i{}ii1.;

13

7'1i-r

iq3-J

ItaIl.t

17

ITJt{}

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:tiffsr7v.

Hi*klas F{r:fiir:a*;WYS*CKI TRLTST;**ES 1-1*i]',

*elbndants

}. T -I /-\ 1'l Ft f-} f\ r'' -li\!t-\ | | ;- -., 'r Fi Lli-a Ii 1 Ll . L t--; - ,i-, --., L, ,-/ Lt I

Affidavit in suppart *fA;:i:iie ati';:i ir;r lEr'rit *t" R*view

AFFIDAVIT

I. Melody Gillespie, declarant herein, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuantto the laws of the state of California that the following is true and correct, to the best ofmy own research information and knowledge and und-erstanding: as to those based uponbelief, I believe them true:l. I am a Plaintiff in this case, over the age of majority, and have direct personalknorvledge of the following matters of fact and law. I am competent to testifl if calletJupon, 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 rulingwas 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 theinternet then contacted the Southern California Edison Company and switched our electric utilityaccount into his name. Prior to this incident, the def-e:rdants have been in the habit of takingPlaintiffs 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, HoffinarVWYSOCKlTRUST who proceeded to placing an envelope in Plaintifls mailbox with bogus receipts for rentspaid, pretending that the plaintiffs were renters. The contents of the envelope consisted of a noticeentitled RECEIPTS FOR RENTS PAID (attached to Plaintitls' complaint tbr injurction). Hoffmandid 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 saleincluding the Plaintiffs' portion that PlaintitTs had already purchased by way of an express landsales 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 theUnited 'States mail two letters which were ce(ified and date stamped April 19, 2AI0. In the firstletter, .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

t1,4t .-i

l-iJ

1t=t*)1 s--l" L-t

1FF,t

i{}1i

{ d-}t*

L9

71

1,4l4

J5l,*\-t

22

flnL3

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 beremoved from the property. The second letter contained only the CALIFORI'{IA COMMERCIALLEASE AGREEMENT. Both letters were rejected by Plaintitls and sert back to HotTman as "REFLISEDFOR FRAUD", along with a cotrstructive notice to cease and desist.

#. *i: *rFlaintiflsi:im.

about May 1, 2010, a Southem California Edison Field Service Representative came toproperly because of a repofi tiom Hoffman allegi:rg Plaintift-s were stealing electricity t}om

g..OnoraboutMay4,20l0,afterPlaintiffs'electricityaccountwasrestored,Hoffrnan,afterbeing caughtand humiliated, retaliated by calling out a code entbrcement officer. Hoftinan made many false/bogus clainsagainst plaintiffs, slating that plaintiffs did not live on the property, and had many code violations. As aresult from calling, the Oftcer left. No arrests were made and no citations were given for any allegedviolations. At this time Hoffrnan's behavior was so threatening, intimidating and done with such malice thatplaintifl-s had to abandon drawing up their Injunctive relief complaint and in its place lile a TemporaryRestraining order against Hoffman to stop the abuse.

*t

'I

-'t

.4-T

Fa

ryt

itt

!i

it

rtTL

i-l_'

**t-

JtL;

1irl

12

i ,1,l+

15

1#tr.}

i6

17

1*

L\}

,jl

L3

/ant+

25

ad*w

27

,-t f-rl,,o

Fage 4 *l 15

srf.v*hnine' $ciscning.i*i.'.i!i

',,iii *.,.,....2., *.tts-r,mpt**t.Er I thrit I irad

Siffiilar t* tiiis inciclcnt. i,t'* trriciWe h*iier'* tliat tl:e), ti:* r.r,ei*eiperie*ce.*d.

fbr"rr d*gs clr*p dcad r,+iihin att

Fr"ri.s*,i.:,*,g3,,F:r:#*a*; :, :Tl1*,.d*$st*'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 mischiefby Hoffrnan, we were forced by Hoffman's malicious acts to postpone drawing up and filing ourcomplaints for injunctive relief tthat were designed o prevent Hoffman fiom selling our portion ofthe subdivided propelq, that we and Hoffman had contractually agreed to buy and since theconsumation thereof and we had been making regular payments and were never in anears. Latertiris day, we filed our ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AFFIDAVIT OF CO}{TEMPT OF RULING ofthe 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 severalSheriff 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 previouslyrequested, however, these reports were so heavily redacted that they were completely illegibleand incomprehensible. wherefbre making these reports unusable.

20. On or about August 26, 2010, the plaiatiffs filed this instant Injunction complaint againstNicklasHofftnan, the WYSOCKI TRUST and does 1-100, due to the impending threatby Hoffmanto sell the plaintiffs portion of the p:operty without our consent or agreement. 20. On or aboutAugust 26, 2410, at the time when we filed our complaint for injunction, the clerk of the Superior courtset a status conference date for October 5, 2010. At tire time of filing I, Melody, asked the courtclerks for a copy of the local court rules. The clerked replied was "there was none in stock. Atthe lime, I did not realize that it was wrong lbr the clerk to set October 5th for a PreiininaryInjunction, because, the court clerk failed to perform her ministerial duty and wait until afterthe summons and complaint were served on the defbndant and proofofservicewasfiled. It waswrong to set a hearing date prior to service. lnretrospect,westarted drawing up the complaint priorto the May3,2010 incident because we were attempting to prosecute the order to show cause(casenumber l0-237521)first. Wearepro-pers, and could not finish drawing the compiaiat until justbelbre filing it. It is our belief that something had to be done to keep Hoffman liom selling ourproperty.

21. On or about September 3rd 2010 we caused to be served their subpoenafordocumentsupon 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 NicklasHoffman, 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 tookit to the courthouse for issuance. In the subpoena to the Sheriff, we requested hirn to give us

'1J

lil

11!l

1l:

12

?fl,ar 1-'

a-

t'aL,t

24

25

26

27

13

trta ;ai?

1rt-aL-J

i r,t

77

1gl_ 1J

19

JL

, I L'

L{}

il? 5- {*VY * 5ry75W{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 thecourt and filed a declarati"tffrt3t# |t#t9if. defendants did not respond to the complaintas required by the summons. 'Concurrently, I asked the clerk for a copy of the docunents that Isubpoenaed previously. The court clerk refused to give me the requested documents. Theclerk told me to ask the judge for the subpoenaed documents. When the clerk looked up therecord on file on the computer, she said nothing about any tentative ruling. The clerk saidafter she received the declaration stated. she would file the document right away and lake therecord upstairs to Dept. 7 where a hearing was scheduled to take place tomorrow. I checkedthe court record and there were no nsw recordings of any kind, except a status conferencehearing set for October 5, 2010. At this time there was no record of any attorneyappearance for the defendants on file.

31. OnOctober5th20l0, the plaintiffs and defendants appeared betbre the Hon. PaulVortman. While in attendance, after calling the case, the Plaintiffs requested Mr. Vortman togive them a copy of the Sheriff s reports they earlier had subpoenaed. Mr. Vortman refused togive the subpoenaed documents and refused to allow the plaintiffs or the defendants theopportunity 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 arequest for oral argument on his ruling,

At this point nobody even knew what VORTMAN was talking about. He curtly calied the nextcase. What is the point of scheduling a hearing, then on the appointed day and time for thehearing, the judicial officer refuses to perform his obligation? The court for :easons not klownto the Plaintiffs made a pretended motion, called it a preliminary injunction petition, thenwithout notice or opportunity given to the plaintiffs or defendants, sumrnarily denied the partiestheir right to be heard. There is no motion on the record.

32. Ott October L2,2010 Nicklas Hoffman. ffi apparent alter-ego WYSOCKI TRUST filedtheir Notice of hearing for his demurrer. It appears that Hoffinan or his counsel did file hisresponse 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 forpurpose of hearing the defendant demurrer to the complaint. It appears to have been filedOctober 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-1I it

TJ

1.4t+

ist tl

-Fl

LI

! it

tuJ- ,t

1i

_.r tt

,=]']

.r -a

,L,--T

..t -3

./ tl

a1i4t

|,,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:,limeswit * us being$affi'preie* at or ta #A:'#i*iy"C-iamed incidents. We subpoenaed therep..,o.#g.;,1$ sho* ffi:la* ftcftes claims that are oftenmlslead,in$, not*e a5* of fubri*atedtbr use to establish his lack of credibility, the malicious mischief-Comrnitted, and the tortuousinterfei6Aa'i;'=*ffip:a abiliff; aflntaid]oaily tife. Flai*ri# i *a Defendants'aiftpmey,-.,,bi*hane of'#e ari,:1g;|#*+tll !. t* iate place on Nove*er'5;i2o t o.35.;# # ab*utNffiwer ?'=' .T'0;'R4"6 Fi*icher; aur*?iffi **fi*aan** fite? #'u$p*ition*' f-itii*t!f*l,Hx,P e **otffi ainti$ ,noi.receivqa-d*$*:artSeoppoiition in tiure for theUe#in$5h,idffs r***ed Udposiii n..i# NibVte*,ger* 2010. it* waiting for the case tob.e oalled.;:'ir'a.361\,{i.'$l@ei, eftorney for:the &ffid t* $ereiadef;Fr*tc@,it- e ad any*#$ $iti ,"t ,hcning the sheriffs reports, and of c,o $e,*ould i edia#make''copies So;d6'fdants. Fletcheidid' *t respo*=d,' m e,,no attemptto nan fU ffs'# cop+ of ffiedefta.d..aqt$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 in3uactanana+n siai; er*+ uffit&'*a''adE s rn are a pl#ffittr hl;s'eoordj36. 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. butappeared to be doing well.

38. On November 15. 2010. a tentative ruiing was issued for defendarts to answer the cornplaintand defendants' demurrer was denied.

39. On or about November 16,201.A, Piaintiff s mother had another stroke and heart attack, andbecane 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 aboutNovember 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 aboutItlz3ll\,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 summonsissued.

44. On or about December 4,201A, Plaintiff retumed to Porterviile. Saturday morning . andfiied 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

11it

rla1L

1-a _{r

4,4a /tt-t

llrJ

16

aFf:t

t t--lLLt

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 wasgone. 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 setfor 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 Plaintiffsrequested an extension for good cause shorvn. which was granted, by Judicial Officer LloydHicks. Plaintiffs filed their case management statement and motion for shortening time into therecord. Defendant's seryed their cross-complaint on the Plainliffs. A copy of the procf ofservice was never sent to Plaintiffs as required by court rules.:rl.The ,was a,n p+jff*dde4,,inths t U ifii

"r-diA* tU es of court the laws$fumm*;ss*'*A*:i.tbhj,'0:'aa=.F"=f*iffil #g,''ffii} EE. a iarftain*fs **r-e a+'afie,'6* f*e lnad$eenil$j:i illffi-ffidl fiffi,Ydfiie fiiHil ililtt$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 toanswer. 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. andreceived in the mail the opposition to the demurrer to the answer. The opposition sited ofTpointcases and had many effoneous and false statements. Plaintiffs created a rebuttal to theopposition.

50. On or about January 14,2011, Mr. Vortman gave a tentative ruling for January18. 201 1which was unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not know a tentative ruling rvould be given fourdays prior to the date scheduled for hearing

5 1 . On or about January 13, 2011, Plaintiffs received in the mail Defendant Hofftnan'sopposition to Plaintiffs' demurrer to defendant's answer. Plaintiffs did not receive the responsein time to rebut the issues raised in defendant's opposition. Hon. Paul Vortman took thedefendant's opposition completely for the tentative ruling. The opposition to Plaintiffs demurerhad many false, misleading and untrue statements, making the tentative n:ling based onerroneous information. Because Defendant Hoffinan did not get his opposition served toPlaintiffs in time for a response before the tentative ruling. Piaintiffs were uaable to present areply to the court prior to the tentative ruling.

52. The fact thal Plaintiffs did not receiVe the defendant's opposition in time to prepare aresponse prior to the tenlative ruling could have been cured by oral argument. Because MartinLuther Kings' Birthday was bein-e celebrated a few days prior to his birthday, took Plaintiffs by

Fage I of 15

lfr| !tL1-J

i1rl

1?

a.-t4L*'

t4

15

1S

17

i {-}to

L9

?fJ

,]!

--tL3

'-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 theday 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 determinationthat Plaintiffs notice by fax, was untimely due to a holiday that rvas not on the actual day thatwhen the event celebrated, occurred denied due process and res judacata on the merits, access tothe court, equal protection under the law. and a fair and impartial hearing. The court rules allowfor when a due date falls on a recognized hoiiday, when the court is closed, then the due date isthe 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 anddescriminated 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. January23,2011 was a Sunday or it would have been due then.

54. The Code of Civil Procedure $432.10 :

TI-TIRTY*AYLIMIT TS PLTA* A3{} days after service mov. dcmllr, *rffianner 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 otherthan answers to the cross-complaint. Plaintiffs wrote and filed the demurrer prior to aayknowledge of the cross-complaint that Plaintiffs were personally served in the hall- way of thecourthouse on December 23,2011. Pursuant to CCP 432JA, Plaintiffs have 30 days in which topresent 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 demurrersubmitted to the court, and served on Plaintiffs, and did not do so. Notice of the Demurrer, andthe 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 gettingdocuments served to Plaintiffs.

56. There have been two'incidents where Plaintiffs did not receive any notice of oppositionfrom the defendants, and the attorney of record, Robert Fletcher, should have at least givenPlaintiffs 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 disclosehe had filed an opposition, until three days or more, after appearances, Plaintiffs received theoppositions in the mail. The case management statement from defendants was received fwo daysprior 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 amendedcase manasement statement

Fage I *f 15

1't

1{i1tit

1?

,tI-'

1ni-T

15

i4zl

tflIJTi{}

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 lossrrf time. Due to violations of the restraining order in case numberl0 -237521, caused a lot of losstime needed to answer pleadings and gather necessary documenls for judicial notice. Plaintiffshave 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 afence around the electric meter pole and telephone box, with a gate access to the outside of the ibncearound 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 constructedfor 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 hishandy man Brett Thompson come out of Mr. Hofinan's gate. L{r. Hoffman appeared visiblyangry.

C. Mr. Holfman stood in the middle of the road at the edge of his property screa:ning andflailing his arms. He screamed "My intemet radio station is not working! Somebody cut myphone 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 hirnto 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 TechSupport check the lines to see if there were any problems in the phone lines. No one had calledTech Support prior to Melody to have the lines checked

F. Affiant did not understand why Nicklas Hoffnan was screarning in the streets at the sametime as he was supposed to pay Affiant as per the settlement agreement, and cou* order of casenurnber IA-n7521. Alfiant has nothing to gain by cutting Mr. Hoffman's phone wires. Affiantis 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 usesince June 2005. If Afliant was going to stop Mr. Hoflman from the usage of a utility, it wouldbe the electricity and Affiant could turn that off without impunity, because he has failed to makeany payments. Aft*nt fixed the fence as agreed by Mr. Hoflinan's request, and had his ownentrance, that he could put his own lock on, at his request, and in return Mr. Hoffmall was to payhis share of the costs of prosecuting the TRO and his share of the electric bill tbr the time ourwater was cut off. The total was $2800 (twenty eight hundred dollars) Affiant did not and wouidnot do anything to Mr. Hoffinan's several phone lines. Affrant just wanted to be paid. Theelectric bill hadiust come in and was approximately $1900 (nineteen hundred dollars). Atfiantwas very carefui while installing the"fence around the meter pole lar away enough liom theundersround wires not to interfere with them.

1!

?t

fi

+

6

n

5

i)

igl

11l-i

1tLL

{.-TJ1ni-

15

i61"7LI

i r-i!*fL {_}

1*

2i]

21

.r1

't'!!3

AA

.LJ

2b.].'7i-l

")ai- i-)

G. Aftiant understood the implication of Mr. Hoffman's actions were to not pay Atfiants and toaccuse Affiant of wrong doing

H. Affiant called the Sheriff substation in Porterville. Atfiant reported that there had been aproblem 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 thatthe Sheriff had alreadv received a call and an officer was already disoatched to the Aifiant'saddress.

J. When the officer arrived, Affiant invited the oftcer to see *re phone box, and Aftantexplained what happened. Mr. Hoftman came inside with the olficer tc view the box. Theolficer 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 bepad locked because this is my box!" The olficer asked him, "Aren't they (in reference to theAffianQ supposed to have access to it?

L. Mr. HotAnan stated he didn't know. The officer asked him, "Are they your tenants?" Aftiantspoke up and stated, "We are not tenants." Mr. Hoffilan yelled, "They are nothing butsquatters!" 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 thewires. The officer told him:hat this was a civil matter and did not involve the sheriffs. TheOfficer and M:. Hoffman left.

N. At approximately 3:15 pm, Mr. Hoffman returned with Brett Thompson and another youngman, whom Affiant did not recognize. The men brought a phone with them apparently to test thelines.

O. Mr. Hoffman unplugged all of the wires and replugged the wires back in and used the phoneto 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, andreconnected the wires several times.

Q. At approximately 3:35 pm, as the men were leaving again, Mr. Hoffrnan said loudly to themen 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-erringto Atfiant and his wife).

R. The tone of Mr. Hoffinan's voice and the way Hottnan had stated, Arryway, I am going tohave them out of here soon enough!", caused Affiant to believe that Mr. Hotfinan had donesomething or had plans to do something to force Affiant and wife to leave their home.

Page 11of 15

1S

i1:.L

i?

14

13

I8LL)

15

1S

17

19

2{}

77

ar r\

.Fi .1L3

24

75

26

27

S. At approximately 4:45 pm, Mr. Hoftman retumed with a ro11 of wire and spliced into tbephone box to run lines overhead. through the trees, across the driveways and fence lines to hishouse. 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 phoneline cables underground to his house and garage, he installed two cable lines running from thephone box to his house and garage. The one cable that Mr. Hoffman checked was the cable hisphone lines were connected to. Mr. Hoffrnan never checked his second cable to see if it wasokay, and still active. All he would have had to do was switch his phone line over to the secondcable. 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 gobabysit Affiant's g:andchildren. Affia:rt's wit-e, Melody, works night shilt and had gone to bedto sleep.

V. The next morning, Monday, November 8, 2010, at approximately 8:30 am, Affiant noticed astrong smell of propane outside, in the back of the trailer in which Affiant lives. Affiant went tocheck and found that the propane lines had been tampered with. The lines were very loose andonly finger:ighte:red, causing a rapid loss of propane. The propane bottle requires tools toconnect to the lines to tighten the connection which prevents leakage. Affiant keeps the tools toexchange and tighten the propaae bottles next to the propane bottle inside the traile: LPGcompartment, 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 ofpropane left in the bottle as Aff,rant does every Sunday to see if more is needed. At that time theconnections were tight, ald there was plenty of propane.

X. The concentration of the amount of propane that escaped would have caused at the very leastan instant fire, enveloping the whole trailer. if anyone had tru:red on the hot water. The flame forthe 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 retireddeputy 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 toget rid of Affiant and his family, in order to sell the entire lot including the property Hoffinansold to Alfiant by wlV of land sales contract. Holfman and his lhmily spent much timesocializing 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 propanetank is stored.

Z. Mr. Hottnan jumps the fence between Affiant's and his property, whenever he wants to comeover, for whatever reason. Affiant fully believes that Mr. Hof-fman is responsible for thetampering of the propane bottle. Affiant believes that is what Mr. Hoffinan meant by "Anyway. Iwill have them out of here soon enough!" Attant fllly believes that Mr. Hoffman would rathercause an explosion or fire, destroying Affiant's home, then comply with the court orderedagreement28

Fage 12 *f 15

1{i

i1::

12

iatJ-,4t-

,t-tLt

'! {-}i r_;

1*

i5

17

n/1f a ajj lJ

21

i3

?4

25

2b

27

AQr:, l-t

Fage 13 {}f 15

59. On or about November 11. 2010 the phone company began digging trenches to put newunderground lines in for all of Mr. Hoffman's phone lines, upgrading his DSL and cable lines, on theoutside of the fbnce line. Mr. Holfman no longer uses the phone box. On or about November 16, whileAffiant 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 continuousharassment bv Hoffrnan.

A. On or about March 10, 201i at approximately 1835 hrs. I approached an RV that is parked ia thefront ofour property, and opened the door oa the passenger side. Just as I opened the door, I heard thewhiz and hit of what I believe to be a BB on the side of the door as it opened. The whiz aad irit was soclose that if I hadn't have opened the door when I did, I believe I would have been hit. The BB camefi'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 servedhis answer to our original co*rplaint and never have been able to respond to prevent a restraining orderagainst 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 tastinglettuce she had planted in the gardea of the Gillespies' home when a shot whizzed right by her riglit hip. Itwas so close she could feel it go by. We believe it was from a BB rifle. The whiz of the BBs hit was so closetirat 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 totry to understand what was happening, when Mr. Hoffman approached her from Hoff*an's side of the fenceand began talking to Roxann. Mr. Hoffman stated: "You should be happy yoll are alive, because otherpeople weret't so lucky." He inaudibly mumbled. thenyelled: "I WILL KILL YOU ALL!" Then againyelled 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 lvalkedrapidly back to his house with his daughter by his side. Roxann called 91 1. A Tulare County Sheriff officerresponded 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:ptothetopofajustcompletedbambootrellisinthe garden. Hoffman's front door faces the garden. As Roxann was moved her head upwards She felt a BBhit her on my left cheek causing a stinging impact and inflamation. The BB hit her precisely where her eyewolld have been had she not tipped rny head upwards at that exact moment. The impact was visible as abroken 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 painlasted for about 24 hours. Roxann was terrified, a::d walked into the comfort and protection of the

1fi

11ta

i2'l .-tJ

i i-!t$

1tIt-?

i5

1S

17

19

/tJ

?1

11

-|nJJFt ,{

25

26

27

greenhouse to hide frosr vierv and keep herself together when she heard Nicholas Hoffinan say from insidehis 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 nothome. Early in the morning, Mr. Hoffman co:nes to the gate close by Roxann's RV while she am sleepinginside and creates a disturbance. Roxann has observed Mr. Hoffman pee:ing over the fence through oglingher at her back screen door, leering ald peeping, Mr. Hoffman's daughter will ride her horse b-v tire gate tothe Gillespies' property to surveil who is at the property. Roxann has seen her immediately $o report to herfather 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 dogout for a walk too and orders the dog to dttack her. Hoffman will have his hired help follow Roxann intotown and then Hoffman brags later about knowing where she has gone ald where she has been. Roxann hasbeen approached by someone unknown to her, a young man, who was bald, at Walmart, who stated directlyto her: oolt' s time for yor: to leave town ! : This was very frightening and confusing to her. The incidents aretoo 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 andtranscripts, 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 courtclerk of Porterville court to get the documents that Plaintiffs requested. There are more documentsthat Plaintiffs need to file and serve for judicial notice, but have not yetreceived the transcripts, andmoney constraints have prevented Plaintiffs from getting a certified copy ofthe entir court's recordas required by court rules and rules of evidence. In addition, Plaintiffs work a lot of hours and oddhours, and live fifty miles away from the court house, making it even rnore difficult to getdocuments 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 ableto reset the hearing date with paper r,vork and needed to make an oral motion for an order shorteningtime and an extension due to exigent and extenuating circumstances, and equitable relief from strictcompliance to local and state court rules.

61. Tentative ruling stated:"Tentative ruling: To overrule Plaintiffso demurrer to defendants' answer. Plaintiffs mustanswer defendants/cross-Cornplainants' cross-complaint, forthr,vith, as no demurrerhas beenfi1ed against defendants' cross-complaint.')

62. Plaintiffs filed for a rehearing on a motion for reconsideration with the hearing date set forMarch 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, oppositionto Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. It was clear that Mr. Vortman had not read neither themotion to strike and demuruer, nor the motion for reconsideration, and neither were heard on thet?

,,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*,;fWW F*,p4riht*,. ft)r, t/rfuvrn uil"d H* caw nuhtn Ibfn 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'cdtanpf 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 tfr;^ ,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 "zrttni' { ;

^;;"'

"/n ;' r;ffi,' w Po *t afifu'n^n hffu 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 dJ*qnwrlT dtltdrl d* patfres ,,**.il, /$L+ A d

ie. A!nthn'hc*nnn,'ff ,y,fr'*^'#/ 'M tlftU5W';ffivffi wwk 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