Grievance Hearing

Re: Ms. Lee’s Verbal Assault on Ms. Cullinane and Resulting Grievance Hearing; Ms. Lee’s Testimony that She Was Chased Around the WF Pool, an Act that Ms. Cullinane Was Not Even Physically Capable of Performing

“Sun light is the best disinfectant.” -Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice

1. Summary: Ms. Cullinane is a long time Homeowner at WF. She worked at the Brentwood Psychiatric VA Hospital from 1969 to 2000. Ms. Cullinane learned the hard way about the unpredictable and sometimes dangerous actions of patients. So she had some experience when, without warning, Ms. Lee viciously confronted and verbally attacked her. With that context in mind, her Grievance Form requested: “we need a grievance committee hearing to keep you [Ms. Lee] away from me & to leave me alone. ”I FEEL HARASSED, INTIMIDATED AND AM FEARFUL OF HER.” (Emphasis added).

2. The assault by Ms. Lee occurred on Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:45 a.m. In relevant part, in her first Grievance Form filed against Ms. Lee stated: “[This] is Sunday, September the 11th 11:45 AM. I went out to the pool By myself for a dip in the Jacuzzi and a little bit of swimming. I saw Jacqueline and her husband and newborn baby Josh. They looked so much like what America should look like so I asked them if I could take their photo. They said sure. There was a man noticing me taking the photo and I asked him if He wanted me take a photo of himself and the little kids and he said sure. Jessica came up to me
right after that and said what are you doing why are you taking photos. I said to her that I had asked their permission and they said yea and I love taking photos and I’ve been doing it for years it’s a Passion of mine. SHE STARTLED ME BY SAYING YOU ARE THE DEVIL YOU ARE IMMORAL AND YOU ARE NOT NORMAL. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY SITUATION LIKE THIS BEFORE IT WAS EMBARRASSING. MOST DISTURBING SCARY AND SHOCKING. (Emphasis added). I saw Robin [Perkins] and said did you Hear Robin that I am the devil immoral and not normal At least that’s what Jessica said to me. Robin told both of us to say no more let it Go. She [Robin] told me about sewing [suing] Jessica and that she is very angry. I told Robin that I have never had any realize conversation with Jessica other than to say how Beautiful She looks And that her kids are adorable. I WANT JESSICA TO NOT SAY
ANYTHING MORE TO ME IN THE FUTURE. (Emphasis added) . . . .”

3. One day later, on September 12, 2022, Ms. Cullinane filed her Grievance against Ms. Lee.

4. On September 27, 2022 Nate Wright of Horizon Management wrote to Ms. Cullinane and informed her that: “Management is in receipt of your complaint/grievance form from September 12, 2022. Due to the nature of the grievance and it’s connection to an active lawsuit relate to the activities of September 11, 2022 [the defamation action filed by a Homeowner against Lee and
Maull], the Board or the Committee will not receive this [your Grievance] and it will be forwarded to the legal counsel representing the HOA.”

5. The WF Board of Directors was not informed by Horizon Management or by Ms. Maull of the referral of Ms. Cullinane’s Grievance against Ms. Lee to WF legal counsel, Mr. Siegel. Obviously, the WF Board did not authorize this referral to WF legal counsel, nor authorize the refusal to hear Ms. Cullinane’s Grievance.

6. The active lawsuit referenced by Horizon is a lawsuit filed by a WF Homeowner against Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull. The lawsuit alleges both oral and written defamation by Ms. Lee, and oral defamation by Ms. Maull.

7. Presumably, Mr. Wright was directed to refer Ms. Cullinane’s grievance to WF legal counsel by the President of WF, Ms. Maull. Notably, Ms. Maull was a co-defendant in the “active lawsuit” referred to by Nate Wright in his September 27, 2022 letter to Ms. Cullinane. Accordingly, Ms. Maull had a conflict of interest with respect to the Grievance filed by Ms. Cullinane and had an obvious interest in delaying (as long as possible) a Grievance Hearing with respect to the Grievance filed by Ms. Cullinane.

8. The other named two Defendants (Patel and Dayal) in the defamation litigation have agreed to issue a public apology to the WF Homeowner and have paid the sum of $40,000 in settlement (which has gone to pay plaintiff’s legal counsel). With respect to Maull and Lee, Judge Patricia Nieto denied Lee’s and Maull’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. After carefully weighing the evidence, Judge Nieto concluded in her ruling that Plaintiff’s evidence established that Maull and Lee had recklessly defamed the Homeowner. (Ruling at p. 7).

9. With respect to evaluating Ms. Lee’s credibility, in the defamation litigation referenced above, Ms. Lee pled the Fifth Amendment against Self Incrimination. Furthermore, Ms. Lee has refused to state on what basis she was entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.

10. On October 10, 2022, Ms. Cullinane states that she suffered a Second Frightening Verbal Assault from Ms. Lee. Ms. Cullinane states that she bumped into Ms. Lee at the gate after getting her mail. Ms. Lee said to Ms. Cullinane: “Peggy I love you and have always loved you.” I asked her "is this you wanting to apologize for screaming at me at the pool that I was evil, immoral and not normal?” She denied saying that and [instead] said I chased her in [to] the pool and she has a whole table of witnesses.” I then said “we need a grievance committee hearing to keep you away from me & to leave me alone.”

11. Ms. Cullinane asserts that she was verbally attacked and harassed by Ms. Lee. She immediately filed a written Grievance Form. Ms. Lee never replied with a written denial of Ms. Cullinane’s allegations. In response to Mr. Wright’s representations, Ms. Cullinane is neither a Defendant nor a Plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit filed against Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull by a WF Homeowner. Ms. Cullinane’s has no connection to the defamation lawsuit other than she happens to be resident at WF. Accordingly, the representation made by Mr. Wright was factually false.

12. Ms. Cullinane was effectively stone-walled by the referral of her Grievance to Len Siegel, Esq. The message to Ms. Cullinane was that Ms. Cullinane would have to retain and pay for her own attorney to pursue any relief against Ms. Lee. That left Ms. Cullinane the option of filing a costly lawsuit against WF or having her grievance being delayed indefinitely.

13. The referral to Len Siegel effectively increased the costs to the WF HOA and effectively left Ms. Cullinane without an effective remedy. The purpose of the WF Grievance committee is to resolve dispute in a cost effective manner, to WF and to both parties. Ms. Cullinane and the Board Minority repeatedly objected to referring WF matters to Len Siegel because of the
needless costs incurred.

14. "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.

15. Ms. Cullinane repeatedly spoke at WF HOA meetings about the facts of her Grievance against Ms. Lee and complained that the powers that controlled the WF HOA were preventing her Grievance from being heard.

16. Due to Ms. Cullinane’s own persistence, together with the complaints made by the Board Minority, a Grievance hearing was belated scheduled for March 20, 2023. Ms. Cullinane’s hearing was effectively delayed 6 months and 8 days (at total of 189 days) from the date she first filed her Grievance.

MS. LEE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS MS. CULLINANE WHO ASSAULTED HER AND THAT MS. CULLINANE CHASED HER AROUND THE WF POOL

17. Ms. Cullinane is a frail 77 years old woman. She suffers from a number of physical ailments. Ms. Cullinane has undergone one knee replacement surgery. Typically she will often use a walker or cane to ensure that she does not fall. Attached hereto as an Exhibit is a photograph of the walker that Ms. Cullinane often uses. Also included in the photograph is a cane that Ms.
Cullinane sometimes uses to avoid falling. The background shows the WF swimming pool where allegedly Ms. Cullinane chased Ms. Lee around.

18. Ms. Cullinane has an assigned parking space at WF. However, when she can, she parks her car on Overland Avenue in order to avoid climbing a set of 18 steps. She finds climbing those steps with her walker to be exhausting. Attached here as an Exhibit is a photograph of those 18 steps which Ms. Cullinane does her best to avoid.

19. In contrast to 77 year old Ms. Cullinane, Ms. Lee is 38 years of age, 39 years younger than Ms. Cullinane. Ms. Lee appears to be very physically fit as opposed to the evident physical frailty of Ms. Cullinane.

20. At the request of Ms. Cullinane, I attended her Grievance Hearing. However, I was not allowed to participate or to speak. At her Grievance Hearing, Ms. Cullinane confirmed the statements made in her Grievance forms quoted above.

21. Ms. Lee testified that it was 77 year old Ms. Cullinane that initiated the confrontation and that Ms. Cullinane verbally assaulted her. Ms. Lee further testified that Ms. Cullinane stuck her finger in Ms. Lee’s face and then “chased” Ms. Lee around the WF swimming pool (presumably in order to inflict physical injury upon Ms. Lee).

22. Ms. Lee’s testimony was supported by her two witnesses, Robin Perkins and Spencer Young (a non-resident and nephew of former Board Member Etta Lerner, a member of the Board Majority). Both also testified that it was a frail 77 year old Ms. Cullinane who verbally attacked and then chased Ms. Lee around the WF Swimming Pool (although Mr. Young admitted that he was too far away to hear clearly).

23. In my opinion, I find the testimony of Ms. Lee and her two witnesses to be completely unbelievable. Ms. Cullinane was not physically capable of chasing Ms. Lee around WF’s swimming pool. In my opinion, Ms. Lee could line up a hundred (100) witnesses to testify that Ms. Cullinane chased her around the WF swimming pool, and that would still not make any such
testimony credible or believable in the slightest.

24. A typical California jury instruction supports this conclusion. The jury instruction exhorts jurors to "use your common sense and experience in deciding whether testimony is true and accurate." See CACI 5009. Another jury instruction provides that if you believe any witness has willfully testified falsely as to any significant matter, you may disregard the entire testimony of such a witness.

MS. CULLINANE RIDICULES TESTIMONY OF MS. LEE AND ROBIN PERKINS

25. On March 27, 2023, at the WF Open Forum, Ms. Cullinane ridiculed the testimony given by Ms. Lee, Robin Perkins and Spencer Young at her Grievance Hearing. Their testimony as referenced above was that Ms. Cullinane first verbally attacked Ms. Lee and then physically chased Ms. Lee around the WF swimming pool. Ms. Cullinane found it absurd that anyone could testify that she had the physical ability to chase Ms. Lee around the WF swimming pool.

CULLINANE’S CAR WAS VANDALIZED BY BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA, A FELONY

26. California Penal Code § 594 PC defines the crime of vandalism as maliciously damaging, destroying or defacing someone else’s property. Vandalism is a felony if the damage is $400.00 or greater, and a misdemeanor if the damage is less than $400.00.

27. On April 1, 2023, less than five (5) days after her Grievance Hearing, Ms. Cullinane parked her car on the Windsor Fountains side of Overland Avenue, near the car entrance gate to WF. On the morning of April 1, 2023, Ms. Cullinane went to her car and discovered that her car’s rear window had been vandalized. Her rear window had suffered a “blunt force trauma” from person
or persons unknown. Surprisingly, the doors to her car remained locked. A photograph showing the damage to Ms. Cullinane’s rear windshield is attached hereto as an Exhibit.

28. No attempt had been made to enter her vehicle to look for something to steal. The glove compartment was not even opened. Most tellingly, no other cars parked on Overland had been vandalized.

29. Ms. Cullinane made a report to the CCPD and obtained an estimate of $1,200 for the replacement of her car’s rear window. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 594, the act of vandalism was a felony.

30. Question: Are these two events, Ms. Cullinane’s Grievance and associated Hearing against Jessica Lee and the vandalism of Ms. Cullinane’s car connected? You must be the judge of that. The first issue to consider is one of motivation. From her conduct discussed above, a reasonable person could conclude that Ms. Lee had the motivation to retaliate against Ms. Cullinane. The undisputed facts are that Ms. Cullinane had immediately filed her Grievance Forms against Ms. Lee, then she had complained loudly that she was being denied a Hearing on her Grievance, and despite that interference, she pressed forward in the face of obstacles that were intended prevent a Hearing from ever taking place. Notably, on her Grievance Form, Ms. Cullinane had stated: I FEEL HARASSED, INTIMIDATED AND AM FEARFUL OF HER.” (Emphasis added).

31. As discussed above, Ms. Lee had the motivation to testify to an absurd set of facts, namely that Ms. Cullinane chased her around the WF swimming pool. In my opinion, such testimony was a fairy tale that was an insult to a five year old’s intelligence. However, the larger insult was Ms. Lee’s belief that she could say such nonsense and then believe that she could “sell” such an absurd story to the WF community. In my opinion, that belief showed utter contempt for the intelligence of the members of our WF Community.

32. In civil matters, the Court applies the preponderance of evidence standard of proof (more likely than not). It is more likely than not if on the scales of justice, a grain of sand is placed on one side of the scale. Under this standard, in my opinion, a reasonable person could possibly find Ms. Lee liable for the vandalism of Ms. Cullinane’s car.

If you have any information concerning the vandalism of Ms. Cullinane’s car, please contact the Culver City Police Department.

This brief commentary is based upon my review of the relevant facts, my discussions with Ms. Cullinane, my attendance at the Cullinane Grievance Hearing, the California Jury Instructions and accordingly, the opinions expressed herein are mine alone. As mentioned above, you must arrive at your own conclusions.

PLEASE DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE FALSE RUMORS BEING SPREAD

VOTE FOR CHANGE BEFORE THE DEADLINE PASSES!

David Hayen, Esq.
Member, WF Board of Directors and Long Time WF Homeowner