10-11-2011 Courtney Ray &amp Melody Ann Gillespie Original Complaint in Adversarial Action Filed Pursuant To 18 USC 241-242 18 USC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie P.O. Box 8323 Porterville, California 93257 Telephone: (559) 788-0630 Cell: (559) 779-8253 Plaintiff/Debtor, pro se, in propia persona UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-FRESNO In Re: Melody Ann Gillespie Debtor, ________________________________ Melody Ann & Courtney Ray Gillespie, Roxann Davidson, Plaintiffs, v. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, and Nickol D. Gerritsma, individually and as As Trustees of the H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Castleman, individually and As Trustees for/Managing Directors of Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, Individually and as owner operator of FirstAmendmentRadio.com, aka far.com, also aka Liberty Radio Live, and any owned/operated enterprises, New Paradigm Holding Co., Robert J. Fletcher, Brett Thompson, and John & Jane Does 1-10, Defendants. ____________________________________ Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case No.: 11-17815-A-13
ADVERSARIAL ACTION #: _________________________ A Core Proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(E),(G) (H), (I), (K), (L)& (M) with Partly Non-Core Proceedings, namely contingent-unliquidated Complaint for Personal Injuries inextricably intertwined with the issues herein raised, per 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(O)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
In re Debtor---Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie: Original Complaint in Core Adversarial Action Gillespie & Gillespie v. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, et al.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN ADVERSARIAL ACTION 1. Debtor and Plaintiff Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie files this her Original Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien and Injunctions, together with her co-Plaintiffs Roxann Davidson and Courtney Gillespie, for relief as a core proceeding adversarial action under the umbrella of the above-entitled-and-numbered Chapter 13 Petition to establish the inventory of the estate assets. 2. In briefest essence, the Plaintiff Debtor and her husband are suing to recover either the title earned or damages for the conversion of their time, toil, and talent as well as not inconsiderable actual cash investment all made over the past seven years (since June 1, 2004). 3. This is a core action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 157 because by and through this action Debtor/Plaintiff Melody Gillespie seeks (with reference to the subsections of 157(b)(2): (E) orders [against the defendants to this Original Complaint] to turn over property of the estate; [to resolve]. . . (G) motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay 1 ; (H) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances [including all of Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans attempts to convert the debtors property and title, subject of this lawsuit]; (I) determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts [such as Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans claims for $44,800 as of August 9, 2009, plus accruals since, all of which claims of indebtedness Plaintiffs Courtney Ray and Melody Ann Gillespie submit are fraudulent]; . . . (K) determinations of the validity,
1
Motions concerning the modification of the automatic stay will or may be relevant to the Defendants previous counterclaim in a Tulare County Superior Court Action 10-238961 which Plaintiff Debtor Removed on August 8, 2011, under Eastern District Bankruptcy Caption & Case number of Adversary Proceeding #: 11-01205, but which counterclaim was ordered remanded over Debtors objection, and without allowing amendment, after a non-evidentiary hearing by order signed on October 6, 2011, entered October 7, 2011. Plaintiff debtor has moved, of even date with the filing of this original complaint as an adversarial action, that the Court reconsider the remand all issues subject to her notice of removal, as allowed under 28 U.S.C. 1334, 1443, and 1452.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
extent, or priority of liens [including the foreclosure of Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespies Mechanics Lien attached as Exhibit D to this Original Complaint; (L) confirmations of plans [Debtor Melody Ann Gillespies plan, and its viability, depends almost totally on this Courts resolution of her massive investments in the subject property at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, CA]; (M) orders approving the use or lease of property, including the use of cash collateral [including but not limited to whether tortfeasor Nicklas Arthur Hoffman should have any continuing rights to use, enjoy, or conduct his business from 1831 North Lime Street at Debtors expense utilizing the unpaid product of Debtors and Courtney Ray Gillespies labors and investments of time and money]. 4. All the parties plaintiffs and defendants live and/or have their principal place of business and all of the transactions and occurrences giving rise to this action took place within the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1334, and 18 U.S.C. 1961-1964(c). DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO CONSTRUE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES & NATURE OF CONTRACT 5. At the root of all the issues to be resolved by this adversarial action is the nature of the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie and the Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-2201 as well as 28 U.S.C. 157 & 1334, Plaintiffs seek that the court allow them to offer and present evidence, after a reasonable time and meaningful opportunity for discovery pursuant to Rule 26(f) et seq. of the Federal Rules, and to present all such evidence to a jury for findings of fact according to Common Law, and mixed questions of fact and law as allowed by American Caselaw and Precedents, that at the termination of all such evidence and upon the report of the findings of the jury, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
construing the meaning, purpose, and intent of the contracts in a just and equitable manner according to principles of common law and equitable traditions of fairness. 6. Plaintiffs have framed their primary claims for damages in this case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act because Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, acting as a principal within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2(b) and 1962(a), has organized his businesses together with associates for twenty years or more as an enterprise to acquire, direct, invest, and manage properties through the conduct of a continuing pattern of racketeering including murder or attempted murder 2 , continual harassment by assault and battery, intimidation of witnesses, and unfair business transactions often disguised by the utilization of deceptive and manipulative devices such as false trusts and/or holding companies and/or other individual associates who hold title in his place, but under his control and for his benefit, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a)(b). 7. Nickol D. Gerritsma, Robert J. Fletcher, Nancy and Alan Castleman are also sued for racketeering under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) & (d) as parties acting under the direction and control of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman as employees, co-conspirators, or agents. Plaintiff Roxann Davidson, not a party to any commercial transaction with Defendant Hoffman, in particular has suffered from a pattern of assault and battery
Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, though never convicted of murder, appeared to admit murder to Plaintiff Roxann Davidson, after he shot a pellet gun twice at her within a single twenty-four hour period that she was lucky to be alive, but others have not been so lucky. Strange circumstances and unexplained accidents have also led to the death of Hoffmans pregnant wife and crippling injury of his oldest son. Hoffman has poisoned the Plaintiffs dogs and may have poisoned the Plaintiffs food at one point. Plaintiffs believe that the Defendant has set up a chair on his property with a clear line of sight from his roof to their property and have heard the Defendant instructing his minor daughter on how to kill the Plaintiffs dogs and intimidate them. Whether indictable or subject to conviction beyond reasonable doubt, Plaintiffs submit and contend that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has shown murderous tendencies and attitudes which constitute a nearly continual and ongoing assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress which goes far beyond the ordinary connotations of the word harassment. In re Debtor---Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie: Original Complaint in Core Adversarial Action 4
2
Gillespie & Gillespie v. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, et al.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
with intentional infliction of emotional distress, while Hoffman has sought to intimidate her as a potential witness and thereby obstruct justice. 8. With regard to their underlying property disputes, Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie contend, and by and through this complaint ask this Court to review, interpret, and construe the documents and prior testimony evidencing the parties agreement, by entry of a declaratory judgment, to declare and adjudge that Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie agreed with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman on February 1, 2005, to purchase the five acres of land located at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California through a trust arrangement for $60,000.00. 9. The best characterization of the nature and contours of the original contract is probably to call it a Contract for Deed or Contract for Sale, although some references to a Deed of Trust and Trustee suggest the intent to create a mortgage, although these terms could also be construed to suggest an intent to create a private and joint trust between the parties (without specifying any beneficiary, but circumstances implying that Melody Gillespie was the intended beneficiary). Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie seek quiet title to the entire property and/or partition, and/or a declaratory judgment that their rights as beneficiaries of a trust have been violated through the malfeasance and breaches of fiduciary duty perpetrated against them by both Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and Hoffmans daughter and Trustee Nickol D. Gerritsma. 10. Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie ask this United States Bankruptcy Court to declare and adjudge that this contractual amount of $60,000.00 has already been paid in full, with substantial interest, in that Plaintiffs have paid a combination of cash, labor, and equipment to Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman with a total value in excess of $720,000, not counting damages resulting from any criminal or tortious conduct, and that Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie, as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
husband and wife, should accordingly be granted quiet title in this property, which is indivisible under the California Land Conservation Act (aka Williamson Act). 11. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans efforts to swindle the Plaintiffs and cheat them of their money and rightfully purchased property, however, has expanded to something much more grandiose than a simple real estate fraud, in that Defendant has resorted to actual violence, threats of violence, theft, and continual harassment and acts of intimidation to try to force the Plaintiffs to abandon their investment and leave their property. 12. Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie claim in this action that they are entitled to both land and money damages for emotional distress, assault, battery, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, constructive and actual fraud, attempts at malicious prosecution, attempted wrongful eviction, slander of title, and trespass from Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and the other Defendants, as well as a permanent injunction against Hoffman and anyone acting on his behalf from further harassment and intimidation. 13. Plaintiff Roxann Davidson seeks only damages for Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans extreme and outrageous infliction of emotional distress, assault, and attempted murder. A Continuing Pattern of Racketeering & Infringement on Civil Rights: Predicate Acts & Threats of Violence, Bullying, Coercion & Duress 14. Under 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) (with bold-italic emphasis added): (1) "racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, . . . which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year 15. On March 10, 2011, between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., when Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie left for work, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman attempted to murder or at least to maim or severely injure Plaintiff Roxann Davidson and later
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that day fired at and likewise sought to main or severely injure Plaintiff Melody Gillespie about 7:00 pm by firing a high powered pellet rifle once each at these two Plaintiffs in two related episodes on the same day. 16. The scene setting for this attempted murder Plaintiff Roxann Davidson was pulling weeds in the garden at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville in the property, subject of this litigation, adjacent to his, and Plaintiff Melody Gillespie was in the driveway climbing up a short stairway into the permanently parked RV on the passengers side. home.) 17. After shooting at Plaintiff Roxann, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, while standing close by the fence on his side of the property where he was accompanied by his ten year old daughter Mattie Hoffman, spoke loudly to Roxann Davidson and told her that he intended to kill the Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie as well as her. 18. (The pellet gun in question belonged to Bret Thompson, who left California for Oregon on or about May 15, 2011, after retrieving his pellet gun from the Sierra Sportswear where it had been left on consignment in Porterville, California.) 19. The next day, while Plaintiff Melody Gillespie went to Visalia to file a Motion for Order to Show Cause why Nicklas Arthur Hoffman should not be held in contempt for violation of the already extant October 29, 2010, Civil Restraining Order entered in California Superior Court protecting Melody and Courtney Gillespie and to keep Nicklas Arthur Hoffman away from their property, to wit on March 11, 2011, Hoffman shot Roxann Davidson again with the same high powered pellet gun, and this time hit her in the face while she was in the same garden. Defendant Hoffman told her on this occasion that he intended to hit her eye and would not miss next time.
(This RV functions as Plaintiff Roxann Davidsons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
20. 21.
Plaintiffs submit that this episode constitutes two predicate acts or threats Defendant Hoffmans attacks this year on Plaintiff Roxann Davidson and
involving murder during 2011 alone, but this story is only beginning. Melody Gillespie clearly constituted criminal assault and (in the case of Roxann Davidson) battery with bodily injury (mayhem), which resulted in only minimal long-term damages (e.g. dermal numbness) but could have been much worse. 22. Accordingly, Plaintiff Roxann Davidson additionally complains of and sues Defendant Hoffman for damages resulting from the California state-law torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, over which claims this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. 23. But even with regard to Civil R.I.C.O., Plaintiffs allege that even if Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman did not actually intend to kill Plaintiffs Roxann Davidson and Melody Gillespie, he did intend to violate and plainly did violate the civil rights provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. 241-242, taking advantage of and using a customary, practical, and political presumption of police disinterest, laxity and non-intervention whenever a party is represented by an attorney, so that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman was allowed to act illegally under color and protection of law with completely calm impunity (and effective immunity from prosecution) even after his crimes had been duly reported to the local police 3 , in addition to his violations of 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(A)-(B), 1512(a)(2)(A)-(B), 1512(b)(1)-(2), 1512(d), 1512(f)-(g), and 1513(a)-(b) by witness tampering and/or witness retaliation (in that Plaintiffs had previously filed complaining affidavits or declarations in related state court proceedings alleging criminal conduct on the part of the Defendant).
Plaintiffs are entitled to sue pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 & 1988, and here in fact do sue for civil damages, for the violation of the criminal statutes prohibiting civil rights violations either under Title 18 U.S.C. 241-242 or under Title 18 U.S.C. 1981-1982, just as Civil R.I.C.O. permits recovery for crimes under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). In re Debtor---Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie: Original Complaint in Core Adversarial Action 8
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
24.
Previously, at 3:30-5:00 a.m., on January 17, 2011, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman
was seen and identified by Plaintiff Roxann prowling on the Plaintiffs (Courtney and Melody Gillespies) property, trespassing under cover of night in plain violation of this same October 29, 2011 protective order. As a direct result and in the aftermath, Plaintiffs have filed ten or more complaints and reports concerning such conduct with the Tulare Sheriffs Department, but the county authorities have not taken any action against Defendant Hoffman, which leaves the Plaintiffs without effective protection. 25. On a separate and unrelated occasion, November 7, 2010, the same Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman made a pretextual but false allegation that the Plaintiffs had cut his telephone lines, but used this false pretext as an excuse to gain access to the property to attempt to murder Courtney and/or Melody Gillespie by rigging a propane tank to blow them up when they next turned on the hot water. 26. (Blowing up architectural improvements to property, whether or not it resulted in death or injury to any person, would nonetheless constitute arson with the meaning of all relevant state and federal laws. 26. On this occasion, Defendant Hoffman said to Brett Thompson and another younger associate, in the presence and within the hearing of the Plaintiffs, anyway theyre not going to be here much longer (admittedly, this phrase could be construed either as a continuing threat of murder or of retaliatory wrongful eviction, if it were not for the Defendants history of threatening, murderous chatter and pattern of verbal harassment). 28. This entire event including the threat was also reported to the Police, to no avail. Mr. Hoffmans abusive conduct was effectively continuous, repetitive and harassing, because on June 15, 2010, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman had used a Sawzall (recipro saw or sabre saw, Sawzall being a trademark of the Milwaukee Electric Tool Company) to cut the electric wires and subpanels on the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
property occupied by Plaintiffs and used the pretextually obtained access to the property to put rat poison into Plaintiffs food, leading to Plaintiff Melody Gillespie suffering symptoms of poison from poisoned milk. 29. And again, after this incident, Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie sought to file a report with the local Porterville office of the Tulare County District Attorney. However, the Tulare County Assistant District Attorney Jason Ahn for Porterville, on or about June 17, 2010, advised the Plaintiffs that the State would not prosecute certain incidents involving destruction of property and interference with use of property because a property dispute existed which cast all these events in the light of a civil dispute, despite the repeated threats of violence. 30. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans conduct has been ongoing and unremitting for several years. On April 22, 2009, between noon and 1:30 p.m., Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, assisted by Brett Thompson, stole more than $6,000.00 in brand new construction equipment from the Plaintiffs. 31. During July 2011, as Plaintiffs only discovered on August 2-3, 2011, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman intentionally caused excess electrical usage in the amount of $1,000.00 (normal monthly bills for the combined property being $480 or less), and then utilized electronic identity information unlawfully obtained and other unlawful means to access and take over Plaintiffs electrical account from Southern California Edison, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7). 32. On or about April 15, 2010, and June 15, 2010, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman had previously violated 18 U.S.C 1028(a)(7) by using, without lawful authority, one or more means of identification of Plaintiff Courtney and/or Melody Gillespie to investigate and obtain information concerning them and also to terminate Plaintiffs electricity and transfer their fully paid and at that time current account to his own name.
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
33.
During July December, 2009, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman
repudiated or announced his intentions to breach and disregard his actual contractual arrangements with the Plaintiffs, Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespie, and began a reign of terroristic acts against this plaintiffs which included repeated violations or attempts to violate 18 U.S.C. 1029 (a)(8) and 18 U.S.C. 1029 (b)(1)-(2) in that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and his employee Brett Thompson had obtained and conspired to use and did in fact utilize a listening device or devices configured unlawfully to scan or otherwise eavesdrop on Plaintiffs conversations. 34. Under 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), (5) "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. 35. Plaintiffs submit that the list of assaults, robberies, and utilization of electronic means to effect illegal and unauthorized financial transactions or interference with accounts itemized above constitute a pattern of racketeering with multiple predicate acts identified with particularity as to time, place, and means. 36. The Plaintiffs have reported many more incidents than the above list be declarations filed with and information provided to the Tulare County Superior Court in Visalia, but the California State Court has not taken of these issues or shown any concern for the welfare of the Plaintiffs. The R.I.C.O. Enterprise 37. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is not the title owner of the property on which he and the Plaintiffs live, from which Defendant Hoffman and others involved in the Sean Ray Enterprises Business Trust, including but not limited to Licensed California Attorney Robert J. Fletcher, operate and broadcast Radio Liberty,
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FirstAmendmentRadio, and various other related Patriot Movement Television and Radio broadcast enterprises, the complete list of which entities Plaintiffs do not even know. 38. A major part of Defendants racketeering enterprise has been to cause and compel the Plaintiffs, reduced to a state of obligation very near to debt peonage, to subsidize or support his Radio & Television Broadcast operations by paying 100% of his electrical bills since November 2004, as well as by contributing their labor and cash investment to the improvement and addition of real estate by substantial construction and maintenance of all or part of 12 structures on 10 acres of which Nicklas Hoffman claims sole proprietary (de facto) ownership and over which he plainly exercises (both de facto and, to the extent to which Plaintiffs have sought and been denied police protection, effective de jure) absolute control, bordering on the ancient Roman standard of ius vita necisque (the power of life and death), in violation of Plaintiffs Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242. 39. The title owner of the property is the H.M. Wysocki Trust of which Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans daughter Nickol D. Gerritsma is the Trustee. Nancy and Alan Castleman are trustees for a second trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Trust which may also operate under the fictitious business name New Paradigm Holding Company. Robert J. Fletcher acted as attorney and counselor for Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, and the H.M. Wysocki Trust, but he is sued as an individual for his own actions in the furtherance of this series of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, their employees and officers, and not merely as an attorney for these parties. 40. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief (and relevant on-line searches) that none of these entities are properly registered with the California Secretary of State or in any other way licensed or authorized to do business in this state.
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
41.
Furthermore, these entities, together with Robert J. Fletcher, Nickol D.
Gerritsma, the Castelmans, and Nicklas Arthur Hoffman have engaged in a shell game, passing title ownership of the subject property and other real estate in Tulare County, California, back and forth among each other for the purpose of staging sham sales and foreclosures. 42. As of the date of filing this complaint, it would appear from advertisements and notices found at Zillow.com and elsewhere on-line that as of July 29, 2011, in violation of the automatic stay in Melody Ann Gillespies Bankruptcy, a new sham foreclosure has been instituted against the real property, subject of this lawsuit, although the Plaintiffs have been unable to verify this information (that a new sham foreclosure has already been initiated) as of the present date. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Nicklas Arthur Hoffman Association-in-Fact 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) 43. 44. Plaintiffs re-allege 1-42 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is a natural person the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. who has received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity (including murder or attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and assault with bodily injury, arson or attempted arson, witness intimidation or retaliation, forgery of contractual documents and evidence filed in court, and falsification of identity access information via electronic means and unauthorized manipulation of financial identity and account information) in which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code. 45. Plaintiffs further allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has used or invested, and continues to use or invest, both directly and indirectly, all or part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
establishment or operation of, the otherwise unnamed Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact, as well as Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, sometimes d/b/a New Paradigm Holding Company. 46. To wit, and in particular but without any express or implied limitation, by force, fraud, and manipulation of documentary evidence, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has compelled, coerced, and/or used trickery and manipulation to deceive the Plaintiffs into subsidizing his own radio/television broadcasting enterprises by requiring them to pay in full for his electricity for seven years, while continuing to improve and maintain the ten acres which they share at 1831 North Lime Street with new buildings, landscaping, none of which would have been possible but for the land engineering skills and investments (time, toil, and talents) of Plaintiff Courtney Ray Gillespie and the substantial financial investments (and lesser investments of time, toil, and talent) of Debtor Melody Ann Gillespie, and Defendant Hoffman continually reinvested the money and material resources, and labor value converted, stolen, or extorted from Plaintiffs Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespie in the increase and augmentation of his Racketeering enterprise or several racketeering enterprises, as the case may be. 47. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact is an enterprise composed by and consisting of all the named Defendants (Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Castleman, Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., Robert J. Fletcher, and John & Jane Does 1-10) in this case, working in unlawful agreement and in combination with each other and in further agreement and combination with other individuals, including but not limited to Brett Thompson and other unknown individuals. 48. Among the investments of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O.
14
Association-in-Fact acquired by the investment of funds derived in whole or in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
part from a pattern of racketeering activity are the assets held in the name of the H. M. Wysocki Trust, separately and as title holder of the real property, subject of this litigation, located at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257, as well as the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, separately and d/b/a New Paradigm Holding Company. 49. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-fact is an enterprise which is engaged in, and the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, as are the H. M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, the law office of Robert J. Fletcher, and the New Paradigm Holding Company. 50. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by this Defendants real estate manipulations and embezzlement of funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) and related schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1346 in their business and property interests, to wit their ownership interest and investments in and quiet enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address and otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257. 51. Wherefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs pray for all their costs of suit and for treble their actual damages (Plaintiffs estimate their actual damages from Racketeering alone in the minimum amount of $720,000.00), the purposes of trebling being both to fairly and justly punish the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman for his manifold, multifarious, and complex violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) and to serve as a fair, just, and equitable example to other defendants similarly situated. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR R.I.C.O. DAMAGES UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): Nickol D. Gerritsma 18 U.S.C. 1962(a)
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
52. 53.
Plaintiffs re-allege 1-51 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nickol D. Gerritsma is a natural person who
the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. has received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity for which she may or may not have been directly responsible as a principal within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. 2 (including her Fathers course of racketeering activity or conduct including murder or attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and assault with bodily injury, arson or attempted arson, witness intimidation or retaliation, and falsification of identity access information via electronic means and unauthorized manipulation of financial identity and account information, in which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code), but in which Nickol D. Gerritsma may only have participated as an indirect beneficiary or silent partner. 54. Nickol D. Gerritsmas official role in the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact Racketeering Enterprise is as name-lender, or front-person/strawman Trustee of and for the H.M. Wysocki Trust, which at one or more times (if not at all times) relevant to this action, complaint, and lawsuit was the title owner of 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257. 55. Despite her possibly passive, mere status as a front, through her nominal status as Trustee of the H.M. Wysocki Trust, rather than as a 2 criminal principal, Plaintiffs nonetheless further allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans daughter Nickol D. Gerritsma has used or invested, and continues to use or invest, both directly and indirectly, all or part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, the otherwise unnamed Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact as well as other associations in fact, to wit the Shawn Ray
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Enterprises Business Trust and New Paradigm Holding Company, which entities have also, at other times, been the title owner of 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257. 56. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact is an enterprise composed by and consisting of all the named Defendants (Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Castleman, Robert J. Fletcher, Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., and John & Jane Does 1-10) in this case, working in unlawful agreement and in combination with each other and in further agreement and combination with other individuals, including but not limited to Brett Thompson and other unknown individuals. 57. Among the investments of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact acquired by the investment of funds derived in whole or in part from a pattern of racketeering activity is the H.M. Wysocki Trust, as well as Defendants the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, the New Paradigm Holding Company, and the Law Office of Robert J. Fletcher, each of which entities has served, at different times, as nominal (title) owners of real property, or as agents (attorneys-in-fact or at-law) for the nominal owner, including operating as the sometime owner of the real property subject of this litigation, located at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257. 58. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-fact, as well as Defendants the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, the law office of Robert J. Fletcher, Brett Thompson, and the New Paradigm Holding Company, are each enterprises which are engaged in, and the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 59. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by this Defendants real estate
17
manipulations and embezzlement of funds (for which Defendant Nickol D.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gerritsma has special responsibility and liability equal to that of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman owing to her title and actual role as Trustee) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) and related schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1346 in their business and property interests, to wit their ownership interest and investments in and quiet enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address and otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257. 60. Wherefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs pray for all their costs of suit and for treble their actual damages (actual damages in the minimum amount of $720,000.00) the purposes of trebled damages under Civil R.I.C.O. being justly met here: both to fairly and lawfully punish the Defendant Nickol Hoffman for her violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) and to serve as an example to deter other defendants who might be similarly situated to engage in such conduct. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN & LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. FLETCHER, 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) 61. 62. Plaintiffs reallege 1-60 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is a natural person who, the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. through a pattern of racketeering activity has acquired and does still maintain, both directly or indirectly, the primary ownership interest in and de facto control of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman Association-in-Fact, as well as the Law Office of Robert J. Fletcher, H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, and the New Paradigm Holding Company, all of which are enterprises which engaged in, and the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to the ownership, operation, and investment of funds derived from the ten acre parcel of commercial and residential realty
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
located at and more commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257. 63. Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman acting at all times together and in conjunction with Licensed California Attorney Robert J. Fletcher, at all times relevant to this Original Complaint, were in fact the primary de facto owners and de facto managing or controlling directors or 18 U.S.C. 2 principals of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact, which is an enterprise composed by and consisting of all the named Defendants (Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Castleman, Shaw Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., and John & Jane Does 1-10) in this case, working in unlawful agreement and in combination with each other and in further agreement and combination with other individuals, including but not limited to Brett Thompson and other unknown individuals. 64. Among the investments of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact acquired by the investment of funds derived in whole or in part from a pattern of racketeering activity is the H.M. Wysocki Trust, as well as Defendants the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, the New Paradigm Holding Company, and the Law Officer of Robert J. Fletcher which entities have served, at different times, as nominal (title) owners of real property, and/or as agents and/or attorneys-in-fact or at-law for the nominal owners, including operating as the sometime owner of the real property subject of this litigation, located at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257. 65. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-fact, as well as Defendants the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, and the New Paradigm Holding Company, are each enterprises which are engaged in, and the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
66.
Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by this Defendants real estate
manipulations and embezzlement of funds (for which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman had de facto special responsibility and liability owed to Courtney and Melody Gillespie on account of his representations to Courtney Gillespie that the two of them would share title and actual roles as Trustee of the trust into which 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 was supposed to be placed) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b). 67. Plaintiffs further allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman together with Robert J. Fletcher, conceived of, owned the majority benefit from, directed, and operated several related schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1346 which injured the Plaintiffs in their business and property interests, to wit their ownership interest and investments in and quiet enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address and otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257. 68. Wherefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs pray for all their costs of suit and for treble their actual damages (Plaintiffs actual damages from Racketeering alone in the minimum amount of $720,000.00), the purposes of trebled damages allowed under Civil R.I.C.O. being both fairly to punish the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and Robert J. Fletcher for their violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and justly to serve as a deterrent and an example to other defendants similarly situated who might inflict similar injuries on others. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): R.I.C.O. Employment & Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)-(d) 69. 70. Plaintiffs reallege 1-68 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, at all times relevant to this
20
the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. Original Complaint, was in fact the primary owner and de facto managing or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
controlling director or 18 U.S.C. 2 principal of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact is an enterprise composed by and consisting of all the named Defendants (Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Castleman, Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., Robert J. Fletcher, Brett Thompson, and John & Jane Does 1-10). 71. Specifically, as described above in 14-42 of this Original Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Nancy & Alan Castleman, the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, the New Paradigms Holding Company, and John & Jane Does 1-10, i.e. all the individuals who cannot be described as principals within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2 in this case, at all times relevant to this complaint either worked together or still work as employees or associates of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. Association-in-Fact enterprise, as well as the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, and the New Paradigm Holdings Company, all acting together and in concert with Robert J. Fletcher d/b/a the Law Office of Robert J. Fletcher, all of which were at all relevant times and still are enterprises engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, which conduct and/or participate, directly and/or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in unlawful agreement, and that they did thus plainly violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). 72. And/or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs allege that these non-principal Defendants, whether acting as individuals or as officers or employees of entities, whether legally constituted or merely de facto, conspired unlawfully to act in combination with each other and in further agreement and combination with other individuals, including but not limited to Brett Thompson and other unknown individuals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
73.
Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by these Defendants real estate
manipulations and embezzlement of funds (for which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman had de facto special responsibility and liability owed to Courtney and Melody Gillespie on account of his representations to Courtney Gillespie that the two of them would share title and actual roles as Trustee of the trust into which 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 was supposed to be placed) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)-(d), just as Defendant Nickol D. Gerritsma and Robert J. Fletcher also owe special fiduciary duties on account of their several positions as fiduciaries (in the case of the H.M. Wysocki Trust which may have owed special duties to Courtney and Melody Gillespie on account of the agreement between Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and Courtney Gillespie of which Melody Gillespie would have necessarily been a beneficiary). 74. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Nancy & Alan Castleman, the H.M. Wysocki Trust, Robert J. Fletcher, Nickol D. Gerritsma, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, and New Paradigm Holding Company acted at all times as employees or agents or as attorneys-in-fact or attorneys-at-law in conjunction with but under the direction of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman who conceived of, owned the majority benefit from, directed, and operated several related schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1346 which injured the Plaintiffs in their business and property interests, to wit their ownership interest and investments in and quiet enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address and otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257. 75. Wherefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Plaintiffs pray for all their costs of suit and for treble their actual damages (Plaintiffs actual damages from Racketeering alone in the minimum amount of $720,000.00), the purposes of trebled damages under Civil R.I.C.O. being both fairly to punish the Defendants
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Alan & Nancy Castleman, Robert J. Fletcher, Nickol D. Gerritsma, the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust and the New Paradigm Holdings Company for their joint and several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and/or 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) and to serve as a just and deterrent example to other defendants similarly situated who might be tempted to engage in similar conduct or affairs. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMANS ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND BODILY INJURY AGAINST ROXANN DAVIDSON, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and violations of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 with Robert J. Fletcher 76. 77. Plaintiffs allege 1-75 of this their Original Complaint above as if the same This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Roxann Davidsons claims for were fully recopied and restated herein below. personal injury and intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from assault with a deadly weapon and bodily injury under 28 U.S.C. 1367, in that these claims are utterly and inextricably intertwined with the claims for racketeering stated above, and Federal Question jurisdiction to the extent that the Porterville Police have, in part through Licensed California Attorney Robert J. Fletchers persuasion, afforded Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman a degree of protection 78. On or about March 10-11, 2011, as specifically stated and described in 1224 above, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman used a gun which was either a high powered b-b gun or a pellet gun of some sort to fire repeatedly at close range (approximately 50 feet or less) at Plaintiff Roxann Davidson. 79. On or about March 11, 2011, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman actually hit Plaintiff Roxann Davidsons left cheek, directly underneath her left eye, while firing at her, and then warned her that next time he would take her eye out.
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
80.
Plaintiff Roxann Davidsons cheek was swollen and bloated from whatever
it was that grazed or entered her skin (it could have been a pellet of toxin or even rock salt) for some days or weeks after this incident, but she suffers sensations of limited area numbness on her left cheek up through the present date. 81. Furthermore, as the direct and proximate and therefore legal result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff Roxann Davidson has suffered from extreme anxiety, fear, and emotional distress of every kind on a daily and nightly basis ever since the date of the shooting on March 11, 2011. 82. 83. Wherefore, Plaintiff Roxann Davidson prays for her actual damages in the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman believes that he is above-the-law and amount of $15,000.00. beyond the reach of the Police, and in this he is assisted, aided, and abetted by his California Licensed Attorney-at-Law Robert J. Fletcher, who has (so far) ensured that no criminal prosecution nor even a competent investigation or acceptance of Plaintiffs complaint be accepted by the Porterville Police or Tulare County Sheriffs Office, so that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman believes, and teaches his minor children, that murder and mayhem of people like the Plaintiffs is both morally and legally acceptable in a civilized society. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DEFENDANT NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN against all Plaintiffs 84. 85. Plaintiffs reallege 1-83 of their Original Complaint and incorporate the For the past two, now going on three years, to wit, since approximately June same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. of 2009, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has engaged in a pattern of verbal, physical, financial, and emotional harassment, including assault and battery, robbery, electronic spying, theft of identity, invasion of privacy, and other torts
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
which was, is, and remains up through the day of the filing of this Original Complaint extreme and outrageous and utterly unacceptable in civilized society. 86. As the direct and proximate and therefore legal result of this Defendants conduct, each of Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie and Roxann Davidson have suffered sleep-loss at night, fearfulness and daytime anxiety, inability to concentrate on productive labor, including their ordinary employment in the outside world, and are constantly afraid and fearful to leave their home-living space alone and unguarded for fear that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman will introduce poison or plant or create explosive booby traps or other devices of mayhem. 87. 88. Melody Ann Gillespie, in particular, is under constant and continuing Plaintiffs Courtney Gillespie, Melody Ann Gillespie, and Roxann Davidson psychological care and counseling. according pray for their actual damages from 2 years and two months and approximately nine days (800 days total, as of the date of this filing) of continuous harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress alone in the amount of $100 per day each, for a total (as of the date of this filing) of $240,000.00, to be increased by $100/day each day for each Plaintiff until final judgment is paid. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: QUIET TITLE TO 1831 NORTH LIME STREET, PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 93257 (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 760.010-760.060) 89. 90. Plaintiffs reallege 1-88 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate The real estate, subject of this litigation is a ten acre plot of land whose
the same by reference is if fully copied and restated herein below. primary original entrance is known as or commonly identified as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, CA 93258, but the legal description of this property is: LOT 10 of Hermosa Orange Colony, County of Tulare, State of California, according to the
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Map thereof in Book 2, Page 131 of Maps, Tulare County Records. A.P.N. 255230-004, more commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville CA. 91. Pursuant to 760.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs file this Action for Quiet Title to Establish and Quiet their title in the ten acres known as and located with street address 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 as a matter of rights and remedies cumulative of all other issues addressed by this their Original Complaint. 92. Plaintiffs allege, as against all Defendants to this action, that their right, title and interest in 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 is and ought to be declared and adjudged superior either because of their claims in the Notice of Claim of Lien Attached as Exhibit D, without foreclosure or because of any of the following theories of quiet title, or any combination of factors listed herein below: (1) Contract for Deed/Contract for Sale: if the Memorandum or Memoranda
attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint be construed as a Contract for Deed/Contract for Sale, the Plaintiffs have paid in full the contract price agreed to and partially memorialized in writing by Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie and Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, signing individually and on behalf of the H.M. Wysocki Trust, (2) Equitable Performance Favors the Plaintiffs: the Plaintiffs have performed equitably and fairly more than their original obligations under said contract (Exhibits A-C), and have so far acted to accede to all of Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans demands, and those of his attorney Robert J. Fletcher, as to tip the balance of equity lopsidedly in their favor, even to the point of Plaintiff paying Defendants electricity bill entirely, by his own admission, since June 2005, with no contribution from the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman whatsoever, (3) Defendants approach this Court with unclean hands: In addition to the
pattern of continuous harassment with repeated assault, battery, conversion of property, robbery, burglary, theft, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
described above, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and his attorney Robert J. Fletcher have behaved so inequitably and unfairly, with such deceit and even perjury in the California Superior Courts, that they cannot possibly approach this court with clean hands and are therefore not entitled to any judgment in their favor as a matter of equity, (4) Original Contract vitiated by Defendants Fraud and Tortious Abuse: Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and his attorney Robert J. Fletcher have jointly and severally acted to with malicious intent to defraud the Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie of all their right, title, and interest in and to the subject property at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257, and the damages owing from the Defendant Hoffman to Plaintiffs for his intentional torts of assault, battery, conversion, embezzlement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., described above make the Plaintiffs the Defendants creditor in tort or delict, which debts could only be partially extinguished by quiet title, (5) Ambiguous Instrument should be construed against the Drafter to create a Constructive Trust: the hopelessly incomplete and partial written memorandum (or memoranda) supporting the sale of property from Nicklas Arthur Hoffman to Courtney Gillespie (Exhibit A) should be uniformly construed against the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman drafter, as a joint assumption of trust between these two parties, with Melody Ann Gillespie as the only possible or probably intended beneficiary the grantor and grantee, especially in light of the testimony and Tulare County Superior Courts Orders shown in Exhibits B-C. (6) Ambiguous Instrument should be construed in favor of less sophisticated party who has paid and suffered more: all ambiguities in the written instruments (see Exhibit A, and live testimony given in Tulare County California Superior Court, see Transcript in Exhibit B, and Courts Order Exhibit C) should be construed in favor of the less sophisticated party, namely in favor of Plaintiff
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Courtney Gillespie, who has paid more than the original cash price and been subject to massive tortious abuse including assault, battery, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., as described above, (7) No Legal merit to Defendants Claims: Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans demands to the sole possession of these ten acres of real estate or title to this property in his favor have no basis in law or equity, (8) Accounting for Actual or Constructive Fiduciary Trust favors Gillespies: to the degree that the written memoranda supporting the agreement between Courtney Gillespie and Nicklas Arthur Hoffman can be construed as an agreement to acquire and administer the 10 acres as a common trust property between the Plaintiff Courtney and Defendant Nicklas as trustees, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has never provided an accounting but only demanded more, more, and still more cash and labor from Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie and his wife Melody, and accordingly, this Court should declare and adjudge that the trust relationship should be extinguished on account of Defendants breach of fiduciary duty to the Gillespie Plaintiffs, in addition to his assaultive behavior on all plaintiff, (9) Accounting for actual or constructive partnership requires dissolution and distribution of all partnership assets to the Gillespies: to the degree that the written memorandum or memoranda (Exhibit A) supporting the agreement between Courtney Gillespie and Nicklas Arthur Hoffman could be construed as a partnership or joint tenancy, the partnership should be dissolved and all equities accounted for on Courtney Gillespies side to make Courtney and Melody Gillespie the sole owners of the property. 93. Wherefore, pursuant to any one or any combination of the nine theories enumerated in paragraph 83 above, this Court ought to award all right, title, and interest in all ten acres located at and more commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 to Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie.
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO CONSTRUE AGREEMENT & PARTITION OF JOINT TENANCY 94. 95. Plaintiffs reallege 1-92 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate Pleading in the alternative, but without waiving the Plaintiffs to all ten acres the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. located at and known by the name 1831 North Lime Street, Plaintiffs, via this Courts Exercise of Supplemental and Bankruptcy-Related To jurisdiction, invoke as the source of an alternative remedy California Civil Code 682 which states that The ownership of property by several persons is either: 1. Of joint interest; 2. Of partnership interests; 3. Of interests in common; 4. Of community interest of husband and wife. 96. The ambiguous memorandum or memoranda (Exhibits A-C) supporting the agreement between Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie and Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, as noted above, is not susceptible to classification as to any of these categories, except that under no circumstances whatsoever were Courtney Gillespie and Nicklas Arthur Hoffman ever husband and wife with a community property interest. 97. As summarized under the heading Seven Cause of Action: Quiet Title above, the written memoranda supporting the agreement are ambiguous: these memoranda are attached as Exhibit A to this Original Complaint, which must be construed and understood in light of Exhibits B & C (Transcript of March 23, 2010 proceedings in Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction Act and Tulare County Superior Courts Order entered at the conclusion of that hearing, 3-23-10). 98. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie move and pray for a declaratory judgment
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
from this Court in their favor, either for quiet title to the entire property as specified in their Seventh Cause of Action Above or to declare Joint Tenancy, a Tenancy-in-Common, or as a Partnership, and effect a partition of the property together with a cash judgment against all Defendants for the several torts and pattern of racketeering described above. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 99. Plaintiffs reallege 1-98 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. 100. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman both originally intended to defraud Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie at the time of the making of the Memoranda shown in Exhibit A and that Defendant subsequently tried further and additionally to defraud the Plaintiffs in the interpretation, construction, and application of the contract over the next six years. 101. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans attempted fraud on the Court in claiming that the Plaintiffs were mere renters was rejected by the Tulare County California Superior Court on March 23, 2010, when Defendant sought to maintain an action for Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction against the Plaintiffs. 102. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffmans Daughter, Defenant Nickol D. Gerritsma, individually and as Trustee for the H.M. Wysocki Trust, either passively participated in actual fraud as a co-conspirator or actively engaged in constructive or negligent misrepresentation or fraud by delegating her responsibilities as Trustee for the H.M. Wysocki Trust to Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and Robert J. Fletcher. 103. Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Ann Gillespie pray for their full damages resulting from Defendants fraud in the minimum amount of $720,000.00. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT 104. Plaintiffs reallege 1-103 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. 105. Plaintiffs are natural persons at all relevant times in direct privity of contract with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman; and Plaintiffs are such natural persons who, acting at all times as laborers, within the meaning of California Civil Code 3089, were self-employed employees or independently contracting self-employed persons, who performed labor upon or bestowed skill or other necessary services on many works of improvement and/or maintenance of the real property and structures, subject of this litigation, located at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California (which work and labor projects are partially listed in Exhibit D: Notice of Claim of Lien) by one or more direct contracts and agreements, with certain terms both express and implied, with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman for which performance by labor was rendered continually between June 1, 2004 and October 11, 2011, the date of the Notice of Claim of Lien. 106. Courtney Ray Gillespie as a land or stationary engineer (journeyman certified in plumbing, electrical, painting, welding, & carpentry) especially wellqualified to do all the work and labor described in Exhibit D, the Notice of Lien, attached to this complaint. 106. Plaintiffs are natural persons who also, acting as materialmen, within the meaning of California Civil Code 3090, who furnished materials or supplies to be used or consumed in many works of improvement and/or maintenance of the real property and structures, subject of the present litigation, continuously between June 1, 2004 and October 11, 2011, the date of filing the attached Notice of Lien. 107. No Notice of Cessation has ever been filed or requested by any party to this litigation pursuant to California Civil Code 3092, and in fact labor has never ceased on the subject property for any period of 30 consecutive calendar days since June 1, 2004. 108. All work performed, labor carried out, and material provided has been
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
conducted on the ten acres subject of this real estate, to wit: LOT 10 of Hermosa Orange Colony, County of Tulare, State of California, according to the Map thereof in Book 2, Page 131 of Maps, Tulare County Records, with A.P.N. 255-230-004, more commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, CA 109. All work performed, labor carried out, and material provided has been provided or carried out pursuant to one or more express and/or implied complex contracts for the complete and comprehensive development of these ten acres of land, the sole actively negotiating parties to such single long-term complex contract or series of contracts, with multiple terms, whether express or implied, were Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Courtney Ray Gillespie, and Melody Ann Gillespie. 110. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions and covenants its part under the agreement. 111. The labor, services, equipment, and materials market and/or replacement value of furnished by plaintiff had and have an approximately but reasonably and conservatively estimated total $724,002.00 exclusive of interest, which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman either expressly or impliedly agreed to pay, and of which labor and material which the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has claimed and received and continues to possess and enjoy all the benefits, except for the small amount of land in which the Plaintiffs are allowed to continue to live, in fear of their lives, and in constant fear of the Defendants irrational actions and illegally abusive and assaultive conduct, from which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman seeks to drive the Plaintiffs by constant harassment and intimidation, thus reducing the Plaintiffs to a condition nearly approximating true debt peonage within the meaning of United States statutes implementing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1865. 112. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman breached the agreement, in that he has
to be performed on
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
never paid the
Plaintiffs for any of their labor or materials, and there is now due, unpaid the sum of legal rate should be added on some amounts
owing, the full estimated and approximate but utterly $724,002.00, to which interest at the
since August 4, 2009, the first date of clear and obvious repudiation or breach, and since October 11, 2011 on all remaining amounts. 113. If this Court should find that the terms and conditions of these Plaintiffs contract with Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman cannot be determined with requisite legal certainty to grant damages for breach of contract as a matter of law, the Court should allow the Plaintiffs to recover for their work in quantum meruit at a rate which utilizes Courtney Ray Gillespies actual salary for similar work with SunMaid Raisins and to Melody Ann Gillespie for her actual cash investment in goods, services, and the rental and acquisition of work supplies, material, and equipment, including 7 prefabricated pinewood structures, all as described in the attached Exhibit D: Notice of Claim of Lien. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: TO FORECLOSE MECHANICS LIEN 114. Plaintiffs reallege 1-113 and incorporate the same as if fully copied and restated herein. 115. Because Plaintiffs contracted directly with Nicklas Hoffman and served his attorney Robert J. Fletcher with a preliminary version of this Complaint on August 8, 2011, no demand is necessary, or an additional formal demand would be redundant, pursuant to California Civil Code 3097. 116. On October 11, 2011, plaintiffs duly recorded a verified Mechanics' Lien Claim, describing the building parcel and the labor, services, equipment, and materials to be furnished on the work of improvement, in the official records of Tulare County California, in accordance with the 3084 & 8416. 117. The cost of recording the Mechanics' Lien Claim was $__________, no
33
provisions of Civil Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
part of which has
been repaid.
118. Each of the Defendants (except for Robert J. Fletcher and Brett Thompson) named in this complaint claims or has been alleged to have some right, title, or interest in or to the building parcel, each of which claim is junior and inferior to plaintiff's claim by operation of Article XIV, 3 of the Constitution of the State of California and all statutory law implementing the same. WHEREFORE, as to this their Eleventh Count for Foreclosure of their Mechanics Lien, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all of the Defendants, except for Fletcher & Thompson, jointly and severally, (1) (2) (3) damages; The sum of $__________ in costs incurred in recording the verified Mechanics' Lien Claim; The total sum of $__________, together with attorney fees and interest, be senior and superior to any claim of California, or to the real property of any Defendants, and that the ordered as a lien against the building parcel, right, title or interest in real for the following: according to law as The sum of $724,002.00, together with interest
property be ordered sold by the Sheriff of Tulare County, proceedings and the sale of the real property;
according to law, and that all proceeds of sale be applied to plaintiff's claim and to the cost of these (4) (5) 3148; and Any and all such other and further relief as the court shall deem or consider proper as a matter of law or in equity. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1714.10 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 120 Plaintiffs reallege (1)-(119) as if fully recopied and restated herein below.
34
Reasonable costs of litigation as allowed under the
Civil Code section
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
121
Plaintiffs allege that each of them, individually, jointly, and severally, have
been and continue to be personally and directly injured by Robert J. Fletchers actual or perceived, de facto and/or de jure, immunity as a Licensed California Attorney-at-Law, which immunity is expressly provided by Civil Code 1714.10. 122 Plaintiffs allege that 1714.10 bestows upon attorneys a special class of privileges and immunities to a certain class of professional practitioners whose membership is controlled by admission to the bar under terms mandated and outlined by the state of California itself, such that 1714.10 has the force and effect of a law erecting or defining a title of nobility, unconstitutionally impairing the obligations of contract by exempting certain actors from contractual ethics or duties including but not limited to the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in contractual dealings, as well as the general obligation to abstain from common law tortuous or civil law delictual conduct which leads to civil injuries arising not from but from Anglo-America tort or Continental Civil [aka Napoleonic] Code delict. 123 The California law providing that No cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute, and which is based upon the attorneys representation of the client, shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing the pleading that includes the claim for civil conspiracy to be filed after the court determines that the party seeking to file the pleading has established that there is a reasonable probability that the party will prevail in the action. 124 violates 42 U.S.C. 1981 as well as Article I, 10:1 of the Constitution in that it creates special classes of privileged citizenry and denies both equal protection of the law and due process of law to certain classes of citizens (including all non-lawyers who might be defrauded by lawyers or non-lawyers who have hired lawyers to assist them in the commission of their frauds, and/or
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
breaches of contract and/or the implied duty of good faith and fair-dealing in contractual relations). 125 The Court should declare and adjudge that California Civil Code 1714.10 is facially unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as a denial of the right to Petition, denial of due process, infringement upon the rights reserved to the people, and a violation of equal protection of laws by creating a privileged class. 126 The creation of this privileged class of attorneys also and further violates both Article 1, 10, Clause 1, of the United States Constitution by effectively creating a title of nobility, as well as violating the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, 1, Cl. 2 by creating for California lawyers a special privilege and immunity not available to citizens of any other of the several states. 127 No state can grant to any of its citizens special privileges or immunities that discriminate against citizens of other states or create an inequality between citizens of one state and those of another, but Cal Civil Code 1714.10 has this precise effect. 128 Plaintiffs allege that BUT FOR the provisions of 1714.10, Robert J. Fletcher would not have been free (or perceived himself as free) to engage in fraud or assist his client Nicklas Arthur Hoffman in committing fraud, assault, abuses of civil rights, mail fraud, and other acts of racketeering, both privately against the Plaintiffs and in the Tulare County Superior Court of both limited and unlimited jurisdictions. 129 Thus the provisions of 1714.10 are the direct and proximate, and therefore legal, causes of Plaintiffs injuries. This provision of California statutory law has so deprived Plaintiffs of their common law rights in violation of the fundamental guarantees of the United States Constitution that these provisions must all be struck down.
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
130
Statutes cannot indirectly impair the obligations of contract without
straightforwardly modifying the nature of contractual obligations ab initio, which is to say prior to the decision to enter into or agree to certain contractual relations or not. In short, statutes cannot transform contracts into licenses to STEAL, without the expressed knowledge and consent of all (potentially) contracting parties. 131 Plaintiffs submit that because both the California legislature and the United States Congress never abrogated common law contractual doctrines (such as fraud-in-the-inducement, fraud-in-fact and/or privity of contract) that means that the State of California cannot insulate anyone from violating the law as it still exists (through statutory provisions or the judicial construction of those statutory provisions, cf. e.g. 42 U.S.C. 1981-1982). 132 The laws cannot essentially reverse the actual action. Its as if the State of California is in full view of a standard transaction between two parties, from one to the other, only to give the complete opposite account of the event itself afterward. 133 If the State of California or the United States should wishes to abrogate the law of trusts, so that trustees no longer owe duties to grantors as potential beneficiaries under deeds in trust, or the laws defining holders in due course or privity of contract, it can do so, but all borrowers must henceforth be advised, so that they may recognize, that they are paying servicers or entities who have no legal or equitable interest or stake in the original contracts or loan transactions. 134 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that California Civil Code 1714.10 be declared unconstitutional on both its face and as applied, null and void for all purposes and applications, and will grant them all their reasonable costs of suit as well as permitting them to sue Robert J. Fletcher for all their actual damages resulting from his collusion and conspiracy with other Defendants and nonDefendants, including Superior Court Judges who may be immune from suit.
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Honorable Paul A. Vortmann never read any of the Plaintiffs pleadings or motions in his Court but relied entirely on the oral arguments of Robert J. Fletcher. In re Debtor---Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie: Original Complaint in Core Adversarial Action 38
4
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1714.10 DOES NOT IMMUNIZE ROBERT J. FLETCHER 135 136 Plaintiffs reallege (1)-(134) as if fully copied and restated herein below. Plaintiffs allege that Robert J. Fletcher has actually committed fraud on the
Court and other crimes for which 1714.10 provides no immunity, but for which Fletcher should be held liable for damages to the Plaintiffs under but Civil R.I.C.O. [18 U.S.C. 1961-1964(c)] and for direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981. 137 Plaintiffs further allege that any rule, even if not facially unconstitutional, is unconstitutional as applied according to a state judicial norm which requires a judicial determination of reasonable probability of success prior to permitting the filing of an action against an attorney based on a claim of civil conspiracy with a client because such a rule (as articulated by Defendants) constitutes a per se denial of equal access to the courts due process and of equal access to the courts and legal processes in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. 138 Access to discovery of facts is a key element of due process of law and equal access to the Courts as discovery procedures are often critical to the determination of the accuracy or inaccuracy of any legal complaint, suit at law, or equitable action. 139 Plaintiffs also alleges that Robert J. Fletchers relationship with certain Judges of the Tulare County Superior court, including but not limited to the Honorable Paul Vortmann, who hates pro se litigants to begin with 4 , is so close and intimate that there exists a continuing and ongoing agreement and understanding between them in derogation of due process of law and equal protection of persons and property, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982 and also of the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments, which California State law regarding
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
recusal prevents pro se litigants from effectively remedying as a matter of state law. 140 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that (in the alternative to the previous count) even if California Civil Code 1714.10 is not unconstitutional on its face, it is either unconstitutional as applied to Robert J. Fletcher or simply does not, as a matter of fact or law, apply to Robert J. Fletcher under the circumstances of this case and in his relationship with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman at all, and Plaintiffs pray that this Court will so declare and adjudge, granting them all their costs of suit as allowed by both 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), and 42 U.S.C. 1988. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 405.21 DEPRIVES PLAINTIFFS OF BOTH DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW 141 Plaintiffs reallege (1)-(140) and incorporate the same by reference as if Plaintiffs have sought and still need injunctive relief to preserve the status fully copied and restated herein below. 142 quo until the resolution of this case. They originally sued in California Superior Court for an injunction, then sought Bankruptcy Protection pursuant to Chapter 13 and the automatic stay 5 . Now they sue for quiet title and to enforce and foreclose their Mechanics lien. 143 This Court should declare and adjudge that California Code of Civil Procedure 405.21, together with California Civil Code 1714.10, and all similarly
Motions concerning the modification of the automatic stay will or may be relevant to the Defendants previous counterclaim in a Tulare County Superior Court Action 10-238961 which Plaintiff Debtor Removed on August 8, 2011, under Eastern District Bankruptcy Caption & Case number of Adversary Proceeding #: 11-01205, but which counterclaim was ordered remanded over Debtors objection, and without allowing amendment, after a non-evidentiary hearing by order signed on October 6, 2011, entered October 7, 2011. Plaintiff debtor has moved, of even date with the filing of this original complaint as an adversarial action, that the Court reconsider the remand all issues subject to her notice of removal, as allowed under 28 U.S.C. 1334, 1443, and 1452.
5
39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
discriminatory statutes which deprive private (non-attorney) parties of certain rights or impose upon them certain additional burdens if they are not represented by counsel in the form of an attorney licensed by the Supreme Court and/or in possession of a membership and bar number from the State Bar of California are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law and the equal protection of law in violation of the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as a violation of the prohibition on titles of nobility in Article I, 10:1 of the Constitution or the creation of classes of people exempt from the operation of certain laws by membership in certain social, economic, or professional/labor classes. 144 Plaintiffs accordingly request leave to file a lis pendens regarding their claim to quiet title to the property in question in this litigation, as pro se litigants without the aid of a lawyer. To Plaintiffs knowledge and belief California is the ONLY state in America that prohibits the notice of clouded title via Lis Pendens filed by a pro se litigant. 1714.10 effectively immunizes lawyers from suit, creating a special class of people, while 405.21 furthers that special class by giving attorneys the sole power to file lis pendens with a county recorders office. 145 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray, in that 405.21 and 1714.10 are directly related, that this court to declare both statutes unconstitutional as applied. Plaintiffs further request that this court accordingly allow them leave to file a lis pendens with the Tulare County Recorders office to notify any potential buyer that a suit concerning the real property in question is in fact pending. FIFTEENTH: PLAINTIFFS LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME 146. Plaintiffs reallege 1-145 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate the same by reference as if fully copied and restated herein below. 147. Plaintiffs Courtney and Melody Gillespie and Roxann Davidson are exhausted after (in the Gillespies case) two years of continual fighting and
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
litigation with Defendants Nicklas Arthur Hoffman and his attorney Robert J. Fletcher. 148. Plaintiffs are victims of and suffer from Legal Abuse Disorder (a psychologically recognized variant of Post-traumatic stress disorder). To wit, Karen Huffer, a long-time marriage and family law counselor, has written a book entitled "Legal Abuse Syndrome", a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, which often develops in individuals dealing with abusive court settings. 149. Abuse of authority and a profound lack of accountability in many court systems such as the Tulare County California Superior Courts have become rampant, Huffer says, which adds greatly to the original distress requiring court assistance in the first place. 150. The Center for Judicial Accountability says that a central point of Ms. Huffer's book is that victims in America are not only assaulted by crime, but also by the abuses of power and authority administered by tax dollars intended to provide due process of law for the protection of civil rights: According to Ms. Huffer you may be suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome if you feel deeply disillusioned and oppressed as a result of your experience with the legal system; if you feel you were frustrated in obtaining justice; if you feel your dreams and plans for your life were torn from you by a system that is supposedly there to protect your rights and property; if you fear that the system will defeat you at every turn and there is nothing you can do about it, and if you feel that you have been victimized several times over, by the perpetrators, by lawyers, judges, bailiffs and other court personnel. As a consequence you may suffer from tension and anxiety, recurring nightmares you may feel emotionally and physically exhausted, numb, disconnected and vulnerable. http://www.judicialaccountability.org/legalabuse.htm 151. Plaintiffs recognize in themselves the symptoms of Legal Abuse Disorder/PTSD in their psychological and physical conditions resulting directly
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and proximately and therefore legally from the abusive and deceptive, wholly unethical conduct of attorney Robert J. Fletcher, as well as that of his clients, especially Nicklas Arthur Hoffman but also Nickol D. Gerritsma and the H.M. Wysocki Trust, and the other defendants, in and concerning the Tulare County California Superior Court proceedings from which (as noted above in Footnote 1 on page 2 of this Original Complaint) the Plaintiffs had removed the cause of action as allowed by 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 1452 in the above-entitled case, as well as its predecessor in the Tulare County Superior Court of Limited Jurisdiction, See Exhibits B-C (wherein Plaintiffs, then Defendants, won a judgment that they were not renting from Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman on March 23, 2011). 152. Plaintiffs move and requests that this Court, again pursuant to its remedial powers under 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, recognize the existence of this simple creditors suffering from Legal Abuse Disorder as a partial but in and of itself sufficient reason for accommodating what may be their slow pace in prosecuting the present case, and that the Plaintiffs may need extra time and extensions of time, even if requested ex-parte, as an accommodation to their Post-Traumatic (or continuingly traumatized) state of mind and ability to operate. CORE VS. NON-CORE BANKRUPTCY RELEVANCE 153. Plaintiffs would submit to this Court that all questions relating to the contract for the purchase of 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257 are CORE bankruptcy matters, essential to the definition (and in fact, the very determination of the existence) of Debtor Melody Ann Gillespies Estate. 154. All matters relating to personal injuries, including legal abuse syndrome, and Roxann Davidsons personal injuries in particular, arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact, but are non-core with regard to Bankruptcy proceedings. PRAYER FOR RELIEF and JURY DEMAND
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Wherefore, all of the above matters and premises considered, Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie prays that this United States Bankruptcy Court will take notice of this her Original Complaint filed together with her co-Plaintiffs Courtney Gillespie and Roxann Davidson in furtherance and support of her Notice of Removal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 & 1452 (as well as Bankruptcy Rules 7001 and 9027) and that the Court will grant these Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend this Complaint at least once more prior to trial during the course of litigation to raise all such other and further grounds relief as a matter of law and equity to which she may be justly entitled, including but not limited to: (1) Quiet title to all ten acres located at and known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257 and/or partition of said property; (2) All actual damages incurred by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate and therefore legal result of Defendants torts of assault, battery, breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and accounting, conversion, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) All actual damages incurred by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate and therefore legal result of Defendants Pattern of Racketeering, plus an award of costs of suit plus treble damages as a punitive and exemplary award of damages as expressly allowed by 18 U.S.C. 1964(c); (4) Recognition of and granting special accommodation to and for the fact that Debtor/Plaintiff suffers from that certain clinically diagnosed although only recently recognized species of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder now widely known and accepted as Legal Abuse Syndrome as described, at http://www.judicialaccountability.org/legalabuse.htm, and as will be substantiated by Debtor/Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespies psychological counselor(s) at or before trial.
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Wherefore the Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow a fair and reasonable time for discovery in light of their disabilities and only then and there, after the conclusion of discovery, set all matters so triable for a trial-by-jury, demand for which is hereby made and tendered to the Court as guaranteed under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 , and upon final trial, render judgment for the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, awarding damages not less than $360,000.00. Respectfully submitted, October 18, 2011 Tuesday By:____________________________________________ Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie, Debtor & Plaintiff Pro se/in propia persona
By:___________________________________________ Courtney Gillespie, Plaintiff Pro se/in propia persona
And by:____________________________________________ Roxann Davidson, Plaintiff Pro se/in propia persona
6 The Seventh Amendment uses the phrase suits at common law, which phrase refers to suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered. Granfinanciera, S.A., et al. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 41 (1989), quoting Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447 (1830). The Supreme Court has also held, however, that all MIXED questions of law and fact must be tried to and decided by a jury. Cf, e.g., United States v. Gaudin (94-514), 515 U.S. 506, 509, 132 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1995). To determine whether a party is entitled to a jury, a court must: [F]irst compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, the court must examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature . . . If, on balance, these two factors indicate that a party is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, the court must decide whether the U.S. Congress may assign and has assigned resolution of the relevant claim to a nonArticle III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder. Granfinanciera, 492 U.S. at 42.
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
VERIFICATION BY COURTNEY RAY GILLESPIE I, Courtney Ray Gillespie, am a man over the age of 18 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and a plaintiff in the above-entitled action-at-law and suit-in-equity. I have read and reviewed and hereby Verify my above-andforegoing Original Complaint in that and because know the contents thereof. All of the factual contentions contained within this Original Complaint are true and correct (or in the case of the total dollar amount of damages, reasonably estimated from) facts and matters within and of my own personal and knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Porterville, California. DATED: October 18, 2011
___________________________________ Courtney Ray Gillespie VERIFICATION BY MELODY ANN GILLESPIE I, Melody Ann Gillespie, am a woman over the age of 18 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and a plaintiff in the above-entitled-andnumbered action-at-law and suit-in-equity. I have read and reviewed and hereby Verify my above-and-foregoing Original Complaint in that and because know the contents thereof. All of the factual contentions contained within this Original Complaint are true and correct (or in the case of the total dollar amount of damages, reasonably estimated from) facts and matters within and of my own personal and knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Porterville, California. DATED: October 18, 2011
___________________________________ Melody Ann Gillespie

45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT A: Memorandum or Memoranda of Agreement Between Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie and Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman (This Document Must be Construed in light of March 23, 2010 Testimony, Transcript in Exhibit B)
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT B: March 23, 2010 Transcript of Hearing In Tulare Superior Court Forcible Detainer Action
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT C: Tulare County Superior Court Order of March 23, 2010
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT D: Notice of Claim of Lien Filed October 11, 2011 Tuesday In Tulare County, California Re: 1831 North Lime Street Porterville, California 93258
49

10-11-2011 Courtney Ray &amp Melody Ann Gillespie Original Complaint in Adversarial Action Filed Pursuant To 18 USC 241-242 18 USC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

10-11-2011 Courtney Ray &amp Melody Ann Gillespie Original Complaint in Adversarial Action Filed Pursuant To 18 USC 241-242 18 USC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(This RV functions as Plaintiff Roxann Davidsons

Previously, at 3:30-5:00 a.m., on January 17, 2011, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

During July December, 2009, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

Furthermore, these entities, together with Robert J. Fletcher, Nickol D.

Association-in-Fact acquired by the investment of funds derived in whole or in

manipulations and embezzlement of funds (for which Defendant Nickol D.

never paid the

provisions of Civil Code

part of which has

Reasonable costs of litigation as allowed under the

Civil Code section

Statutes cannot indirectly impair the obligations of contract without

By:___________________________________________ Courtney Gillespie, Plaintiff Pro se/in propia persona

And by:____________________________________________ Roxann Davidson, Plaintiff Pro se/in propia persona

___________________________________ Melody Ann Gillespie

EXHIBIT C: Tulare County Superior Court Order of March 23, 2010

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi