Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

i{}

ii
1.;
13
7'1
i-r
iq
3-J
Ita
Il.t
17
ITJ
t{}
z9
2{}
21
13
1,4
25
Z6
27
L{}
Fage 1 Gi 15
StrFERl*R. il{}LrR.T *F CALiF*RI={IA
?21 S*utir Macncy **rrl*varC
Visali$ Calii*rr:ia
ilr:*rtn*y Giil*s;:i*;
M*ir:ri,v Gill*pie.,
f lair:tiffs
r7
v.
Hi*klas F{r:fiir:a*;
WYS*CKI TRLTST;
**ES 1-1*i]',
*elbndants
}. T -I /-\ 1'l Ft
f-} f\ r'' -l
i\!t-\ | | ;- -., 'r Fi Lli-a I
i 1 Ll . L t--; - ,i-, --., L, ,-/ Lt I
Affidavit in suppart *f
A;:i:iie ati';:i ir;r lEr'rit *t" R*view
AFFIDAVIT
I. Melody Gillespie, declarant herein, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant
to the laws of the state of California that the following is true and correct, to the best of
my own research information and knowledge and und-erstanding: as to those based upon
belief, I believe them true:
l. I am a Plaintiff in this case, over the age of majority, and have direct personal
knorvledge of the following matters of fact and law. I am competent to testifl if calletJ
upon, and will testiff upon the following matlers if called upon.
2. On March 23, 2010. Plaintiffs went to trial on an rxrlawful detainer action initiated by HofTman.
WYSOCKI TRUST aad Gerritsma. Hoffman, Gerritsma and WYSOCKI, did not prevail, and the ruling
was in fhvor of the dei'endants. Hoffinan, Geritsma, and WYSOCKI TRUST, did not appeal.
3. On or about April 15, 2010 Hoftman without our peruission or knowledge went onto the
internet then contacted the Southern California Edison Company and switched our electric utility
account into his name. Prior to this incident, the def-e:rdants have been in the habit of taking
Plaintiffs mail to gain access to private information such as the account numbers of the electric bill.,
4. On or about April 20, 2010, af:er losing the unlawful detainer action, HoffinarVWYSOCKl
TRUST who proceeded to placing an envelope in Plaintifls mailbox with bogus receipts for rents
paid, pretending that the plaintiffs were renters. The contents of the envelope consisted of a notice
entitled RECEIPTS FOR RENTS PAID (attached to Plaintitls' complaint tbr injurction). Hoffman
did not sign the document but merely typed his name on the document and dated it April 15,
2010. Shorlly al1er this event, the plaintifts found out that Hollman had put the property for sale
including the Plaintiffs' portion that PlaintitTs had already purchased by way of an express land
sales contract. Upon receiving the pretended and labricated RENTAL RECEIPTS from HotTman,
plaintifls began drawing up their complain: for Iniunctive relief. which is the subiect ofthis action.
5. On or about April 27,2010, plaintiffs received another letter sent llom HolTman through the
United
'States
mail two letters which were ce(ified and date stamped April 19, 2AI0. In the first
letter,
.Hotftnan
entitled: NOTICE OF CHANGE IN TERMS, dated April 16, 2010. In this letter,
Hoflman made the threat, that if Plaintilfs did not sign the commercial lease agreement within ten
t
1,4
t .-i
l-
iJ
1t=
t*)
1 s--
l" L-t
1FF
,t
i{}
1i
{ d-}
t*
L9
71
1,4
l4
J5l
,*\-t
22
fln
L3
4n
,!+
'rr*
:- *1
2*
27
.1
fi
!"*
Fage 2 *f 15
days and pay $3,300.00, Plaintifts would be evicted and PlaintifTs' personal property would be
removed from the property. The second letter contained only the CALIFORI'{IA COMMERCIAL
LEASE AGREEMENT. Both letters were rejected by Plaintitls and sert back to HotTman as "REFLISED
FOR FRAUD", along with a cotrstructive notice to cease and desist.
#. *i: *r
Flaintifls
i:im.
about May 1, 2010, a Southem California Edison Field Service Representative came to
properly because of a repofi tiom Hoffman allegi:rg Plaintift-s were stealing electricity t}om
g..OnoraboutMay4,20l0,afterPlaintiffs'electricityaccountwasrestored,Hoffrnan,afterbeing
caught
and humiliated, retaliated by calling out a code entbrcement officer. Hoftinan made many false/bogus clains
against
plaintiffs,
slating that plaintiffs did not live on the property, and had many code violations. As a
result from calling, the Oftcer left. No arrests were made and no citations were given for any alleged
violations. At this time Hoffrnan's behavior was so threatening, intimidating and done with such malice that
plaintifl-s
had to abandon drawing up their Injunctive relief complaint and in its place lile a Temporary
Restraining order against Hoffman to stop the abuse.
*
t
'I
-'
t
.4
-T
Fa
ry
t
itt
!i
it
rt
TL
i-
l_'
**
t-
<r
,t
ttl
"t-
tt
.Lt
i i-i
.L -.'
:at
iLt
itl
.!L
tl
L!-l
4n
i+
.!.3
-\L
.-/. t !
i- {-t
9. On
NLay
7
,2010,
the TRO was taken to the court by the piaintiffs and was given io the deputy clerk who
marked them received. The deputy cierk then presented the same to the
judge
on May 10, ?010.
Itt,
,$*#dy1,9*201's.
iffit}d.;Llayd
dks aFF*dvEa=a#il.si iTn
.lE
alnrifH*trEiair
11,
:Oii'May.
13, 20t.g,ihe c,ierkfiledthe,.TRO ir-rto the record,,la,fu.then isstrCd rhe summons.,corrrri:anding
UbtTtaan io,,aan'bar*r a.iieari seEeduled for }/ray 27
"
2010'.
t5., On'or our,Mav 27,fl10,.the',j,ridge=:$ ed the reitraining orde::.
13. On May 28, ?010, early in.tfue morning,
'at
approxihately 7:00 am, Hoffi-nan letaliated for the TRO
beilg i.rued, W. believe ttrat Hoifm* i"nuuor.i-ttir 9 year old daughter into using a 22 caliber rifle to
shoot our dog
,
a small terrier, who *as at the time was tethered. The dog died. We believe drat
it was lg{}i*Earl ra'h* rver:t** *iir cl*g ltiit*d. *eu; Exhihit
i$:t,::.:g4 ril;'ffi;;tlirne t, 20i0, Hoffm**"?gait':had caused.lhe ,**n**'-
ctrici..utiiilY acootmtto
be sliiited+ut--Fndrchanged
intcr his nrug'
15. On or aboili"June'i5,2010; Hoffman called'out the sheriffs department who responded shorrhly
thereafter.
gotftnan
showed the deputy the buildings that u'e have on otr portion of the divided properD',
but did not show the deputy the small trailer u'e live in hehind the other buildings. Hoffman then
complained to the deputy-that we had a business on our property. and stated that'uve did not live on tlte
property, and
-were
stealing his electricity. Hoffman was told by,the deputy that he could shut off our
electricity. Afterthedeputyhadleft,Hoffiniur.tooka,sawsall
porver sarv and then cut throughourf-ence
and sawed throqgtr the cotduit that.fiouses the wires for our electricity. Hoffinan pulled out the wires and
the
panels in Pia1ntiffso metr subpanel, defrtroying the subpanel. This happened in the morning. At
uppioii*utely 3:30 pni, I Melody, c4me home, saw ttre damaged panels and conduits and then called my-'
tuoUand, Courtney Gillespie. We ihen called the sheritfs ancl filed our report. Prior to this. Hoftman had
padlocked the electric panel which is situated on ow section of the properfy, When the deputy saw the
dur4ug*, he called for back up. Subsequbntty. the deputy ordered HofTman release the key fol the pad lock
to thJtrim. The deputy then unlocked the main panei, allowing trs to repair the damage so that the
electricitl could be.restored. While Plaintiffs were fixing thd subpanel, Hoffman called out the county
code er;lforcement officer. When the code enforcement offiggr arrived, and recognized Hoffmall as
complaining p4{ty,'he made a U-Tum and left. Floffrnan, at the tim6- of the incident had access
to th* property all day, from eaiiy morning to approxiniately 3:30 PM when we came horne. We
have a verv small trailer,
-and
thele is no room'tbr a refrigerator'. Our: refrigerator is outside our
trailer, and kept under thetannexed carport. I. Melody, have workecl as a Psychiatric Nurse for
"ppr".t*"*ty
iS yearS.and havetwentyyearsexperiencein
acute and skilled nursing, *-hj:hinclrrdes
pi*-op, post-op and surgery. My
job
this clay was very labor intensive, and after working 16 hours' was
;il;.d, rr*gw u"J ;lril;y, ;i iid not tatl zury breal,s at rvork and drank very liitle, essentially having
afaql. afler-d]slovery oflhe
@magq.s,reporting
the incident to the deputy Sheriff,l took solne
mid from out of the refrigerator and pouieil it into a bowl that I had filled with cereal; and ate
it. Within an.hogr lbecamevery ill, but'itwas not [ike'a disease. The pain became increasinglv
bad. where I could neithel eat, tr'fuink without vomiting. The pain was so bad I could not sleep,
so i went ro the doctor who could linrl nothing wrong with me. Many tests were done, but a
toxicology was not done. f b".iieue l" ** poisoned. The s)'mptoms matched the s-vinptoms of
Fage 3 *f i5
J
tL;
1i
rl
12
i ,1,
l+
15
1#
tr.}
i6
17
1*
L\}
,jl
L3
/an
t+
25
ad
*w
27
,-t f-r
l,,o
Fage 4 *l 15
srf.v*hnine'
$ciscning.
i*i.'.i!i
',,iii
*.,.,....2., *.tt
s-r,mpt**t.Er I thrit I irad
Siffiilar t* tiiis inciclcnt. i,t'* trrici
We h*iier'* tliat tl:e), ti:* r.r,ei*
eiperie*ce.*d.
fbr"rr d*gs clr*p dcad r,+iihin a
tt
Fr"ri.s*,i.:,*,g3,,F:r:#*a*;
:, :Tl1*,.d*$s
t*'r-: week p*r-i*,-1
,
i't t,. ., r *E
*xill b ri*cl s i:::ilirr
17. On or about luly 23,2010 Because of the continued acts of violence and malicious mischief
by Hoffrnan, we were forced by Hoffman's malicious acts to postpone drawing up and filing our
complaints for injunctive relief tthat were designed o prevent Hoffman fiom selling our portion of
the subdivided propelq, that we and Hoffman had contractually agreed to buy and since the
consumation thereof and we had been making regular payments and were never in anears. Later
tiris day, we filed our ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AFFIDAVIT OF CO}{TEMPT OF RULING of
the temporary restraining order ("TRO").
18. O:r or about that last part of Juiy or the first w-eek of August 2010, we had requested several
Sheriff s incident reports. while attendins a conf-erence with the desk clerk.
19. On or about August 5th 2010, we received from the Sherif? the reports we previously
requested, however, these reports were so heavily redacted that they were completely illegible
and incomprehensible. wherefbre making these reports unusable.
20. On or about August 26, 2010, the plaiatiffs filed this instant Injunction complaint against
NicklasHofftnan, the WYSOCKI TRUST and does 1-100, due to the impending threatby Hoffman
to sell the plaintiffs portion of the p:operty without our consent or agreement. 20. On or about
August 26, 2410, at the time when we filed our complaint for injunction, the clerk of the Superior court
set a status conference date for October 5, 2010. At tire time of filing I, Melody, asked the court
clerks for a copy of the local court rules. The clerked replied was "there was none in stock. At
the lime, I did not realize that it was wrong lbr the clerk to set October 5th for a Preiininary
Injunction, because, the court clerk failed to perform her ministerial duty and wait until after
the summons and complaint were served on the defbndant and proofofservicewasfiled. It was
wrong to set a hearing date prior to service. lnretrospect,westarted drawing up the complaint prior
to the May3,2010 incident because we were attempting to prosecute the order to show cause(case
number l0-237521)first. Wearepro-pers, and could not finish drawing the compiaiat until
just
belbre filing it. It is our belief that something had to be done to keep Hoffman liom selling our
property.
21. On or about September 3rd 2010 we caused to be served their subpoenafordocuments
upon the Tulare county Sheriff s office at 2404 West Burrel Avenue, Tulare California.
22. On September 6, 2010, we caused to be served our complaint and sulnillons on Nicklas
Hoffman, w-ho lvas personally served at: 1831 Norlh Lime Street, ?orterville, by Mike Golden.
23. On or about September 12th 2010 we filledout asingle blank subpoena and then took
it to the courthouse for issuance. In the subpoena to the Sheriff, we requested hirn to give us
'1
J
lil
<1
tt
rl-
12
tn
IN
a ./l
l-l
i8
L9
15
1S
17
TN
.ii\J
21
22
z3
t,{
t.+
25
2*
',
t
LI
t{}
.j- tJ
copies ofallreports made pertaining to 1831 North Lime Street, NicklasHoffman. Courtney
Gillespie and Melody Gillespie.
24. On or about October lst 2010 a deputy Sheritf sent us a letter stating the5' hadcomplied with
our subpoena requests; and, the documents were sent to the courthouse. We needed the reports liom
the SheritT to update and amend our complaint and show the need for an emergency preliminary
injunction.
25. AaoraboutOctober4"2010.wetiledthe NOTICEOFNON-RESPONSEBYTHEDEFENDANTS.
While at the clerk's window, I (Melody), had requested the clerk to give me the reports obtained by way
of subpoena from the Sheriff and for a copy of the local rules of court, tiom the clerk. The clerk stated
that "you would have to ask the
judge
for them in the hearing scheduled for October 5, 2010," w-hich we had
intended to do. The deputy clerk thea went or to say "we do not irave any local rules in stock." When I
asked where I could get a copy, the clerk stated "at the law library in the basetnent." The time was
approximately 4:00 pm, and the clerk said nothing about a tentative mling already having been issued.
Iastead the clerk stated that "the notice filed needed be taken to Dept. 7 where the hearing would take place"
(the next day). I went down to the basement to the law library, and the librarian gave the we! site :vhere I
could downloacl the local court rules.
26. On October 5, 2010, while we were attending the previously scheduled hearing at the Visalia
Superior court, when our case was called, an attorney, Robert Fletcher made an appearance for the
defendants. The
judicial
ofticer, Mr. Paul Vottman, stated that the tentative ruling was ruropposed
and therefore would stand as the order ofthe court. This was the first time we had been given
any notice of a tentalive ruling, and much to our chagrin and surprise, since there was no noticed
motion or any other matter before the court, except for our proposed injr.rnction, so we were shocked
that there was a rulilg since there was no motion or order before the court for the
judicial
olficer
to rule upon. We learned that the court never gave formal notice to us or any of the defendants
prior to the erroneous ruling. Apparently, the court on its own motion, turilaterally denied us
withcutnoticeordueprocess ourrightof a preliminary injunctioa, that had nevereven prepared, filed
or presented or noticed. We were denied notice and opportu:rity to respond or object. At this
pretended hearing, We attempted to persuade Mr. Vortman into allowing us to inspect the subpoenaed
Sheriffs reports, but Mr. Vorlman refused to acknowledge our requests, then called the next case.
The act of making a ruling on a motion that had never been presented to the court or the parties,
coupled with the fact that there was never any notice given to the parties, using the lack of an
opposition to coniure a tentative decision is completely deceptive and inappropriate. The fact that
there was never any notice given to the parties and using the lack of opposition to turning a tentative
decision into a ruling without following well established procedure is denial of access to the court, and,
a denial of due process, and violates equal protection, and denies a proper airing of the merits, thus such
behaviour only obfuscates beyond all recognition, the true meaning of an iniu:rction
It appears that if our ability to correct tlie mistakes and defects of the record by seeking teview, such
denial will surely reduce the capacity for the truth to come out and reduce the amount of relief that
could be given, should these issues of mistake and defects remain standir:g.
Page 5 of 15
11
!l
1l:
12
?fl
,ar 1-'
a-
t'a
L,t
24
25
26
27
13
trt
a ;a
i?
1r
t-a
L-J
i r,t
77
1g
l_ 1J
19
JL
, I L'
L{}
il?
5-
{*VY
*
5ry75
W{506{f
{
&u.r'itm^
C"e adl da4mr*
fu
ld?Wedtzf
2* . lln *ct*b*r I .2{}1 {} Hicklas H*l*ira:: tiied his ri*r::*rg*r.
30. On or about October 4.201Q at apprgsii4-a1ely 15:00 hours (3:30 p.m.) I, Melody, went to the
court and filed a declarati"tffrt3t#
|t#t9if.
defendants did not respond to the complaint
as required by the summons.
'Concurrently,
I asked the clerk for a copy of the docunents that I
subpoenaed previously. The court clerk refused to give me the requested documents. The
clerk told me to ask the
judge
for the subpoenaed documents. When the clerk looked up the
record on file on the computer, she said nothing about any tentative ruling. The clerk said
after she received the declaration stated. she would file the document right away and lake the
record upstairs to Dept. 7 where a hearing was scheduled to take place tomorrow. I checked
the court record and there were no nsw recordings of any kind, except a status conference
hearing set for October 5, 2010. At this time there was no record of any attorney
appearance for the defendants on file.
31. OnOctober5th20l0, the plaintiffs and defendants appeared betbre the Hon. Paul
Vortman. While in attendance, after calling the case, the Plaintiffs requested Mr. Vortman to
give them a copy of the Sheriff s reports they earlier had subpoenaed. Mr. Vortman refused to
give the subpoenaed documents and refused to allow the plaintiffs or the defendants the
opportunity to be heard. Mr. Vortman, failed and/or refused to give meaning to a hearing. Mr.
Vortman gave the followin-e lame excuse :
nothing can be heard that day because neither Plaintiffs nor defendants had faxed in a
request for oral argument on his ruling,
At this point nobody even knew what VORTMAN was talking about. He curtly calied the next
case. What is the point of scheduling a hearing, then on the appointed day and time for the
hearing, the
judicial
officer refuses to perform his obligation? The court for :easons not klown
to the Plaintiffs made a pretended motion, called it a preliminary injunction petition, then
without notice or opportunity given to the plaintiffs or defendants, sumrnarily denied the parties
their right to be heard. There is no motion on the record.
32. Ott October L2,2010 Nicklas Hoffman. ffi apparent alter-ego WYSOCKI TRUST filed
their Notice of hearing for his demurrer. It appears that Hoffinan or his counsel did file his
response timely, yet failed refused or neglected to serve it rlrithin the time allor.ved by summons.
The due date for filing and serving a response was October 7,2010.
33. On October 15, 2010 defendants received through the United States mail a notice for
purpose of hearing the defendant demurrer to the complaint. It appears to have been filed
October 1,2A10, but not served or received by the Plaintiffs prior to this day.
#ll # l?=:a]3#ffithgt ied=fors*'Ai= ffifu*
g,ro
hilu
,4 t9
ffi6e*
# $'t-@
&16
mgp,
rts= n*uime*H$:u$$,E
,tii'tli"F,l
iftl.=+se
ei his ait*r es* lVYg*ilKI
Fage 6 of 15
{ r-1
I it
TJ
1.4
t+
is
t tl
-Fl
LI
! it
tu
J- ,t
1i
_.r tt
,=]']
.r
-a
,L,--T
..t
-3
./ tl
a1
i4t
|,,
L.7
T*
Fese 7 r;f 15
r.sFFff$ Wefe made.*rififg tli$a=bwe related:l#ejd.sce$-; a more ,that areaot reldted; ofter:,limes
wit * us being$affi'preie* at or ta #A:'#i*iy"C-iamed incidents. We subpoenaed the
rep..,o.#g.;,1$ sho* ffi:la* ftcftes claims that are oftenmlslead,in$, not*e a5* of fubri*ated
tbr use to establish his lack of credibility, the malicious mischief-Comrnitted, and the tortuous
interfei6Aa'i;'=*ffip:a abiliff; aflntaid]oaily tife. Flai*ri# i *a Defendants'
aiftpmey,-.,,bi*hane of'#e ari,:1g;|#*+tll !. t* iate place on Nove*er'5;i2o t o.
35.;# # ab*utNffiwer ?'=' .T'0;'R4"6 Fi*icher; aur*?iffi **fi*aan** fite? #'u$p*ition
*' f-itii*t!f*l,Hx,P e **otffi ainti$
,noi.receivqa-d*$*:artSeoppoiition
in tiure for the
Ue#in$5h,idffs r***ed Udposiii n..i#
NibVte*,ger*
2010. it* waiting for the case to
b.e oalled.;:'ir'a.361\,{i.'$l@ei, eftorney for:the &ffid t*
$ereiadef;Fr*tc@,it-
e ad any
*#$ $iti
,"t
,hcning
the sheriffs reports, and of c,o $e,*ould i edia#make''copies So;
d6'fdants. Fletcheidid' *t respo*=d,' m e,,no attemptto nan fU ffs'# cop+ of ffie
defta.d..aqt$r,rrffip,,og"ition-to the ex
parte m*;iq, '.Mg'
v.orttr=
$tnieffiltriatiff
otiq,n The
*lrpri . ii cia Msnoiasth oil$'i#*+=-ffi$ffi,. to'ffii*ifi*apt utua*
i##i #i *=a A;;t the"dsftidantqrii
Vcrt*m
ti{d denied'Ftai*if'fs.*'$ie1 in in3uactan
ana+n siai;
er*+
uffit&'*a''adE s rn are a pl#ffittr hl;s'eoordj
36. On Ncve*:ber 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a reply to defendants' opposition.
37. On or about November 12, 2010, Plaintifls mother had a stroke and was hospitaiized. but
appeared to be doing well.
38. On November 15. 2010. a tentative ruiing was issued for defendarts to answer the cornplaint
and defendants' demurrer was denied.
39. On or about November 16,201.A, Piaintiff s mother had another stroke and heart attack, and
becane comalose on life support
40. On or about November 19, 2010, defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
41. On or about November 2I,2010, Plaintiffs mother was taken off life support. On or about
November 23,2010. Plainliff s mother died. and PlaintifTleft the state ta
-uo
back east for the
funeral.
42. An or about November 21,20t0, Plaintiff s mother was taken off life support. On or about
Itlz3ll\,Plaintiff s mother died, and Plaintiff le* the state to go back east for the firneral.
43. An or about November 19, 2010. Defendants filed a cross-compiaint. and had a summons
issued.
44. On or about December 4,201A, Plaintiff retumed to Porterviile. Saturday morning . and
fiied a notice of need for an extension for eood cause shown on or about December 7. 2010. in
-{
I
:
I
*t
7
t-,
*
TJ
-t
1U
11
it
rla
1L
1-
a _{r
4,4
a /t
t-t
ll
rJ
16
aFf
:t
t t--l
LLt
I lI
,7
F]
f-1,
..j1t
21
',1
la
nn
'!*
25
/ Il
't f
:i, I
' I at
which to file a demurrer to defendants' answer that had arrived in the mail, while plaiatiff was
gone. Plaintiffservd said notice to defendants on the same day by US mail
45. On or about December 14. 2010. Plaintiffs filed the demurrer to defendant's answer and set
for hearing on January 18. 2011.
46. On or about December 17.}Arc. defendants filed their Case manasement statement.
47. On or about December 23,2010 was the Case Management hearing. in which the Plaintiffs
requested an extension for good cause shorvn. which was granted, by Judicial Officer Lloyd
Hicks. Plaintiffs filed their case management statement and motion for shortening time into the
record. Defendant's seryed their cross-complaint on the Plainliffs. A copy of the procf of
service was never sent to Plaintiffs as required by court rules.:rl.The
,was
a,n p+jff*dde4,,in
ths t U
ifii
"r-diA*
tU es of court the laws$fumm*;ss*'*A
*:i.tbhj,'0:'aa=.F"=f*iffil #g,''ffii} EE. a iarftain*fs **r-e a+'afie,'6* f*e lnad$een
il$j:i illffi-ffidl fiffi,Ydfiie fiiHil ililtt$ii@**1F-d#udr
and=oo. attr e
p#UM eld irateo
{1*rii
papeis effirllo Plal$ffi'eB
pr-*i=#tg=L.
F
e'
=tse.
dii"u$F'uraffi"t,to
#*X,iF #*'ffiet4
piv'el
$ ru;d i
u f e'ffiF-##io'
48. On or about January 19,2011, Defendants' filed an opposition to plaintitB' demurrer to
answer. The opposition to Plaintiffs' demurrer had many factually wrong statements.
49. On or about January 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an addendum to demurrer to answer. and
received in the mail the opposition to the demurrer to the answer. The opposition sited ofTpoint
cases and had many effoneous and false statements. Plaintiffs created a rebuttal to the
opposition.
50. On or about January 14,2011, Mr. Vortman gave a tentative ruling for January18. 201 1
which was unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not know a tentative ruling rvould be given four
days prior to the date scheduled for hearing
5 1 . On or about January 13, 2011, Plaintiffs received in the mail Defendant Hofftnan's
opposition to Plaintiffs' demurrer to defendant's answer. Plaintiffs did not receive the response
in time to rebut the issues raised in defendant's opposition. Hon. Paul Vortman took the
defendant's opposition completely for the tentative ruling. The opposition to Plaintiffs demurer
had many false, misleading and untrue statements, making the tentative n:ling based on
erroneous information. Because Defendant Hoffinan did not get his opposition served to
Plaintiffs in time for a response before the tentative ruling. Piaintiffs were uaable to present a
reply to the court prior to the tentative ruling.
52. The fact thal Plaintiffs did not receiVe the defendant's opposition in time to prepare a
response prior to the tenlative ruling could have been cured by oral argument. Because Martin
Luther Kings' Birthday was bein-e celebrated a few days prior to his birthday, took Plaintiffs by
Fage I of 15
lfr
| !t
L1-J
i1
rl
1?
a.-
t4
L*'
t4
15
1S
17
i {-}
to
L9
?fJ
,]!
--t
L3
'-l I
.t q"
25
26
27
TQ
;" L'
surprise. Plaintiffs had to work, and did not realize in time that the courts tvere closed on the
day prior to hearing. Plaintiffs did fax in the request for oral ar*qlment, on Monday. January 17,
2011. the day prior to the scheduled hearing.
53. The decision for the early ruling made the defendants opposilion late and the determination
that Plaintiffs notice by fax, was untimely due to a holiday that rvas not on the actual day that
when the event celebrated, occurred denied due process and res
judacata
on the merits, access to
the court, equal protection under the law. and a fair and impartial hearing. The court rules allow
for when a due date falls on a recognized hoiiday, when the court is closed, then the due date is
the day after. not the week before. The hearing should have gone on as scheduied. Instead Mr.
Vortman accepted the defendants opposition as the tentative ruling, and then singled out and
descriminated against the Plaintiffs, by giving a minute order ruling on Tuesday, January 18,
201I, that Plaintiffs should file an answer to the defendant's cross-complaint "forthwith".
Plaintiffs clearly had until January 24,2011 to file a motion to strike and a demurrer. January
23,2011 was a Sunday or it would have been due then.
54. The Code of Civil Procedure $432.10 :
TI-TIRTY*AYLIMIT TS PLTA* A
3{} days after service mov. dcmllr, *r
ffianner as to an original complaint.
partv s*rv*d rvith e er*ss-c*i3lpiai::t tna3r, tvithi$
*therrvise pl*ad t* th* cr*ss-cor:rplaint ir: thr sel::*
Plaintiffs had until Januray 24.2011 to flle pleadings other
than answers to the cross-complaint. Plaintiffs wrote and filed the demurrer prior to aay
knowledge of the cross-complaint that Plaintiffs were personally served in the hall- way of the
courthouse on December 23,2011. Pursuant to CCP 432JA, Plaintiffs have 30 days in which to
present pleadings to the court and cross-complaintants. The thirty days ends January 24,2011.
55. The defendants were given from September 7
,2010
to October 7
,2010.
to have a demurrer
submitted to the court, and served on Plaintiffs, and did not do so. Notice of the Demurrer, and
the Demurrer itself were received by Plaintiffs through the US maii, on or about October 16.
2010. Plaintiffs were untimely many times because the defendants were untimely about getting
documents served to Plaintiffs.
56. There have been two'incidents where Plaintiffs did not receive any notice of opposition
from the defendants, and the attorney of record, Robert Fletcher, should have at least given
Plaintiffs the documents at the hearing but failed to do so. Plaintiffs even have asked Mr.
Fletcher at the court,
just prior to hearings, if there were any opposition, and he failed to disclose
he had filed an opposition, until three days or more, after appearances, Plaintiffs received the
oppositions in the mail. The case management statement from defendants was received fwo days
prior to the hearing without any request for an extension or shortening of time. The cross-
complaint was served untimely, causing Plaintiffs to be late on filing and serving the amended
case manasement statement
Fage I *f 15
1
't
1{i
1t
it
1?
,t
I-'
1n
i-T
15
i4
zl
tfl
IJT
i{}
19
71
16
20
11
t-
L_]
1fi
25
2S
27
28
Page 10 af 15
57. Defendant Hoffman has caused several incidents of malicious rnischief, which causes loss
rrf time. Due to violations of the restraining order in case numberl0 -237521, caused a lot of loss
time needed to answer pleadings and gather necessary documenls for
judicial
notice. Plaintiffs
have had a difficult time getting the correct documents from previous court cases aad traascripts,
that Plaintiff needed for the demurrer to defendant's arsler and to defendants' cross-complaint.
58. On or about Sunday. November 7,20tA at approximately 2:00 pm. Plaintifffinished installing a
fence around the electric meter pole and telephone box, with a gate access to the outside of the ibnce
around Plaintifff s property.
A. This was in compliance with the court ordered settlement agreement in case number 10-
23752I. According to the settlement agreement, Defendant Hoffman was to pay Atfiant $2800
(twenty eight hundred dollals) as soon as Affaint finished with the t-ence and the gate constructed
for Mr. Nicklas Hoffman access to the telephone box and ihe electric meler.
B. As soon as Affiant was finished with the construction, Atllant noticed Mr. Hoflman and his
handy man Brett Thompson come out of Mr. Hofinan's gate. L{r. Hoffman appeared visibly
angry.
C. Mr. Holfman stood in the middle of the road at the edge of his property screa:ning and
flailing his arms. He screamed "My intemet radio station is not working! Somebody cut my
phone lines!" Mr. Hoffman continue screaming in the street for approxinately 15 minutes.
D. Affiant cailed to Brett Thompson to come over to where Atliant was standing, and told hirn
to tell Mr. Hoffrnan that the sate was ready and he could come and check the box himself.
E. Melody Gillespie, Affiant's wife, called the phone compar:y's Tech support to have Tech
Support check the lines to see if there were any problems in the phone lines. No one had called
Tech Support prior to Melody to have the lines checked
F. Affiant did not understand why Nicklas Hoffnan was screarning in the streets at the same
time as he was supposed to pay Affiant as per the settlement agreement, and cou* order of case
nurnber IA-n7521. Alfiant has nothing to gain by cutting Mr. Hoffman's phone wires. Affiant
is paying a tremendous amounl of money for Mr. Hoffman's electricity (See attached exhibit E,
electricity bill log from SCE.com web site). Mr. Hcffman has not paid any of his electricity use
since June 2005. If Afliant was going to stop Mr. Hoflman from the usage of a utility, it would
be the electricity and Affiant could turn that off without impunity, because he has failed to make
any payments. Aft*nt fixed the fence as agreed by Mr. Hoflinan's request, and had his own
entrance, that he could put his own lock on, at his request, and in return Mr. Hoffmall was to pay
his share of the costs of prosecuting the TRO and his share of the electric bill tbr the time our
water was cut off. The total was $2800
(twenty eight hundred dollars) Affiant did not and wouid
not do anything to Mr. Hoffinan's several phone lines. Affrant
just
wanted to be paid. The
electric bill hadiust come in and was approximately $1900
(nineteen hundred dollars). Atfiant
was very carefui while installing the"fence around the meter pole lar away enough liom the
undersround wires not to interfere with them.
1
!
?
t
fi
+
6
n
5
i)
igl
11
l-i
1t
LL
{.-
TJ
1n
i-
15
i6
1"7
LI
i r-i
!*f
L {_}
1*
2i]
21
.r1
't'!
!3
AA
.LJ
2b
.].'7
i-l
")a
i- i-)
G. Aftiant understood the implication of Mr. Hoffman's actions were to not pay Atfiants and to
accuse Affiant of wrong doing
H. Affiant called the Sheriff substation in Porterville. Atfiant reported that there had been a
problem and to veriff that the box had not been tampered with.
I. Apparentiy Mr. Hoflman had called the sheriff prior to AlAant as Afliant was infbrmed that
the Sheriff had alreadv received a call and an officer was already disoatched to the Aifiant's
address.
J. When the officer arrived, Affiant invited the oftcer to see *re phone box, and Aftant
explained what happened. Mr. Hoftman came inside with the olficer tc view the box. The
olficer found no vandalism or criminal acts done to the box.
K. Mr. Hoftnan said to the officer, "I am the owner of this property. This box is supposed to be
pad locked because this is my box!" The olficer asked him, "Aren't they (in reference to the
AffianQ supposed to have access to it?
L. Mr. HotAnan stated he didn't know. The officer asked him, "Are they your tenants?" Aftiant
spoke up and stated,
"We
are not tenants." Mr. Hoffilan yelled, "They are nothing but
squatters!" Affiant stated that Affiant was tbe co-owrer of the property
M. Mr. Hof-fman asked the officer to stay while Mr. Hoffman wenl and got a phone to test the
wires. The officer told him:hat this was a civil matter and did not involve the sheriffs. The
Officer and M:. Hoffman left.
N. At approximately 3:15 pm, Mr. Hoffman returned with Brett Thompson and another young
man, whom Affiant did not recognize. The men brought a phone with them apparently to test the
lines.
O. Mr. Hoffman unplugged all of the wires and replugged the wires back in and used the phone
to test. The youn man told Af5ant that the phone lir:es tested clear at the box. All the men left.
P. At approximately 3:25, the men retumed again, went over to the phone box, unplugged, and
reconnected the wires several times.
Q.
At approximately 3:35 pm, as the men were leaving again, Mr. Hoffrnan said loudly to the
men with him, that he was going to have the phone company reroute the wires to another pole.
Mr. Hoffman then stated,
ooAnyway
I am going to have them out of here soon enough!" (ret-erring
to Atfiant and his wife).
R. The tone of Mr. Hoffinan's voice and the way Hottnan had stated, Arryway, I am going to
have them out of here soon enough!", caused Affiant to believe that Mr. Hotfinan had done
something or had plans to do something to force Affiant and wife to leave their home.
Page 11of 15
1S
i1
:.L
i?
14
13
I8
LL)
15
1S
17
19
2{}
77
ar r\
.Fi .1
L3
24
75
26
27
S. At approximately 4:45 pm, Mr. Hoftman retumed with a ro11 of wire and spliced into tbe
phone box to run lines overhead. through the trees, across the driveways and fence lines to his
house. Mr. Hoffman finished the work at approximately 5:45 prn.
T. Affianl did not understand why Mr. Hofftnan did this because when he installed his phone
line cables underground to his house and garage, he installed two cable lines running from the
phone box to his house and garage. The one cable that Mr. Hoffman checked was the cable his
phone lines were connected to. Mr. Hoffrnan never checked his second cable to see if it was
okay, and still active. All he would have had to do was switch his phone line over to the second
cable. Instead ai approximately 4:45 pm, Mr. Hoffman installed new lines overhead.
U. At approximately 6 pm, Affiant left the property
,
the taking the family dog with me, to go
babysit Affiant's g:andchildren. Affia:rt's wit-e, Melody, works night shilt and had gone to bed
to sleep.
V. The next morning, Monday, November 8, 2010, at approximately 8:30 am, Affiant noticed a
strong smell of propane outside, in the back of the trailer in which Affiant lives. Affiant went to
check and found that the propane lines had been tampered with. The lines were very loose and
only finger:ighte:red, causing a rapid loss of propane. The propane bottle requires tools to
connect to the lines to tighten the connection which prevents leakage. Affiant keeps the tools to
exchange and tighten the propaae bottles next to the propane bottle inside the traile: LPG
compartment, which is unlocked. Affiant does not have a key for it.
W. At approximately 9:00 am, Sunday, the day before, Affiant had checked the amount of
propane left in the bottle as Aff,rant does every Sunday to see if more is needed. At that time the
connections were tight, ald there was plenty of propane.
X. The concentration of the amount of propane that escaped would have caused at the very least
an instant fire, enveloping the whole trailer. if anyone had tru:red on the hot water. The flame for
the hot water is approximately four feet from the propane tank.
Y. On Affiant's street, there are only four houses, on one side of Affiant's house is a retired
deputy sheriffand on the other side is Mr. Hoffrnan. Affiant's property is secure from the street.
by locking fences. Mr. Hoffman is the only cne who knows where our propane tanks are. Mr.
Hoitnan and Affiant have been friends for many years until last year when Hoffnan schemed to
get rid of Affiant and his family, in order to sell the entire lot including the property Hoffinan
sold to Alfiant by wlV of land sales contract. Holfman and his lhmily spent much time
socializing at Atfiant's house and knows where everything is and what our schedules are.
Hoffrnan designed and helped build the deck and roof that covers our trailer, whe:e the propane
tank is stored.
Z. Mr. Hottnan
jumps
the fence between Affiant's and his property, whenever he wants to come
over, for whatever reason. Affiant fully believes that Mr. Hof-fman is responsible for the
tampering of the propane bottle. Affiant believes that is what Mr. Hoffinan meant by "Anyway. I
will have them out of here soon enough!" Attant fllly believes that Mr. Hoffman would rather
cause an explosion or fire, destroying Affiant's home, then comply with the court ordered
agreement
28
Fage 12 *f 15
1{i
i1
::
12
ia
tJ
-,4
t-
,t-
tLt
'! {-}
i r_;
1*
i5
17
n/1
f a a
jj lJ
21
i3
?4
25
2b
27
AQ
r:, l-t
Fage 13 {}f 15
59. On or about November 11. 2010 the phone company began digging trenches to put new
underground lines in for all of Mr. Hoffman's phone lines, upgrading his DSL and cable lines, on the
outside of the fbnce line. Mr. Holfman no longer uses the phone box. On or about November 16, while
Affiant was at work and Affiant's wife was grocery shopping, Mr. Hoffman came into the fenced area.
cut the cable he had installed through the trees and over the driveways, and disconnected all of the wires,
so that a cut cable was exposed and all of the wires in the phcne box.
60. On or about March 17,2011, Plaintifls were forced to f-rle tbr an ex parte healing due to continuous
harassment bv Hoffrnan.
A. On or about March 10, 201i at approximately 1835 hrs. I approached an RV that is parked ia the
front ofour property, and opened the door oa the passenger side. Just as I opened the door, I heard the
whiz and hit of what I believe to be a BB on the side of the door as it opened. The whiz aad irit was so
close that if I hadn't have opened the door when I did, I believe I would have been hit. The BB came
fi'om the direction of Mr. Hoffman's house. There is no one else around for the shot to come fi'om.
B. At this tirne there is a restraining order against him and against :rs. My husband and I were never served
his answer to our original co*rplaint and never have been able to respond to prevent a restraining order
against us. We have not done a:rything to provoke such retaliation. except through the cout"t system.
C, On or about March 10, 2011 at approximately 1040 hrs. Roxann, a gcest on our propefty, was tasting
lettuce she had planted in the gardea of the Gillespies' home when a shot whizzed right by her riglit hip. It
was so close she could feel it go by. We believe it was from a BB rifle. The whiz of the BBs hit was so close
tirat if she moved slightly she would have been hit. The BB came from the direction of Mr. Hoffman's house.
There is no one else around for the shol to come from. Roxann went to sit down inside the greenhouse to
try to understand what was happening, when Mr. Hoffman approached her from Hoff*an's side of the fence
and began talking to Roxann. Mr. Hoffman stated: "You should be happy yoll are alive, because other
people weret't so lucky." He inaudibly mumbled. thenyelled: "I WILL KILL YOU ALL!" Then again
yelled louder: "GET OFF MY LAND!" Hoffman's I0 year old daughter Mattie was standing next to him.
By his demeanor, his stance, he appeared to be prompting her to take some kind of action. He, then lvalked
rapidly back to his house with his daughter by his side. Roxann called 91 1. A Tulare County Sheriff officer
responded at approximately twelve nool. The o{ficer talked to Mr. Hoffman first. then talked to Roxann.
The officer took a report and the case number is: 11-03198.
D. OnMarchl1,2011,at3:lgpm,Roxannwaslookingr:ptothetopofajustcompletedbambootrellisin
the garden. Hoffman's front door faces the garden. As Roxann was moved her head upwards She felt a BB
hit her on my left cheek causing a stinging impact and inflamation. The BB hit her precisely where her eye
wolld have been had she not tipped rny head upwards at that exact moment. The impact was visible as a
broken blood vessel turning bright red. About an hour after impactthe cheek muscle became stiff and sore.
As the evening of March 15n', 4 days lajter, the stiffiress and soreaess continued.. The sharp stinging pain
lasted for about 24 hours. Roxann was terrified, a::d walked into the comfort and protection of the
1fi
11
ta
i2
'l .-
tJ
i i-!
t$
1tI
t-?
i5
1S
17
19
/tJ
?1
11
-|n
JJ
Ft
,{
25
26
27
greenhouse to hide frosr vierv and keep herself together when she heard Nicholas Hoffinan say from inside
his house
o'Next
time it will be your eyeo'.
E. These are not the o*ly times Roxann has been harassed by Mr. Hoffman when the Gillespies are not
home. Early in the morning, Mr. Hoffman co:nes to the gate close by Roxann's RV while she am sleeping
inside and creates a disturbance. Roxann has observed Mr. Hoffman pee:ing over the fence through ogling
her at her back screen door, leering ald peeping, Mr. Hoffman's daughter will ride her horse b-v tire gate to
the Gillespies' property to surveil who is at the property. Roxann has seen her immediately
$o
report to her
father what she sees. Mattie, Hoffman's daughter has rode her horse close by screaning at me io'.DIE!",
DIE! DIE! On more than one occasio:r. When Roxann takes walks in the aftemoon. Hoffman takes iris dog
out for a walk too and orders the dog to dttack her. Hoffman will have his hired help follow Roxann into
town and then Hoffman brags later about knowing where she has gone ald where she has been. Roxann has
been approached by someone unknown to her, a young man, who was bald, at Walmart, who stated directly
to her:
oolt'
s time for yor: to leave town ! : This was very frightening and confusing to her. The incidents are
too numerous to list at this time because preparation time is limited.
60. Plaintiffs have had a difficult tirne getting the con'ect documents from previous coufi oases and
transcripts, that Plaintiff needed for the demurrer to defendant's answer and to defendants' cross-
complaint. The exhibits and declarations were put in late, because that is how long it tool, the court
clerk of Porterville court to get the documents that Plaintiffs requested. There are more documents
that Plaintiffs need to file and serve for
judicial
notice, but have not yetreceived the transcripts, and
money constraints have prevented Plaintiffs from getting a certified copy ofthe entir court's record
as required by court rules and rules of evidence. In addition, Plaintiffs work a lot of hours and odd
hours, and live fifty miles away from the court house, making it even rnore difficult to get
documents filed and served timely. With the loss of Plaintiffs' mother, even lnore time has been lost.
putting Plaintiff behind even more in responses. Because ofthe time problem" Plaintiffwas not able
to reset the hearing date with paper r,vork and needed to make an oral motion for an order shortening
time and an extension due to exigent and extenuating circumstances, and equitable relief from strict
compliance to local and state court rules.
61. Tentative ruling stated:
"Tentative ruling: To overrule Plaintiffso demurrer to defendants' answer. Plaintiffs must
answer defendants/cross-Cornplainants' cross-complaint, forthr,vith, as no demurrerhas been
fi1ed against defendants' cross-complaint.')
62. Plaintiffs filed for a rehearing on a motion for reconsideration with the hearing date set for
March 18, 201 1. This date was then extended by the court sua sponte to April 15, 201 I .
63. AnApril 15,2011, Mr. Vortman adopted Mr. Fletcher, attorney for the defendants, opposition
to Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. It was clear that Mr. Vortman had not read neither the
motion to strike and demuruer, nor the motion for reconsideration, and neither were heard on the
t?
,,t{3
Page 14 *f 15
{
ffi
'#{
,
Q**A-Lw1^F CI&vber s,
?nt
o
fl,^
pb*,&&
*d^6^ac*/-Htf'^.*
i^dh lw, A-furw,rPutx*
Fkb/wt
el'flia,'nd
lx#r*'l/*
i-J*,;f
WW
F*,p4riht*,. ft)r,
t/rfuvrn
uil"d H*
caw nuhtn I
bfn
W,ruz1utdtd,
/frn
l67"na,?,
strkd *il'k4*6;e,^%
hAc AdtnfrC/
aa&tt
fl,tttt'aa*r,/
dl,einuu
*tr H^t etu,t
enot//,/'/e-
tAtyUrl 6. rc h,g.au|tw' be(&wtt-C/, ftr-
{a^fu*rv W
fA"gm,,
Vk>
ft*'a< \
rvn
Ws(;k$thffiru
lT'Eib
a /&-n
-W
at"lw.y-1r*
Z(:'
jun )
a^A'
't
urc(4
fE,
/1h*ftui
pe&k h)t'|l
ryry
{ofuY*
'a'cdta<a7t>
npf ox-. r,
n*,a4,
!rye'J"i4'T";';iA
I /.**nfrz/
/tu-:'++ffis
*tt bntenaad'
s/ui,t1*-
"opr|," /1
;' W"&--
&t
ryf
Ury
M
A
"
iffi';d;;;r{r';;','i'*ff-
r^h
t
fr;^
,rr4
/*';;
iil*;'A
u: mihin
tua{trr''
ffiH'H
ffirfi:;tu
>1
ioft'p*tte.
ofluttnd,
q*t' /to
fuan'n*Vrts
a'{L{tued
"zrt
tni'
{ ;
^;;"'
"/n
;'
r;ffi,'
w
Po
*t afifu'n^n h
ffu
A
l*h ik
n
*fu
^p
/il'nn
fu
re
1'
)*o
y
;
tfn'*'-
fn/'/"^
Er,tt\'
s[]r^
ft
a,rtcl
l-/,r^ ru-bal
rrta/'^*
fu
H
^
4tnf,/.]ry
No
pihU
y,rpyrlu'rur\
a'es
frr"r^
r+
fuP&'''.4#-' arrdodola*,'k
d
J*qnwrlT dtltdrl d*
patfres
,,**.il, /$L+
A d<,1",r1)
ie. A!nthn'hc*nnn,'ff
,y,fr'*^'#/
'M
tlftU5W';
ffivffi ww
k
Airr/r,6^
iio'lo
*
oW,,id,.l
-ffi;*0
Tr*'
c'uo h"/i
{*
62,
e"C Wq*
f"P^i
n'b'k
txx'l
t
zCI
(
o'
ffi,OtvsswY>o*-f,
Cwh:l'>e"r
Se'7, yft^^dr^^b
Swru<'il
'
fN'u'-il'tu
Lf, S,psrrd
*rwtu
r
fni,;uw
nfi
Uo,:
i,l'"'e4'ok'll*.ef{u^dr"^tb
dentuAA!{fu
t/.e *'W-A[
W;iU'
luh?u'bqr'W
oU"wnttLo*
b*}
tu.rk
:xvse-d,.
*^il"d'\Pry# W"?Y^-U
,
Ag, [:n
g*i" *]*.**; {qnttr*k}tu\r* /,?s\L}
*J''-'
i
\