1

2
3
4
f
6
7
8
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
r6
l7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Melody Gillespie,
Courtney Gillespie
temporary mailing location,
care of: P.O. BOX 8323,
Porterville. California
Tulare Counfy Superior Court
Visalia division
CASE #:10-237561
Melody and Courtney Gillespie
plaintiffs, AFFIDAVIT OF Courtney Gillespie
in SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
NICKLAS HOFFMAN'S MOTION
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -VS-
Nicklas Hoffman
WYSOCKI TRUST
DOES 1-100;
Et AI,
defendants.
I, Courtney Gillespie deny all allegations made by Nicklas Hoffman and his
attorne,y Robert Fletcher. I do hereby declare:
1. I am a witness to and have direct personal knowledge of the following
matters: I am competent to testify to the truth of the same if I am called
upon to do so, and I will so testify if I am called upon to testify.
2. This Affidavit/Declaration is made concerning the events and criminal
actions of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman since April2009, to the present April of
2012 at 1831 North Lime street, near Porterville, California, in The County
of Tulare.
3. Nicklas Hoffman is not entitled to relief for these reasons:
(1) Nicklas Hoffman failed to pay his own Electric bill causing the Edison
Company to turn off the power which he claims was somehow caused by
Courtney Gillespie; the reality is that the bill was 2000 * most of which was
Affidavit of Courtney Gillespie in Opposition to Motion for Order to Strow Cause 1
1
2
a
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
run up by Hoffman, & Hoffman failed to pay any part of the bill so he
himself was fully responsible for his electrical power being cut off, Courtney
Gillespie paid 1000 dollars on the bill, which is more than his part; Hoffman
owes Courtney Gillespie many thousands of dollars for paying Hoffmans
electric bill the last approximately 7-8 years by which Nicklas Hoffman has
benefited gained & has been unjustly enriched to the Detriment, Expense
and Cost of Courtney Gillespie; thus Hoffman is responsible for the
circumstance he is complaining to this Court about & this Court should
instead sanction Hoffman for bringing Frivolous allegations to Cou.rt &
wasting this Courts time & resources in order to attempt to gain an
unjustified advantage over Courtney Gillespie in his Civil litigation by
lying to & deceiving this Court. Based upon these documented facts Nicklas
Hoffman has failed to state any cause of Action against me for allegedly
causing his power to be cut off.
(2)The Original accusation against me that I ripped out Hoffmans wires in the
electric panel have now been disproven by his own admission in his
supplemental Declaration that he himself in fact pulled down the fence and
broke into the electric panel and cut the wires after he had previously told
the Tulare County Deputy that he had not done it, which there are at
least two other witnesses to Hoffman telling the Deputy he did nothing to the
wires, after which he has now admitted under penalty of perjury that he did
cut out the wires. See the Accompanying Affidavits of Alan David & Melody
Gillespie previously fited with this Court. These are the only two allegations
against me and they are disproven in the record, establishing Hoffman as a
liar & fabricator for which this Court should issue monetary sanctions
against him, as well as jail
time for contempt of Court for violating the
Courts Order to stay as far away from me as reasonably possible.
(3)Hoffman comes into this Court with unclean hands having committed
numerous Frauds & Crimes against me & others related to the same
transaction and is thereby barred under the clean hands doctrine from
obtaining any relief whatsoever from this Court, as set forth in the related
Case#:-,whichIherebyincorporatebyreferencehereinasif
fully set forth, and which I request that the Court take Judicial Notice of
Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 450-459, which is made a
part hereof this Affidavit. See Court Rulings regarding the Clean hands
doctrine in the- Cases of: American Copying Co. vs Lehmann (1907) 6 C.A.
11 Bowman vs Bowman (1932) 125 C.A. 602;Rosenfeld vs Zimmer (1953) 116
C.A. 2d 719; Reynolds VS Roll (1954) 122 C.A. 2d 826; Shaw vs Shaw (1964)
227 C.A. 2d 159;Luundgren vs Lundgren (1966) 245 C.L.2d 582; Behm vs
Fireside Thrift CO. (1969) 272 C.A.2d 804;
4. In his Declaration in support for Order to Show Cause, page 1,
paragraph #2,,l/Ir. Hoffman states that he believes we have been
deceiving this Court that we are residing on our part of the property,
Affidavit of Courtney Gj-11espie in Opposition to Motion for Orde. to Show Cause 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
t0
11
l2
13
l4
15
t6
l7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which he states is 1-314 acres on 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville.
Everything in this statement is false. My property is 5 acres, which is
what I purchased from WYSOCKI TRUST. Mr. Hoffman has completely
taken out of context bankruptcy papers submitted to the bankruptcy court
for the purposes of {iling bankruptcy and not establishing residency.
5. Mr. Hoffman is obsessed on knowing our whereabouts at all times, and we
have had to put up barricades to establish some privacy and to prevent us
and our guests from being shot at.
6. If Mr. Hoffman sees that both my wife and I are gone, he will come to our
place and take tools and equipment and commit vandalism.
7. My wife and my friends have complained of his roommates, and his other
friends following them around town, to make sure of where they are at, how
long they will be gone, and have even made threats to my guests leaving my
property. This would not be happening if Mr. Hoffman believed us to not be
living at the property.
8. My grandchildren and daughter live at the house Mr. Hoffman is referring
to, and we do spend time helping her with the children.
9. Mr. Hoffman has no basis to believe we do not live on the property at issue,
next door to him. Mr. Hoffman knows I go to work from 4:00 am and do
not arrive home until3:30-4:00 pm. My drive home is minimum an hours
drive. I come home every day after work. I have not spent one night away
from the property.
10. Mr. Hoffman knows my wife works night shift and comes home around 7:30
to 8:00 am unless she is held over at work. Every day she comes home from
work and goes to sleep at the trailer, and rarely leaves on her days off. This
has been the same since we were first moved here 8 years ago. Mr. Hoffman
has no evidence and has presented no evidence to the contrary.
11. I strenuously object to the declaration of Jim Thompson and Gayle
Garretson. I believe these are bogus, as these events did not happen, and they
are collateral issues at best & are irrelevant to prove the two charges before
the court: (l)allegedly I had ripped out the wires on his electric panel, & (2)
that I allegedty had SCE turn off the electricity to Hoffman's household for
vengeance.
12. On Page 2, paragraph 5, the planner for SCE stated the meter box for the
joint
service would not be reconnected due to Mr. Hoffman's unsafe wiring
because it was not on a circuit breaker. Instead the wiring was on a
permanent lug. The SCE service tech disconnect the wire, and removed the
unsafe lug. The Planner then informed Mr. Hoffman that he had to put a
pole on his own property, in order to receive service connection. I had
Affi-dawit of Courtney Gitlespie in Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause 3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
L6
l7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
)1
28
nothing to do with this. Mr. lloffman was the one who arranged for this
inspection. SCE has since charged me for the service calls and inspections
that Mr. Hoffman demanded. I will seek damages for this extra unnecessary
cost which was due to Hoffmans frivolous charges against me which can not
be proven, & can only waste this Courts time & resources.
13. On page 3, paragraph #6, Mr. Hoffman states that he has no access to the
electric bill from SCE, and acts like this is worthy for the court's attention,
but he fails to present all of the facts to the court. The electric bill was sent to
a P.O. Box because Mr. Hoffman ripped out 3 of our mail troxes in front of
our property 3 times in one week (we kept replacing them.)
14. We finally had to bolt the mailbox to the gate so he couldn't continue to
remove it. Mr. Hoffman, then sent his 8 year old daughter to vandalize the
mailbox, and steal the mail. We had no choice but to have our mail delivered
to a P.O. Box. Hoffman should be monetarilv sanctioned for his vandalism or
jaited
or both.
15. Mr. Hoffman states that he had no access to the electric bills. Mr. Hoffman
accesses our electric bill online, and is aware of how much the bill is, how
much we pay on it, and when we pay. Hoffman has lied to this Court
countless times in his papers & should be monetarily sanctioned for this &
also put in
jail
for contempt of Court.
16. Mr. Hoffman and his friends have seen me coming home from work daily.
The day Mr. Hoffman tore down the fence, he knew the fence did not belong
to him. He also knows which panel is not his. Mr. Hoffman has no basis for
the belief that any of the structures on our property belong to him or that he
has a right to destroy or vandalize anything. This is an act of desperation on
his part to pretend that he has not been violating the restraining order. There
are numerous witnesses I can call to establish Hoffmans lies & fabrications
before this Court. The only one who is in contempt of this Court is Nicklas
Hoffman.
17. I object to all of the claims made in the SECOND SUPPLEIVIENTAL
UncLAnAfrOn OF:NiCKLAS HOFFMAN: Tle entire document strouto
be stricken. (put in basis of striking whether it is hearsay irrelavant,
speculative,
18. In Page 1 & 2,Paragraph2, Mr. Hoffman knew that the electricity was shut
off due to non-payment, by him as well as anyone else. I do not see anywhere
that he states he paid his bitt. He admits to using the electricity for his
business, and his family, yet provides no evidence of paying the bill. All he
had to do was to go pay the bill, and SCE would have turned on the service in
a few hours. If Hoffman would have regularly paid his share of the bill on
time he would not have had his power turned off. I was at work and had no
idea the electricity would be shut off. SCE usually gives notice, and no notice
Affj-dawit of Courtnev Gillespie in Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
l9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was given that the service would be turned off.
19. For Mr. Hoffman to state that I am responsible for a $2000.00 electric bill
that he ran up, as part of a contempt of court is ludicrous. It is obvious that
the majority of the bill is his. There was no order by this court that I am
responsible to pay his electric bill. I hereby incorporate the courts order
here by reference as if fully set forth.
20. The court has never ordered me to pay his electric bi[. The bill is
abnormally high. I paid
$1000.00, but could not pay the whole S2000.00
2l.Page2,Paragraph 3, Mr. Hoffman states that he did pull down a section of
the fence, which, by the way, is not repairable in appearance. The
appearance of the fence has been destroyed, without complete replacement.
Mr. Hoffman did not have to destroy the fence to let the SCE service tech in
because the tech turned on the power at the pole. Mr. Hoffman admitted he
destroyed our panel at page 2 paragraph# of the SECOND
SUPPLEMENT DECLARATION OF NICKLAS HOFFMAN, SO WC
couldn't be reconnected to service. If he would have left everything alone.
The service would have been reconnected the morning of February 29r2012,
or even the evening of February 2812012.
22. The events spoken of in paragraph 3 are taken out of context. I arrived to
the property at approximately 3:25 pm, and the police were in front of my
property. My wife had called 911 when she had found Nicklas and his friend
coming out of the fence at approximately 3:00 pm. The neighbor Adenna
Garretson, had seen him tearing down the fence after the SCE service tech
had teft. (See Declaration by Adenna Garretson).
23. OnPage 2, Paragraph 4, Mr. Hoffman admits to destroying completely the
insides of our electric subpanel.
24.Page 3 and 4 paragraphs 5-9 should be stricken and completely disregarded
as these are all fabricated, inaccurate and taken out of context. Our panel
box was the only one vandalized. The allegations made by Mr. Hoffman
from paragraph 6-9 can be easily disproven because I was not at home. I was
at work and could not have made it home in the time frame he claims the
incident happened. There was no possible way I could have made it,home
before 3 pm on February 28 & 2912012. SCe work records of entry & exit to
& from work which I have attached as finiUit
-,
which are my fingerprint
scans which are required foi entering & exiting my Work place.
25. The so called three witnesses could not have seen what Hoffman claims they
saw. The panel is completely obscured from the area where Mr. Hoffman
states the men were standing. See Accompanying Affidavit of Alan David
regarding photographs of the line of sight along the fence line and from the
front street approaching the power pole. There is no view of the power pole
Affidavit of Courtney Gillespi-e in Opposition to Motj-on for Order to Show Cause 5
1
2
a
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
7<
26
27
28
or the panel as alleged by Nicklas Arthur under penalty of perjury. The
Court can confirm this by making its own visit to the site and viewing it for
himself.
26. I object in the most strenuous terms to any and all assertions and statements
made by Nicklas Arthur Hoffman in the record, in his declarations,
supplemental declarations and anywhere else, that he owns anything on any
of sides of the property due to the fact that all issues are in dispute, and have
been rebutted, taken up in a federal law suit that is pending in the federal
court, in the Injunction, case number 10-238961, and in this case.
27 . IJ:is assertions have been rebutted from beginning to the end, and it has not
been litigated who owns this property. Hoffman keeps claiming it is his
property without any proof. All the evidence that is in the court records is in
favor of myself, Courtney Gillespie. We have a mechanics lien against the
properfy for $720,000.
28. I have presented to the court much evidence that I am the one responsible for
the many structures that are on the property and for the fact that Nicklas
being on the property, because I did much of the labor for the buildings and
the infrastructure for the whole properfy.
29. I performed on my end of the agreement, by providing the equipment and
the labor as my part of the down payment on the property. Once Nicklas
had his home built, he reneged on the agreement and fabricated excuses as to
why he doesn't have to honor the agreement. This has never been disputed
or rebutted. So until this is litigated, and there is a final
judgment in these
cases, the court should disregard everything that he asserts as to his
ownership of anything.
30. I installed the panel, the pole, the fence, and all of the infrastructure. Nicklas
did not, yet he keeps claiming he is the one that owns all this stuff. Nicklas
did not produce it, he did not build it, so what basis in fact does he claim to
own it, other than he
just
says he owns it? He has no credibility whatsoever.
Nicklas is a fabricator, a liar, a falsifier, and a perjurer, and the record
shows it. The court cannot give any credibility to his statements on his word
alone. Any bare bones statement by Nicklas should be totally disregarded
and stricken ryithout any independent evidence that proves it.
31. We object to the heresay about three witnesses, there are no affidavits from
any three witnesses. The court should strike the paragraph about the three
witnesses. Also attached are the photographs of the view of the three
witnesses attached, which I request
judicial notice of. There is no view of the
panel from where Nicklas claims the three men were standing. This shows
Nicklas has committed perjury. We have some other evidence coming.
32. See affidavit of Alan David and Melody Gillespie. I am requesting that
Affidavit of Courtnev Gillespie in Opposj-tion to Motion for Order to Show Cause 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
l2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)1
28
Nicklas be required to show his billing from AT&T, and receipts from
AT&T for payment for his upgrade of phone lines and DSL, that he was
billed the $2000.00 for the upgrade. I object to any credence given to that
statement. This is a fabrication. Nicklas is in contempt of court for making
this false statement. I demand that this court make Nicklas produce the
receipts that show he was billed and whether he paid. I want to subpoena the
records from AT&T that was billed and actually paid
$2000.00, as Nicklas
and his attornev. Robert Fletcher asserted.
33. We know for a fact that this is a false assertion by Nicklas and his attorney,
which is an egregious'contempt of court. Robert Fletcher was told by Nicklas
on December 23r 2010 that that the phone line installation cost him nothing
in the presence of my wife and friends. This is fraud upon the court, fraud
upon me, and fraud upon the public as this is a public proceeding. I take this
seriously. I have put my hard earned sweat into this property for the past
eight years.
34. During the hot summers, I leveled ground of this property, I dug trenches,
laid pipe, dug the pit for the septic tank, did all of the plumbing, and now
that it is all done, Nicklas wants to walk away with everything. Nicklas is
impugning my character, calling me a liar when we have all the proof that he
is the liar. He has committed fraud, now he is slandering my character. I am
now contemplating defamation and slander of character. This means more
time in court, more tax payers' money, more court proceedings, but I have
no choice. No
justice
has been forth coming.
35. I object because this is an ongoing fraud upon the court, but I need and want
the court to take action against him. I want him charged with perjury and
contempt, providing false information to a police officer. I plan to get
transcriptions of what he stated to the police on February 29r2012, which
will show that he purposely mislead the police officer and gave false
information. He did cut and pull out the wires of my panel, and tore up the
fence, and lied to the officer stating he did not, that he did not know what
happened. He has committed many acts of vandalism, malicious mischief,
and mayhem. He has filed these supplemental declarations with the county
clerk in the superior court. (put in penal code violations). These are felonies.
He has committed multiple misdemeaners and felonies, and we want these
referred to the DA for prosecution. He continues to get away with this and
has been for a number of years. He gets away with this over and over, and
we need action by the court to put a stop to this. There is an abundance of
evidence. We object to the lack of
justice in this case. We need immediate
and swift action to put an end to this.
36. The original restraining order forbid him from having any guns. We believe
it includes pellet and BB guns,'and22 rifles. This is a blantant violation of
the courts restraining order.
Affidawit of Courtney Gillespie in Opposition to Motioa for Or<ler to Show Cause
1
2
3
4
f
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
r6
t7
18
L9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
)1
28
DECLARATION
I the undersigned hereby Declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
Republic of California that the Forgoing is true and Correct. Executed by my hand
on this
_
day of April, 2012 in the Republic of California, County of Tulare,
Courtney Gillespie
Affidavit of Courtney Gil-].espie in Opposition to Moti.on for Order to Show Cause I