An open letter to
Jonathan S. Altman
and
Charles S. Altman

Last update Open Letter (now locked) 02.19.2026 19:49.8264

Last update FAQs 02.23.2026 23:53.8723

• Curious? Read the Open Letter FAQs

Comment by Chris McNeil
To: Charles and Jonathan Altman (but all are welcome)
February 19, 2026

Mr. Altman and Mr. Altman,

I’ve spent five months testing, observing, and recording the Housing Justice System's response to the Most Vulnerable Member (MVM) asking it for justice. Ahead of that, I spent some years asking your Rental Housing aspect of the system for simple fairness, decency, honesty, and accountability.

How do you think your system is performing? Do you consider it well-designed or could it use some work? If the latter, I have good news in that I've studied it enough and gained enough system knowledge that it is now time for System impact.

It needs it, wouldn't you agree? From the end-user point of view, it's a pretty broken system. Sure, it's a big job, but I am up for it.

What if, instead of being adversaries across the table in a lawsuit, we stepped back and observed the system together, like we are uninvolved and also highly trained observers. While we are watching, by the way, there's actually a system intervention currently going on in the form of a Countdown that ends at Noon February 20, 2026.

We will get back to that. I consider it a pretty elegant intervention and I hope you see the higher purpose of it later if you can't see it now. Or, maybe, stepping back as the observer, you can now?

Let's look at things together with that in mind. While we are together observing, let's consider that systems thinking states that you have to observe a system's behavior to know its purpose. There's a slightly awkward acronym for that, actually, from British management consultant Stafford Beer:

POSIWID = the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. If you can accept that observation from a man named Beer, what do you think is the purpose of the rental property system that you fund?

From my point of view, there is zero ambiguity. The system responds with harm. It doesn’t just deny value; it punishes the attempt to access it. That seems kind of odd to me. It's like a coke machine that takes your 2 dollars and, instead of providing a cola, it opens a trap door and the customer drops into a pit of alligators.

How bad does the supply and demand situation have to be for people to keep paying for that? Since it is a trend in housing, apparently, why not apply it elsewhere, since it works so well to hurt your customer in exchange for their pulls for value? We could start a vending machine business and start putting these in front of every electric car recharging station, for instance.

The only problem is the repeat business and referrals probably won't be up to standard.

And, of course, the word might get out.Like it is now. Stay with me and I'll get to that point.

Is that analogy even far from the truth of the system your current unconscious abdication mental model creates? It isn't even a stretch. While we are watching the system together, let's suspend the perceptual distortions of the commitment of long term contracts, the time lags created for downstream pushback from poor service to catch up, the high cost of switching providers, and the fact that shelter is a primary, basic human need. Those factors make a core systemic truth harder to notice, but they don't erase it: The end-user sets the value of the service, so only by designing it from their point of view can you fully maximize profits and flush out waste. It is also true in housing, but it takes stepping back enough to see the patterns.

Given that, and Beer's insight, lets consider this housing system's purpose:

The purpose of this system is to hurt the end user to prevent them from accessing value.

Is it really an odd question to ask Who the hell came up with this? I mean, sure, it's a brilliant piece of design work except I can't maintain that level of high sarcasm when I've experienced the suffering of asking it at high enough level that it returned a nervous breakdown I am still recovering from. But did you genuinely believe a business model based on the premise Exploit the powerless because they can’t fight back would be robust? That it could weather exposure?

Or could you really be that insulated that you both really don't know how all this looks now?

Let's test that insulation theory: Ask your counsel a few simple questions. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Test their awareness against this data:

The Countdown

• Google AI

• Perplexity

The home at 181 Gordon Street.

• Google AI

• Perplexity

Now that you've done that, how close is your counsel to reality?

Now let's look at one possible future together.

Conscious Co-Stewardship

• Google AI

• Perplexity

Profitability of CCS.

• Google AI

• Perplexity

Speaking of reality, is this statement true or false?

A system designed to punish its own customers for asking for what they paid for isn’t just cruel; it is structurally suicidal. It relies entirely on the invisibility of that punishment. The moment the harm becomes visible, the loop breaks, and the business built on it becomes uninsurable and socially toxic.

Continuing with the reality part, I have been radically transparent about my intervention: using STL Schema and the Housing Justice Audit to make the ‘Ask ↔ Harm’ loop visible and costly simply to bring the pain that the mental model of unconscious abdication creates - in yourself and others - into your consciousness enough that you are ready to let it go ... in favor of something better.

After all, it isn't who you are, it's just a mental model.

I’ve published the countdown, as well as sharing the basics of both the methodology and the technology that powers it.

What is your systemic intervention? I have an idea for you if you aren't 100% clear on what that is yet. Hang on just a bit and I will get to it.

First, I was going to add another mitigating loop to that model that conveys how repairing broken communication loops with amplified public visibility mitigates against the harm to the asker of justice ... one that requires some unpacking of how role-based Status-Bias significantly degrades performance and how Expert-Based Status can do a "status swap" at a "reveal event" but I am tired and you probably don't want to read all that. BUT, since I already created a model for you, here is what role-based status bias does to performance. Click "ask for justice" up. Feel free to play with the variables ... more of this, less of that. .

Now I think you see that rabbit hole can keep getting deeper and if you have tried the models you get my point. So now for the idea. Remember the basic 2 circle loop our system study discovered?

Here's the idea: what if you designed your system to respond with help instead of harm? How would that make things different?

Why would you not want that system design instead of what you have? That is my question for you. I want that for you because it helps you too.

To be clear, I am not trying to make you change your mental model to get you to pay a settlement.

I am leveraging you paying a settlement to help you change your mental model. And inspire others to. It will be good for the housing experience for everyone involved.

Do you understand the difference?

Shelter is basic to life. It's not about money.

Chris McNeil

February 19, 2026

Comment by Chris McNeil
To: Charles and Jonathan Altman (but all are welcome)
February 13, 2026

Mr. Altman and Mr. Altman,

First of all, as much as I have dealt with as a result of engaging your Housing Justice Machine to study how it responds to the most vulnerable System Members asking it for simple justice for clear wrongdoing, I still respect that you at least showed up at the scheduling hearing with Judge Van Slambrook Monday and faced me, the man who you hurt, and my wife, Meaghan, who you also hurt. Rocket couldn't make it. He has not been doing well lately. Maybe it has to do with him having a hard time adapting to a new environment while blind and while his people are spread thin battling your machine. He likely doesn't have much time left and I hurt that I can't give him more time now. But, moving along ...

I don't know your intentions in being there, whether it was to try to intimidate me (no chance), or maybe to to see if you have been informed correctly about who this person is who is suing your SAC 181 LLC and prying apart the veil to your portfolio, and if your agents have been honest with you about their characterizations of him and the case.

Have they been? Were you adequately informed of the exposure you now face?

That's the thing about insulation, if you insulate from the heat, you might also be insulating from the truth. Oh, yeah, a check into the insulation at 181 Gordon Street is one of the safety factors we were so rude to ask for - in the middle of good faith lease negotiations - 6 days before we received that "Ghost Notice to Vacate" out of the blue - the one that put us moving in a heat wave where we collapsed and all that.

We didn't realize at the time that our personal images were plastered all over the internet, even though I have yet to see one other Meridian Residential Group, LLC unit advertised with tenants and their belongings in the images. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was done to mock us, perhaps at the dignity insult of our older dog in diapers.

Do you think you entrusted the stewardship of the shelter your tenants' life stories play out in to the right property manager?

Maybe or maybe not, but I suspect you got some truth Monday morning February 9, 2026 when you finally faced me - truth that maybe you weren't fully prepared for, if I am not giving you too much credit for human empathy.

I don't think I am giving you too much credit, though. I actually think both of you have a good side - the Philanthropy that gives me hope that you can change your thinking when you see you are holding onto an old model that hurts people. I wouldn't waste my virtual breath otherwise.

More on that in another update coming as soon as I finish a critical report. You might be the first to know. For now, you can get an advance preview of some of my findings in the revelation I am about to reveal as this system's next balancing loop.

But, for now, let's go deeper into that concept of "insulation" and how societies of ye olden days dealt with it ...

My thought is that, if you are so insulated that you aren't feeling serious heat on your entire portfolio now, in addition to other types of exposure, you need a court jester who will tell you the truth, like in medieval times - or like stage jester George Carlin did for large audiences more recently.

He might say,

Sire, the peasant tenant Expert Witness and Systems Thinking plus Strategic Thought Leadership Consultant was also an inventor who was building a paradigm change machine and your landscaper ran over it with his tractor, because you didn't screen your landscapers, remember? You just picked the cheapest one.

But the inventor had concocted a truth serum - not truth like not lying, but truth like systemic truth. If you drink it, you see systemic truth, which is how you know what a better paradigm is. Which is what his invention - Strategic Thought Leadership - creates.

Well, the tractor broke the vat, it got into the water supply, and you've been drinking it! Now you cannot unsee the systemic truth that the passive inventing ::cough:: unconscious abdication mental model you have adopted for housing hurts people and wastes money both! Just a little sunlight and it shrinks away like a vampire.

But that's not all - the truth serum also has been drank by all the townsfolk and now they see the systemic truth of the check you have to write to the peasant to make things right because your harm machine kept compounding harm on him.

Every day you wait, that check grows larger and you look more desperate instead of conscious, because if you were conscious you would see his mission and know that the money will largely be used to help others by preventing them from being hurt like his family was.

Not by punishing bad landlords although a good system does that by its nature, but by leading more people like you to adopt conscious co-stewardship. Your money supports that mission and so does your adopting it yourselves.

This is called redemption. Take it.

And that would make all the pain worthwhile to the peasant (oops, that costly mistake of hiring lawyers susceptible to status bias - it demonstrably decreases performance), because it will help set a trend.

Thanks, Court Jester, your input is appreciated. Now, Mr. Altman and Mr. Altman, back to our gradually unfurling Systems Story.

In my prior update a week ago, I showed you how I improved the system by adding the harm-mitigating balancing structure of publicly visible, well organized evidence per investigating agency. I also promised "there's another balancing loop we have already put largely into place that you don't know about yet and that I will share with you here soon".

We will get to that soon.

But, let's first summarize where we are, as a system.

For a baseline, we'll revisit the 2-bubble "asking for justice at high level" = "harm" = "ask at yet higher level", the viscous cycle that triggered a nervous breakdown and 76/80 PCL-5 PTSD score

In my comment to you a week ago, I then walked through showing how your system's harm to me is mitigated through defense exposure, with the extra loop of counts against defendants being publicly visible, indexed per agency, and with the evidence also being clearly visible to anyone on this website. It was a restorative balancing loop that accounted for and corrected a potential broken loop of the friction such agencies encounter when they investigate. Know what I mean by that?

You don't need to trust memory on that ...

When you play that loop above (just click the up button on "ask for justice"), notice how the harm is lessened. Harm = exposure and that threat lessens motivation for harm. Elegant, isn't it?

Now, for that additional balancing loop that I had promised:

What if a certain level of harm to me automatically triggered extra resources?

• Additional lead Plaintiffs ready to take my place, with all the documentation well organized at their fingertips, already 2 deep.
• A Law Firm on standby, ready to take over at a pre-determined harm level, or at a triggering event, like one more DARVO tactic from your legal team. Or, a filing that added new parties to the suit.

Now, as your agents harm me at a higher level, it automatically triggers new resources. Take a look at the new Law Firm Partnership Page.

• To The Firm That Sees the System

This firm will be on standby and ready to enter the case. We will leave the Law Firm Partnership Page live until that happens, so you won't know when we are ready or what we have prepared, or who we are prepared to introduce to the case.

But when you escalate harm, you can count on new resources entering, so you are really just escalating your own exposure. Again.

I'm not going to make another diagram now because they get hard to follow when there are alot of circles. BUT ....

Imagine both of those balancing loops running together:

1. Your machine's ability to increases Plaintiff harm is mitigated by raising awareness of the harm to Plaintiffs, so the public and the investigators see and the latter can't credibly ignore the evidence tables, and
2. The Plaintiff System responds to escalating harm by triggering new resources, so you can't get rid of the case by incapacitating me anymore.

Feel free to model out that possibility yourselves.

Chris McNeil

February 13, 2026

Comment by Chris McNeil
To: Charles and Jonathan Altman (but all are welcome)
February 6, 2026

Mr. Altman and Mr. Altman,

I planned to write you again sooner, but I am running below my normal mental capacity now.

You have taken something very basic from me.

This unconscious abdication model you operate your properties with has now created compounding multiplication of the original harms of the alleged retaliatory eviction in a heat wave, where my wife and I both collapsed in exhaustion multiple times, my witnessing the trauma of our poor dog when he was forced from an environment set up for his blindness, and the humiliation, shock, and trauma of your agents mass syndicating images of our private lives over at least 25 websites for nearly 3 months without our knowledge or consent.

Not to mention it temporarily destroyed the paradigm machine I call Strategic Thought Leadership right at a critical moment. Podcast, silent for over 6 months now after having just crossed 100 episodes. My work on building ways to use AI training to propagate helpful new models of thinking, flattened. More on that another time, but first reflect on this:

Did you know that gaslighting by pretending traumas didn't happen causes reliving of the trauma for the sake of hanging on to your own reality? In my case, it was multiple times with multiple people coordinating the same false story for months, with no external and human validation of truth in the litigation context until my wife Meaghan stepped in and called out O'Brien and Bolyard.

She wrote, "I see what you are doing."

And so did I. I have some pretty good mental skills, so what they did would impact anybody, so if you think it means I am weak or that you have "won", well ...

... you might want to read the rest of this.

Still, things take longer. And I don't feel "right".

How did we get here?

Your lawyers couldn't beat me on the merits and they couldn't out-litigate me.

But their egos wouldn't let them concede defeat to a "non-lawyer", so they instead directed their energy towards personally harming me with a harassment and gaslighting campaign because it was the only chance they had.

I am not malicious but I am going to make a public example out of all of you that helps prevent this from happening to others in the future. This is not right. We need systemic change.

Your stubbornness is almost admirable, like a potato has to be so hot that you have permanent scars before you'll admit you can't hang on to it anymore.

Think about what you are "winning" by avoiding just changing your mental model for property ownership to conscious co-stewardship. What are you really gaining by failing to recognize it is a social system, and treat it as such? It's not a mechanical system, that's a systemic truth, so you can't manage it like a machine.

Social systems are managed with alignment, relationships, reciprocal good will.

Is that really too much to handle? Or are you starting to see, hear, and feel that the hot potato of the unconscious abdication model (AKA the buried assumptions beneath "passive investment") is not worth holding onto any longer?

In case that point isn't enough, and I suspect it isn't, let me give you some other reasons by showing you how I have been working on the system.

You know that simple 2-bubble "asking for justice at high level" = "harm" = "ask at yet higher level" ... a viscous cycle that nearly broke my mind?

Humans are capable of counting above the number two, though, and all reinforcing loops eventually hit a balancing loop. Eventually a rolling snowball runs out of incline and gravity, getting slowed in its growth and speed by heat, or a flatter terrain.

But since you and your agents' conscience isn't acting as a balancing loop well enough to deescalate the harassment and gaslighting in time to prevent me from actually having a nervous breakdown due to it - after 3 months of coordinated, multi-party trauma-compounding gaslighting ...

... and because I'm not interested in my well-being continuing to be the fuse that breaks ...

I am redesigning the system.

I hope you don't mind. But it won't stop me if you do.

For example,

A better balancing loop that you might already be noticing is that escalating harm visibly to a pro se tenant plaintiff standing on his own simply to assert his right to safe, stable shelter for he and his wife actually increases defense exposure: for both you and your agents. What a great deterrent, right?

Except ... What if a loop is broken? What if a regulatory agency or law enforcement agency has too much friction on the way to asserting justice? We know this friction can take many forms. Or what if there isn't enough public accountability and awareness?

Then the loop can be broken. And the harm can continue at a higher level, unfortunately.

That is why I am bolstering the system with an accountability and awareness tool that both assists enforcers by reducing friction with organized evidence and raises public awareness to serve their mission through higher public accountability as well.

Before I share what I did, please

Before reading further, please go back and click open the 4 interactive causal loop diagrams, in sequence, if you have not done so.

If your conscience hasn’t been enough to slow this down, perhaps your risk management will be.

Click here to see the beginning of an online evidence access matrix for CP-2025-10-05095.

• One page per entity.
• Starting with the central actor in the system
• Tara Bayles.
• A work in progress with much more to come.

Do you notice how this visibility and amplification helps the system self-regulate?

And you can toggle the "exposure" circle up and get a sense of how powerful mass awareness through Strategic Thought Leadership Schema is - training AI and search results to reflect a better mental model back to literally change paradigms.

Sunshine is a great disinfectant, right? Bad actors are less likely to behave badly with everyone watching, too, and the evidence awareness is a deterrent that is a helpful systemic correction we can all see is needed in secure housing for the vulnerable.

And in peace of mind for conflicted investors. My "Audience Attunement" listening research found a common thread in certain rental property investors where they realized the passive investing (unconscious abdication) model was harmful, but felt they had to adopt it to make money. They don't and my original open letter below links to UK housing studies that show wastes are reduced and profits increased when you design from the end user - the tenant - point of view.

Wouldn't it be nice to heal your inner conflict and escape with your reputation largely intact, as well as stopping the escalation of portfolio risk?

Maybe that's enough to sway you. If not, there's another balancing loop we have already put largely into place that you don't know about yet and that I will share with you here soon.

In the meantime, please consider:

There are two paths forward from here.

Path one: We continue adding evidence pages. Tara Bayles is first. Others follow. Every entity in our matrix gets its own page, its own regulatory connection, its own public accountability record. And that's just one kind of balancing loop that rebalances power in this system. Many more are coming.

Path two: Or, you choose differently. The Conscious Co-Stewardship model exists. Has the pain of the old model gotten to be too much yet? How much can you take?

That's a question I have asked of myself lately, too

The choice has been available this whole time. The longer you wait, the more it will appear you only made things right because you were forced to. Reputation capital is draining.

Chris McNeil

February 6, 2026

Original Open Letter Below, as of January 30, 2026

Mr. Altman and Mr. Altman,

We have an interesting system going on here. I have decided to change the system of housing for the better because I discovered our suffering is systemic and I thought, “that’s something I can make a difference in.”

The way I know to help points to the need to study the system from the end user - in this case, the vulnerable tenants' - point of view. To get as much range of benefit, it should include vulnerable tenants who could not afford lawyers when their housing rights are disregarded, so they have to go to court on their own behalf.

So I have done all this myself, as they would have to, without an attorney. Jonathan and Charles, if you think I had to take this case on pro se because I couldn't get an attorney to take it, you should consider how many attorneys I spoke with about it before taking it on: zero.

This kind of systems study, which I learned largely from my friend John Seddon, the founder of the highly effective Vanguard Method in the UK, pairs well with my own framework of Strategic Thought Leadership, which I am also applying to this.

By the way, Mr. Seddon has done his own work on Systems Thinking based housing reform in the UK that I would advise you to examine if your minds jump to "but what about profits?"

But we are not talking about profits now, we are looking at costs.

Human costs.

I have found that doing that kind of systems study in this context - dealing with your Property Manager and lawyers, along with the Charleston, SC Court of Common Pleas - involves some sacrifices.

Like being willing to endure the friction of a machine built to prevent vulnerable tenants from accessing justice. I do that in order to publicly document it, like a museum exhibit of the old and unnecessarily harmful ways wealthy property owners handled Housing and Housing Justice, back when they held on to the unconscious abdication/ mechanical extraction model sometimes dressed up in the prettier phrase "passive rental property investment".

But it isn't about passive versus active, it is about conscious versus unconscious. More on that in a bit after a more systemic look at the current machine you and others operate.

It is a high‑friction machine, very effective at wearing people down or, in some cases, pushing them toward a breakdown through what feels like coordinated gaslighting. More on that as well further down.

But, hey, just the cost of business, right?

Here’s a simple, interactive system diagram, with explanation after:

Here's the system story the diagram tells:

I ask the system for justice.

The system responds by punishing me for asking, by elevating the harm it causes, in order to force me to stop.

I bring in a different resource or strategy to ask the system for justice at a higher level, like game theory, which is something your lawyers don't seem to know much about.

The system responds by punishing me at a yet higher level for asking, by elevating the harm it causes in order to force me to stop.

The embedded belief under that seems to be "elevate the harm until he stops, no matter what it takes, to stop him from having the justice he and his family - pending on a jury agreeing with them - deserve."

If we take these two processes and look at them as a causal loop, it is a runaway reinforcing loop. But not a virtuous cycle. It is a vicious cycle.

Consider what that means. Even better, click on the top circle above to have a more visceral experience as you imagine the more expansive and vivid moving picture of the multiples of vulnerable innocent families your system impacts. Hear the multitude of innocent voices asking for the kind of help, Jonathan, that your work in affordable housing is supposed to provide. This work includes - as you describe on your own website - your former role as "chair of the City of Charleston's affordable housing initiative" and your nearly 20-year off and on status as a commissioner with the City of Charleston Homeownership Committee.

I honor those roles. But why are you continually funding a machine that I am demonstrating (with no intent to become some kind of martyr) is geared to smash the vulnerable tenant in need of stable housing and housing justice, instead of helping them?

From my perspective, acting the role of a vulnerable tenant simply seeking to correct housing injustice against his family, if I insist on justice - no matter what the cost to myself - the logic of this loop forces me to ask how far you are willing to let that escalation go.

Not necessarily to my death, because I would likely become too dysfunctional to litigate long before reaching that point, but to the point of permanent neurological harm that leaves me too impaired to outthink your lawyers.

That is the endpoint this kind of system dynamic points toward - if no one intervenes in the system properly to stop it.

The original harms - (allegedly) falsified postmark to avoid the penalty of a late deposit return, retaliatory eviction in a heat wave of 5 years+ tenants in good standing, mass syndicated private images and a Matterport virtual tour of me and my family, including the indignity of our older dog, Rocket in diapers - the same sweet old blind dog who got stuck under a couch, whimpering for hours due to the forced move - were bad enough.

That sound still haunts my heart. I thought it was a bad AC bearing for hours from the other end of a packed house. But it was a sound of fear and hurt I had never heard Rocket make before. I am angry at myself as well, for not checking to make sure he was OK sooner.

But, even with how bad all that was, from a right-vs-wrong standpoint, the reaction of your system to my simply asking for justice for these harms is exponentially worse.

I've been trying to intervene to fix this system, but have not yet found a way that works.

That's on you, Jonathan and Charles.

The system can't change until the property owners change their thinking and you are the ones whose thinking has created my suffering. That's my leverage for changing the system: your thinking.

Change rules, policies, system goals, feedback loops, all of those can he helpful interventions.

But the highest leverage point is changing the paradigm that created that system and that paradigm lives in your heads.

And that paradigm embedded in your thinking has generated this system, and would generate a different system that creates just as much harm.

Until you change your operating paradigm. Isn't it time?

I'll know when you have done it because you'll finally be willing to fairly settle. But you seem willing to escalate your own exposure, through your PMIC and lawyers - along with elevating my suffering,- such that we have yet to hit a limit of "enough".

That reveals a belief system you appear to hold: you seem to believe you have the right to use your money to make people suffer instead of paying what you owe them. My evidence is that you are willing to fund a machine of escalating harm that has yet to hit a limit - they are still at it even with the evidence of high level PTSD symptoms triggered by coordinated, long-term gaslighting … and even with this system now being lined up as a target of a Charleston County Sheriff’s Department investigation.

So how badly are you willing to harm me? I will get back to that concept, but first you need to know this is not abstract for me.

For months I have watched your property manager and your lawyers make choices that are indistinguishable, in their effects, from a deliberate strategy to break me down psychologically so I cannot keep standing up to you. They have taken actions that foreseeably and repeatedly worsened my PTSD symptoms, despite being told in detail what those symptoms are and how their conduct was affecting me.

By the way, PTSD symptoms are relevant here in part because you can also measure the impact of coordinated gaslighting with them - it's the same nature of harm . And I did not have PTSD (gaslighting impact) symptoms ahead of all this. Your agents gave it to me.

Your agents include a PMIC under LLR investigation and at the center of a Sheriff’s Office complaint in charge of our housing reality, and your retained counsel who, when confronted with falsified documents, mass privacy violations, and regulatory obstruction, did not deny liability - they acted as though none of it existed and recast my attempts to seek protection as “threats.”

From where I sit, that functions as coordinated, weaponized psychological manipulation. It feels like you and your agents chose methods designed to destabilize my mind rather than meet my evidence on the merits.

How much farther are you willing to take it? Until I have brain damage?

We do not have to treat that as a purely hypothetical concern.

I have filed a criminal complaint with the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office concerning your property manager and your lawyers’ conduct, and I am cooperating fully with that investigation.

My report identifies the role of your PMIC - Tara Bayles - as a central focus of what I believe needs to be examined; law enforcement will determine what, if anything, was criminal.

This is way beyond typical lawfare. It is what I experience as coordinated gaslighting that can push somebody toward going crazy.

Imagine you have someone sit in your office. They just walk in and sit in the waiting room daily.

Ten or so other people come and go, all of whom pretend that other person is not there.

They look at the chair like it is empty.

And the original person leaves just before closing time, saying, “I was never here.”

And this goes on for three months.

That has been my reality, and today I snapped.

I am holding you publicly accountable for funding the system and the legal strategy that have produced this reality for my family.

And this is not the first time you are hearing about my family’s suffering. You have had detailed notice for months, including my December filings and January emails that put the full scope of harm and risk in front of you with your lawyers copied, and you have not had a single direct word to say to me about any of it.

Chris McNeil

January 28, 2026

PS - Maybe you aren’t really into all that humanitarian contribution stuff, though, Jonathan? I sense you are but you have huge inner conflict. This is your opportunity to resolve that.

PPS - Why are two firms and 5 lawyers fighting to stop a single bank subpoena? What is in the SAC 181_OP Synovus account that is worth destroying a reputation for?

FAQs About the Open Letter to the Altmans

↩ Back to Where You Were ⤴ Up to the Top

• Are you just talking to Charles S. Altman and Jonathan S. Altman or is this really a message to all rental property investors and owners?
• What do you mean you are an "unintentional whistleblower"?
• What do you mean by "Most Vulnerable Member" (MVM) and what is the point?