greeting table blocking him/them from entering the Hall.  This was a stupid lie.  Dave and his wife, Kayla Levin, were already members of the Fellowship and were never denied membership or membership renewal.  Not only that, but Florence never sits at greeting tables or any other tables near the door of the Fellowship at programs or events going on in the Hall, which is, on average, every other day.  Florence plays a back-seat role at the Hall and does not often play hostess or greet people at doors.  Neither does she regard Humanist Hall as her personal home and attempt to control people who happen to be in the Hall as the smear campaign of the plaintiffs pretends.  Sam Wheat committed perjury as well when he said in his deposition that before the year 2000 there were regularly 30 people coming to Sunday Meetings at Humanist Hall.  Everyone who visited the Hall in the 1990s knows this is a ridiculous lie.  The Fellowship was hard put to get 6 people into the Hall on a Sunday.  Commonly there were 4 or 5 people coming to the Hall on Sundays.  There were not enough people to form a Board of Directors at the Fellowship.  So one day when there were 6 people, Walter Springer, who was President at that time, invited everyone present to be on the Board.

 

      How was it possible that so many plaintiffs lied so easily under oath?  At least two among the plaintiffs and their entourage are ex-felons, another is a lawyer, and others are personally familiar with legal processes.  They knew, and perhaps their lawyer informed them too, that there was no penalty for perjury unless huge sums of money were involved.  So they lied regularly, without hesitation, and with impunity.  Depositions are in the hands of the court and available upon request and payment of fees. 

 

9)   Lying to the Fellowship's Insurance Company –

      Charles Gary was able to make the Fellowship’s insurance company drop the Fellowship as a client.  He was once the Fellowship’s contact person with its insurance company when he was President and accustomed to talking with their agent.  He later smeared the Fellowship in conversations with the agent and finally the company dropped the Fellowship as a client.  Letters from the insurance company are available upon request.

 

10) Thuggery –

      Plaintiffs advocated seizing Humanist Hall and changing the locks.  They did seize it on one occasion to hold their bogus “Annual Meeting” of September 2004.  The Hall’s front door was inadvertently open at that time to allow cleaning people to enter.  Since that time, plaintiffs vandalized the Hall several times, stole Fellowship equipment, and congratulated Zachary Runningwolf, a participant in East Bay Food Not Bombs, as he slashed 11 (eleven!) tires of David Oertel’s van and Anton Duval’s car over several weeks’ period in August and September 2004.  Plaintiffs committed other acts of vandalism:  knocking a railing off the porch, intentionally punching holes in the walls, painting graffiti on Fellowship walls and major signs, and so on.  They also burnt holes in the kitchen floor while working with East Bay Food Not Bombs and broke floor boards of the Hall at a wedding reception in June, 2005.  Don Hughes brought an aggressive friend into the church who called himself “Satan’s Tongue” who in turn brought a pit bull onto the grounds to intimidate David Oertel and Florence Windfall.  Plaintiffs may be interviewed today and their testimonies about how they plan to seize or destroy Humanist Hall may be taken.  David’s and Florence’s restraining order against Zachary Runningwolf Brown is available upon request.

 

11)  Attempting to Remove Church Status of Fellowship –

      Plaintiffs wrote to the Attorney General and perhaps also the Secretary of State of California in order to change the status of the Fellowship from a church to a public benefit corporation.  After a year of receiving letters from the State of California and the Attorney General informing the Fellowship of the need to pay taxes, our lawyer sent David Oertel and Florence Windfall to Sacramento to get proper documents on the church status of the Fellowship.  Documents relating to the Fellowship’s church status are available upon request.  This attempt, trying to wreck the church status of the Fellowship of Humanity, is the worst offense of the plaintiffs.

12) Lying to their own Lawyer –

Plaintiffs lied to their own lawyer about the relationship of the Fellowship to the American Humanist Association (AHA).  They convinced him that the Fellowship was a branch of, an extension of, or a chapter of – some kind of part of – the AHA.  The Fellowship is a California Religious Corporation while the AHA at the time was an IRS non-profit 501 (c) 3 corporation.  The AHA may be a membership driven organization while the Fellowship is a Board driven church.  The Fellowship is only loosely affiliated with the AHA.  By leading their lawyer to believe that the Fellowship was part of the AHA, they convinced him that it was not properly a church and not Board driven.  Their lawyer tried to rid the Fellowship of its church status and also claimed that the Fellowship is membership driven.  An email of the plaintiffs’ lawyer and transcripts of the Hearing of August 9, 2007, are available upon request and payment of court fees.       

13) Snitching to the Building Department –

      Plaintiffs snitched to the Building Department of the City of Oakland over a dozen times in order to have David Oertel and Florence Windfall, the Fellowship’s only caretakers and security guards, removed from Humanist Hall.  Building inspectors inspected Humanist Hall a dozen times over a period of years on behalf of plaintiff complaints.  Building inspectors determined that it would be legal for caretakers to live in the Hall itself – where there is a high ceiling, natural light, bathrooms, and a kitchen – so David and Florence were never evicted.  Documents from Building Inspections are available upon request.

 

14) Pressuring the Fire Department –

      Plaintiffs snitched to the Fire Department of the City of Oakland at least four times in order to have David Oertel and Florence Windfall, the only caretakers and security guards of Humanist Hall, evicted from it.  The Fire Marshals did not evict David and Florence but required them to widen the dining room door and its door frame for handicapped people (a $1500 job), fire proof all the curtains ($400), and close all the cat doors in the basement.  They were since informed that the requirement for fire-proof curtains in churches is rare indeed in Oakland.  The fire marshals had other requirements too, like building a ramp onto the stage for handicapped people and replacing the office window ($500), but they did not enforce these due to the age of the building and the grandfather’s clause that gives old buildings a break.  Fire Department documents are available upon request.

 

15) Slandering the Fellowship to the Nuisance Enforcement Unit –

      The plaintiffs snitched and lied to the Nuisance Enforcement Unit of the City of Oakland in order to shut down activities at Humanist Hall and have heavy fines levied against the Fellowship by the City.  They advised Barbara Killey, in charge of the Nuisance Enforcement Unit, to shut down Humanist Hall, ostensibly for making too much noise, but in reality in order to reduce the amount of rental income for Humanist Hall and impoverish it.  The plaintiffs hated the rental business of Humanist Hall because it is so successful.  It has made the Fellowship of Humanity self sufficiently.  Ultimately, the plaintiff idea was to take over Humanist Hall, let it fall to ruin within the year, then sell it for a high price to developers, preferably the developers next door who still call the Fellowship to buy it.  Barbara Killey obliged the Fellowship to sign an agreement with her in July, 2005, to minimize large events at Humanist Hall and she fined the Fellowship $3000, which the Fellowship paid over a two-year period.  Later, in November, 2005, she shut down large events at Humanist Hall altogether, going against her own agreement on the nature, length, and loudness of these events, and obliged the Fellowship to install sound proofing – again, not mentioned in the agreement.  And the Building Department, in collusion with the Nuisance Department, shut down the process of sound-proofing the Hall for many months.  In April, 2007, another fee was levied by the Nuisance Department against the Fellowship for $7000.  The Fellowship has been hard put to survive the persecutions of the plaintiffs and the City of Oakland.  Letters from Barbara Killey and her lawyer are available upon request – including letters with a cc to the plaintiffs' lawyer.  The delay in sound proofing Humanist Hall is also documented in correspondence with Barbara Killey and available upon request.  An email from Don Hughes stating that the plaintiffs called the Blight Department to attempt to shut down the rental business at Humanist Hall is available upon request.  

 

16) Defaming Humanist Hall to Landlords and Homeowners –

      Plaintiffs defamed Humanist Hall to the landlord of Summit Crest Apartments across 28^th Street (“Bob”) and to the Homeowners Association of the Midtown Condominiums next door on 27^th Street (“Tom,” “Jackie”) in order to increase pressure to shut down activities at Humanist Hall so that the Fellowship would have no income.  They told landlords, homeowners, and tenants alike that David Oertel was running the Fellowship as a business and embezzling most of the money he brought in.  However, many tenants of the Summit Crest Apartments and several landlords of condominiums next door are friends of the Fellowship and wish it well in spite of the slanders of the plaintiffs.  Some tenants and landlords have used Humanist Hall for celebrations of their own.  Landlords and homeowners can be interviewed today and their testimonies taken.

 

17) Filing a Motion for Summary Judgment –

     The plaintiffs filed a motion for Summary Judgment against the Fellowship in March, 2006, in order to speed up the process of litigation of the lawsuit.  They were impatient to win the lawsuit and thought that they would win a Summary Judgment.  Their Summary Judgment put forth the same complaints that their lawsuit did.  But all the points of adjudication of their Summary Judgment were denied by the court in May 2006.  Their Summary Judgment and our lawyer’s and the court’s response to it are available upon request.

 

18) Conducting Hate Meetings –

      Plaintiffs conducted parallel meetings, a genuine “hate group,” for about two years, calling their meetings the “Humanist Fellowship,” (a real piece of disinformation).  This is the Phony Fellowship set up like a shadow government to intimate the Fellowship.  They met on Sundays in the First Congregational Church in the neighborhood of the Fellowship.  They met for the sole purpose of continuing, spreading, and planning their smear, slander, snitching, and hate campaigns against Fellowship Board members and advancing their hate agendas by assigning their members various hate missions to accomplish.  The Secretary of the hate group, Crow Bolt, kept Minutes for most meetings which were submitted to the Court.  Evidence of individual plaintiffs slandering and smearing David Oertel and Florence Windfall, snitching to City officials, lying to State authorities, and finding ever new ways to ruin the lives of Florence and David can be read in the Minutes of this hate group, the Phony Fellowship called the "Humanist Fellowship."  The Fellowship is also in possession of these Minutes and they are available upon request.

 

19) Committing Fraud Online –

      Plaintiffs put up two websites that proclaim that their hate group, known as the “Humanist Fellowship,” is the same as the Fellowship of Humanity.  One of these websites can be seen at:  http://www.geocities.com/utopianearth/index.html.  This website announces that the “Humanist Fellowship of Humanity” is identical with our Fellowship of Humanity at the same address as our Fellowship of