False Accusations, Censorship, and Documented Election Interference Efforts by Group Admin Alvin Lin

Date: Nov 20, 2025 Category: Association Governance / Community Trust

Summary: A healthy community requires open dialogue. Recently, however, the primary online forum for Radius at Whisman Station HOA residents in Mountain View CA has been compromised. Alvin Lin, the Admin of the community Facebook group—who also serves professionally as a Vice President of Commercial Strategy for a publicly traded biotech company—has engaged in a pattern of censorship, unsubstantiated accusations of corruption, and documented election interference efforts. This post details the documentary evidence of a campaign driven not by community good, but by a personal vendetta that falls far short of the ethical standards expected of a senior corporate leader.

1. The Accusation of Corruption ("Enrichment") The most serious and damaging accusation made by Group Admin Alvin Lin is that the current Board has committed a crime.

• The Accusation: In a written public comment, Alvin Lin explicitly stated: "...it is disappointing that 3 Radius board members... decided to enrich their front yards using community HOA funds."

• The Fact: This is a false accusation of embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty. A Director has confirmed on the Facebook group that he has never received a single cent of Association funds for personal gain. Specifically, his own landscaping improvements were paid for out-of-pocket after much documented-difficulty with the board and his home was not part of the recent 10-home HOA-funded project. HOA records show that Alvin Lin was aware of this fact even before his post. He was also made aware after his post.

• The Malice: Alvin Lin subsequently admitted in a separate post that the project was approved by a voting majority of the Board (which contradicts the narrative of theft).

2. The Accusation of "Obstruction" & The "Censorship" Lie: Alvin Lin has repeatedly accused a Director of "obstructing the truth" and "censoring" meeting minutes.

• The Accusation: Alvin Lin posted that the Director cites "legalese to justify lack of transparency" and accused him of "censoring" open forum comments.

• The Fact: The "legalese" cited was the California Civil Code. Compliance with State Law is not "obstruction." Furthermore, under Robert's Rules of Order, official minutes are a record of actions taken, not a verbatim transcript of every word spoken. Omitting a transcript is standard governance practice, not censorship. Finally, Management writes the minutes, not individual Directors. Accusing a Director of "censoring" records they do not author is factually impossible.

• The Retreat: Notably, Alvin Lin subsequently deleted his specific comment accusing the Director of "censorship" after being confronted with the facts, yet he continues to punish the Director for defending himself against that very lie by pausing his ability to post on the group.

3. The Silencing (Denial of Due Process) When a community member attempted to correct these factual inaccuracies, he was not met with debate—he was silenced.

• The Act: The community member's posting privileges were suspended multiple times by Alvin Lin, with the final suspension being issued for allegedly "calling out board members who are not present to defend themselves."

• Statutory Concerns: Under California Civil Code § 4515(b)(6), homeowners have a protected right to use social media to discuss "issues of concern to members" and "association governance." By suspending a member specifically for correcting misinformation regarding Board operations and clarifying governance facts, there are serious concerns that Alvin Lin is actively interfering with this statutory right.

• The One-Way Street: This suspension reveals a double standard: Alvin Lin permits himself to publicly accuse Board members of "enrichment" and "obstruction," but when those members respond with facts, he deletes their comments and suspends their accounts. This creates a one-way communication channel where accusations are broadcast, but defenses are banned.

• The Cover-Up: Alvin Lin initially posted publicly about the suspension citing reasons such as "obstructing the truth" and "cited legalese" but notably, he only did so after the community member explicitly requested transparency regarding their forced silence. Later, when another Admin restored the member's access, Alvin Lin edited his post to remove the mention of the suspension, effectively hiding the evidence of his censorship from the community view.

• The Unsubstantiated & Unilateral Action: After the final suspension, the community member contacted the Admin team requesting evidence of the specific post that violated group rules. To date, the Admin team has failed to provide any proof or identify a specific violation. Furthermore, while Alvin Lin announced to the community that his decision was "in alignment with the admins," another Group Admin—who had previously intervened to restore access—confirmed that they did not participate in this new suspension decision. This contradiction suggests that Alvin Lin acted unilaterally to silence the member, bypassing both the evidence requirement and his own moderation team to execute a personal decision.

4. Documented Intent to Influence Board Composition Written correspondence sent by Alvin Lin to HOA Management reveals a specific intent to utilize Facebook Admin privileges to influence Board composition. This establishes a clear conflict of interest regarding his moderation decisions.

• The Email: In an email, Alvin Lin wrote: "there is 1 specific toxic board member who I am passionate to have removed and can easily do so with some effort as the admin for our community's Facebook group."

• The Implication: This statement reveals that Alvin Lin is not acting as a neutral moderator. He is leveraging the community group to facilitate a political campaign. By silencing the Director ("the effort"), he is engineering an unfair environment where false accusations can spread without challenge or correction.

5. The Ethical Disconnect: Corporate Standards vs. Community Conduct Alvin Lin holds a senior leadership position at a publicly traded biotech company, an industry dedicated to patient health and medical needs. One would expect a Vice President in this sector to respect the rights of individuals with disabilities.

• Hostility Toward Disability Rights: In private correspondence regarding a resident’s request for a disability accommodation, Alvin Lin characterized the legal request as "coercion" (writing: "initially coerced via disability argument").

  • The Concern: Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and FEHA, labeling a disabled resident's exercise of their civil rights as "coercion" is not only factually incorrect, but it raises serious legal concerns regarding interference and the creation of a hostile housing environment.

  • The Hypocrisy: Describing the use of disability protection laws as a weapon ("coercion") displays a troubling lack of empathy and professional judgment for an executive in the healthcare sector.

• Integrity Gap: In the corporate world, accusing colleagues of "enrichment" (theft) without evidence is a grave lapse in judgment.

• Democratic Principles: Using administrative privileges to manipulate an election or silence opposition ("easily do so... as the admin") violates the basic principles of fair dealing that public companies uphold.

• The Question: We should expect the same professional standard of ethics in our neighborhood that is required in the boardroom—not a suspension of the rules to settle personal scores.

Conclusion The evidence paints a clear picture: This is not about "transparency" or "civility." It is a personal vendetta disguised as community service.

• A neutral Admin does not accuse volunteers of "enrichment" without proof.
• A neutral Admin does not refuse to show evidence of rule violations.
• A neutral Admin does not control the narrative by deleting their posts which have factual replies simply because it does not align with the narrative they want the community to hear.
• A neutral Admin does not boast about using their power to "easily" remove elected representatives.

Most importantly, a healthy community requires dialogue. By deleting factual corrections and suspending those who disagree, Alvin Lin has replaced democracy with autocracy, ensuring that only his narrative remains visible. Homeowners deserve a forum run with integrity, not one manipulated to settle personal scores. This site will continue to ensure the facts remain available as long as the primary platform is rigged to hide them.

Legal Authority for this Disclosure:

• California Civil Code § 4515: Protects the rights of members to communicate about association governance.

• Truth as Defense: The statements above are factual and supported by documentary evidence.

• Protected Opinion: The commentary regarding ethical standards constitutes "fair comment" on a matter of public interest regarding a public figure within the Association.

• Anti-SLAPP Protection (CCP § 425.16): This report concerns "issues of public interest" made in a "public forum," which are protected activity under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.

• Fair Housing Act (24 CFR § 100.400): Prohibits interference, coercion, or intimidation against any person for exercising their right to request a disability accommodation.