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 efforts to influence Board composition. This post details the documentary evidence of a campaign driven not by community good, but by a personal agenda that appears to fall 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 accusation is contradicted by the Association's financial records. Specifically, a board member's own landscaping improvements were paid for out-of-pocket after a documented and difficult approval process and their home was not part of the recent HOA-funded project. Crucially, written correspondence confirms that Management explicitly informed Alvin Lin on November 12—four days prior to his post—that the project was paid for entirely by the homeowner. Despite this direct knowledge, he proceeded to publish the false accusation of "enrichment" on November 16.

• The Contradiction: Alvin Lin subsequently admitted in a separate post that the project was approved by a voting majority of the Board—an admission that directly undermines his own narrative of theft or embezzlement.

2. The Accusation of "Obstruction" & The "Censorship" Falsehood

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 presented with the facts, yet he continues to restrict the Director's 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 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 "Invisible" Accusation (The Block): Crucially, Alvin Lin did not just suspend the Director's posting privileges; he also blocked the Director's personal profile.

  • The Effect: This action rendered the entire discussion thread—including Alvin Lin's public announcement of the suspension and the false reasons provided—invisible to the Director.

  • The Strategic Impact: By blocking the accused, Alvin Lin effectively conducted a "trial in absentia." He broadcast accusations and punishments to the neighborhood while ensuring the target of those accusations was physically prevented from seeing them, let alone responding to them. This goes beyond "moderation" and constitutes a calculated effort to manipulate the community narrative without fear of fact-checking.

• The Silent Edit: 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 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.

4. Documented Efforts 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 raises a potential 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 appears to be 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.

• The Context (Compelled Disclosure): It is important to note why this private correspondence occurred. The resident was compelled to contact Alvin Lin privately to correct his false public accusation of "enrichment" (detailed in Section 1). To refute the claim of financial impropriety, the resident was forced to disclose the private nature of the project (a Disability Accommodation paid for out-of-pocket).

• Hostility Toward Disability Rights & Aggressive Medical Interrogation: Instead of accepting the clarification that the project was paid for out-of-pocket, Alvin Lin escalated his rhetoric into an aggressive interrogation of the resident's medical needs. In written messages, he demanded to know why the accommodation was necessary now when it wasn't "an issue for the first 5 years"—displaying a fundamental ignorance of how medical conditions progress and change over time.

  This lack of empathy and understanding is particularly shocking given his professional background as a Vice President in the biotech/therapeutics industry, where understanding patient needs and disease progression is a core competency.

  Rather than acknowledging the validity of the accommodation, he explicitly characterized the resident’s legal exercise of civil rights protections as "coercion" (writing: "initially coerced via disability argument"). He further attempted to relitigate the medical necessity of the improvement, demanding to know "Why is a new grass yard... a necessary accommodation?"—questions that the Board had already settled in compliance with both the CC&Rs and the law. This behavior transforms a governance discussion into discriminatory harassment, questioning the legitimacy of a neighbor's disability status simply because it inconveniences his narrative.

• The Legal 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 Disconnect: 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, falsely accusing colleagues of "enrichment" (theft) is a grave lapse in judgment.

  • Democratic Principles: Using administrative privileges to manipulate an election or silence opposition ("easily do so... as the admin") runs contrary to 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 appears to be a personal agenda disguised as community service.

• A neutral Admin does not accuse volunteers of 'enrichment' (theft) days after being explicitly informed by Management that no HOA funds were used.

• A neutral Admin does not refuse to show evidence of rule violations.

• A neutral Admin does not control the narrative by deleting their own 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 block a resident personally to blind them, then proceed to publish false reasons for their suspension while they are physically unable to see or refute them.

• A neutral Admin does not use their group administrative power to attempt to "easily" remove seated 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.

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

• Right to Advocate (24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(1)): It is a violation of federal law to retaliate against any person because they have opposed a discriminatory practice. Suspending a resident from a community forum who spoke up to correct false statements regarding a disability accommodation could constitute unlawful retaliation against protected advocacy.

• California FEHA (Gov. Code § 12955.7): Explicitly makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any housing right. Under California law, characterizing a resident's valid request for disability accommodation as "coercion" may constitute discriminatory interference.

• 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.