Wife Retaliation Confirmed: Group Admin Alvin Lin Expands Plan to "Influence" Elections; Group Moderator Jonathan Lee Complicit

Date: January 17, 2026 Category: Governance, Civil Rights

COMMUNITY ALERT: GOVERNANCE, DISCRIMINATION & LIABILITY

POLITICAL RETALIATION HAS ARRIVED AT RADIUS.

 Is Our "Official" Town Square Being Weaponized Against Families?

The abuse of power in our community has taken a disturbing turn. What began as a legitimate debate over governance and transparency has devolved into personal retaliation, and now, the targeting of families and active attempts to hide evidence.

This is particularly disheartening given the Board President’s successful initiative to centralize our neighborhood communication on Facebook. Because of his official nomination letter designating the Facebook group as our primary hub, it has effectively become the essential venue for discussing Association business and community matters and for community assembly.

However, recent actions suggest that this "Official Hub" is now being operated as a political weapon.

1. The Documented Admission: Intent to Interfere

As reported earlier, Group Admin Alvin Lin explicitly admitted to using his admin powers to influence Association governance.

In an email sent directly to HOA Management, Group Admin Alvin Lin stated:

"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."

This is a direct admission of an intent to interfere with the democratic process. The Admin is confessing that he views the group not as a social gathering, but as a mechanism to unseat seated Board Directors he dislikes.

2. Complicity: Jonathan Lee Was Warned

Election interference concerns are not new—they are a matter of record.

Moderator Jonathan Lee cannot claim ignorance. He was explicitly notified of this conflict in writing on November 19 and 20, 2025.

• He received specific citations regarding Civil Code § 4515.

• He was provided with direct quotes of Group Admin Alvin Lin’s written intent to "weaponize" the group for political removal.

The Choice: By choosing to ignore these formal notices and instead target the whistleblower who documented them, Jonathan Lee appears to have chosen to remain complicit in the interference. He is effectively signaling his support for Alvin Lin's political agenda and the active suppression of member rights.

Given this prior knowledge, his current effort to target the authors of this blog and now the wife of a Director appears to be a calculated act of retaliation rather than unbiased moderation.

3. The Cover-Up: Changing the URL

On January 12-13, following the sudden ban of the Director's wife and immediately after the Admins were reminded that the Board President’s official letter explicitly directed the membership to "join the neighborhood community group" on Facebook—ranking it as the very first priority (Item #1), even above enrolling in official email statements from HOA management (Item #2), and capitalizing on the President's efforts to build our community group's membership—they took drastic action

They changed the group’s Facebook web address.

Why does this matter?

• Constructive Knowledge: If the group were truly private, the President's letter would be irrelevant. By scrambling to change the URL, the Admins effectively admitted their "private club" narrative had collapsed. It appears they realized the President's letter exposed their attempted pivot as a sham, confirming the group as a "De Facto" public asset with a documented legal obligation to allow open access. They could no longer deny that the group’s active membership exists today largely because of the President's official efforts to centralize the neighborhood.

• Spoliation of Evidence: They attempted to break the evidentiary link between the "Official Letter" and the "Facebook Group."

• It Does Not Absolve Them: Changing the sign on the door does not change the nature of the building. For years, the Association, the members of the Board, and the HOA's members directed residents to this specific community hub. Altering the URL after the fact does not erase the "De Facto" authority established by the Board President and relied upon by the residents.

• Confirmed by the Admin: Furthermore, Group Admin Alvin Lin’s own admission—that he can use the group to "remove" a Board Director—confirms that even he recognizes the group functions as a governance tool, not a private social club. You cannot claim a group is "private" while simultaneously boasting that it gives you the power to overthrow the government.

4. The New Low: Targeting a Wife

Since the Group Admins cannot legally remove a duly seated Director, they have resorted to a darker tactic: targeting the Director's family.

This week, the wife of the referenced Director—a titled homeowner who rarely posts and has never violated a single community rule—was banned and blocked from the group without notice or cause.

The "Stonewall" Confirmation: Following the ban, the homeowner attempted to resolve the matter amicably. She reached out to multiple Administrators, specifically including Jonathan Lee, not to demand explanations, but simply to ask whether the removal was a mistake and request to be added back.

She received zero response.

This silence is deafening.

• If this were a mistake, they would have simply replied to her polite inquiry.

• By refusing to even acknowledge a neighbor who gave them the benefit of the doubt, Jonathan Lee and the Admin team have effectively confirmed the intent. Their refusal to engage suggests this is a deliberate, coordinated act of exclusion rather than a moderation error.

Why ban a wife who rarely posts and simply wants to stay connected to her community?

• To Inflict Distress: It appears to be a psychological attack designed to harass the Director by isolating his family—creating a forced "out of sight, out of mind" erasure intended to make the community forget they exist, or to manufacture the false impression that the family no longer desires to be connected to the neighborhood.

• To Sever Communication: It cuts off the household's access to the venue the President designated for community assembly and for news.

• To Control the Narrative: By removing the witnesses, they ensure that false claims posted in the group can circulate without challenge or correction from the affected family.

The Conclusion

The Board President succeeded in driving the community to this platform. The group’s active membership exists today largely because of the President's official efforts to centralize the neighborhood. Residents relied on that designation.

Legal liability is mounting for the entire community due to the conduct of leaders like Alvin Lin and Jonathan Lee. Every day this discriminatory conduct continues, the Association’s exposure to State and Federal regulatory penalties and civil rights lawsuits increases.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot capitalize on the Association's official mandate to build your membership, then ban a Director's wife and change the URL when you want to play politics.

To the Admins and the Board: The cover-up is documented. Restore access to all titled owners immediately.

---

A Note on Martin Luther King Jr. Day

As we publish this on Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend, we are reminded that justice is not a passive state—it is an active duty. Dr. King famously taught us that "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

While an HOA governance crisis is a small stage, the principles at stake—equity, fair housing, and the right to assemble without fear of retaliation—are the bedrock of a just community. When we allow neighbors to be silenced, 'official' channels to be manipulated, and families to be targeted for political gain, we erode the very foundations of justice.

In the spirit of this holiday, we refuse to be silent. We ask our community group's Admin team to do the same: honor the law, restore access, and treat every neighbor with the dignity and equity they deserve.

---

Legal Authority for this Disclosure

California Civil Code § 4515 (Right to Assemble & Social Media): Protects the rights of members to communicate about "association governance," "issues of concern," and "election of directors" via social media or other common channels. Banning a member or their household to prevent them from viewing or participating in these discussions may constitute a violation of state law.

California FEHA (Gov. Code § 12955 - Marital Status Discrimination): The Fair Employment and Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against or harass any person in the provision of housing services or facilities based on marital status. Denying a titled owner access to a community forum solely because of their marriage to a Board Director may constitute discriminatory conduct.

California FEHA (Gov. Code § 12955.7 - Interference & Right to Advocacy): It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise of any housing right. Removing a Director’s spouse from a designated information hub to punish the Director for their governance advocacy is a form of prohibited interference with the household’s enjoyment of the property.

Federal Fair Housing Act (24 C.F.R. § 100.400 - Retaliation & Advocacy): Federal regulations state that it is unlawful to retaliate against any person because they have opposed a discriminatory housing practice or advocated for fair governance. Targeting the family members of a resident who exercises their legal rights is a recognized form of retaliation under federal guidelines.

Federal Fair Housing Act (24 C.F.R. § 100.65 - Discrimination in Terms & Conditions): It is unlawful to impose different terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the sale or rental of a dwelling, or to deny or limit services or facilities in connection therewith, because of disability or familial status. Selectively blocking specific households from community forums creates a discriminatory disparity in services.

Anti-SLAPP Protection (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16): California law protects individuals from meritless lawsuits filed to chill the exercise of free speech on "issues of public interest." This may include speech regarding HOA governance, election integrity, misgovernance of Board Directors, and the conduct of individuals holding positions of influence within the community.