Você está na página 1de 4

Porterville, California

.. Courtney
Courtney andGillespie, et Gillespie
II -- c/o Nicklas
1831 North Hoffman
Lime street Plaintiff,
10 568
.;rw .r.:o::.l'.L':lIJfW:~~~U'..!"U".J"_I-""'_T

SEP 102fl10

~: ----" - ~

Superior Court of Tulare County,

The State of California

) Case No.: 10-2375:21

) Of Nicklas Hoffman dated 08/24/2010
) Received by Plaintiff on 08/30/2010

This is a response and rebuttal to the answer submitted by Nicklas Hoffman on 08/24/2010.
Plaintiff requests that the answer be stricken as untimely, frivolous, superfluous, unsubstantiated,
conjecture, hypothetical, and submitted with the intent of malice and oppression against the Plaintiffs.
At no time have Plaintiffs waged a war against the Defendant. At no time have Plaintiffs ever
attempted to remove Defendant offhis property. The harassment, malice, and oppression, did not start
with the incidences cited in the TRO. The defendant has done many things for many years in an attempt
to discourage, demoralize, and anger Plaintiffs to get the Plaintiffs to voluntarily leave and abandon the
land contract and the land, so the Defendant would be unjustly enriched by having his house built without
having to pay for skilled labor provided by Plaintiff. As Defendant has admitted, Plaintiff Courtney is
skilled labor and did all the jobs that skilled labor would do to help Defendant to build his house. This
goes to motive that Defendant would have to use continual harassment against the Plaintiff. At no time
has the Plaintiff ever requested this court to decide who is right or wrong in the property dispute. All the
Plaintiff wants is for the abuse of process, harassment, and oppression be stopped. Defendant has used
constructive eviction, slander, defamation of character, killing our animals (3 of the dogs at property were

RESPONSE TO ANSWER of 08/24/2010 - 1

1 poisoned) and an unlawful detainer lawsuit against us. Because Plaintiffs are not renters, the defendant
2 did not prevail. Judge Roper was the adjudicating officer over the unlawful detainer, and is no new by .
3 His ruling was based on the testimony of the Defendant of this instant case as well as the testimony of
4 Plaintiff Courtney. Melody gave very little testimony compared to the amount of testimony given by Mr.
5 Hoffinan and Mr. Gillespie. Out of 56 pages of testimony, 3 pages were dedicated to correcting the
6 record of the previous hearing on the minute order, because there were errors, 1 page to a motion to

7 dismiss, 24 pages of Mr. Hoffman's testimony, 18 pages oftestimony of Mr. Gillespie, and 7 pages of

8 testimony from Mrs. Gillespie. The rest were closing arguments. It is illogical to come to a conclusion
9 that my testimony of7 pages had more weight in the judges decision than Mr. Hoffinan's 24 pages of
10 testimony. Judge Roper has had many years of experience, and would be able to discern outright lies told

11 by anyone.

12 Defendant did committed acts of malice and oppression with the expectation that Plaintiffs would

13 have to walk away and leave the fences, the buildings, the large farm equipment on the property, with

14 only 3 days in order to move. He was prepared to have all the gates locked so Plaintiffs would not be abl

15 to take anything with them or arrange to have the large buildings and equipment moved. Now the

16 Defendant is asking this court to do the same actions against Plaintiffs that the lower court refused to do.

17 In the first paragraph from lines 3 thru 10, first page, defendant uses conjecture to create a story

18 of the Plaintiff having a war against defendant, controlling all of his utilities, and trying to move into his

19 home. We have not committed one aggressive act against defendant or his family that would give validi

20 to his hypothesis. He cannot produce any evidence thst substantiates his conjecture. We do not control

21 the utilities for the property, we pay the electricity. Defendant's house is on the main line, Plaintiffs' line

22 is on the subpanel. Anything that happens to his electricity happens to us. While Plaintiffs do not have a:

23 many electric appliances as the defendant, Plaintiff's did not notice any difference in the electricity. There

24 were some problems on the hot days, but the neighbors have also suffered brownouts on the hot days.

25 Because Mr. Gillespie leaves for work at eleven am and Mrs. Gillespie sleeps during the day, the

26 Plaintiffs rarely experienced problems. The small trailer Plaintiffs live in is cooled by a old swamp

27 cooler, which aren't affected much by brownouts. Plaintiffs do not run any air conditioners, and do not

28 have air conditioners hooked up to any of the storage buildings that defendant called "portable sheds".

RESPONSE TO ANSWER of 08/24/2010 - 2

1 These buildings are big, and not any more portable than houses that are not connected to foundations.

2 There are seven buildings ranging from a tack bam 10 feet x 10 feet to a large barn 30 feet x 12 feet.
3 They are not connected to foundations at this time, but have the appropriate amount of padding
underneath to not be a code violation. Plaintiffs never agreed to move them. Plaintiffs did agree to move
5 the trailers, which has been done.

6 Defendant has complete control over the water. He had valve put on the line that goes to
7 Plaintiffs property, and shut the water off. Plaintiffs have never shut off defendant's electricity or phone
8 service, and until he pulled the wires and sawed the pipes, there have been no issues with electricity or
9 phone service. The phone box is on the pole right next to the conduit that plaintiff sawed thrn. It is

10 doubtful that Mr. Hoffinan ever told the phone repairman about the vibrations andjarring that took place

11 from the violent act of destroying Plaintiffs subpanel. Please refer to Plaintiffs AFFIDAVIT OF

12 CONTEMPT OF RULING photos accompanying Affidavit of6-1S-2010 (incorporate herein by reference

13 as if fully set forth). So far Plaintiffs have not been the ones denying defendant electricity or phone

14 service, Defendant has denied Plaintiffs water.

15 On page 1, lines 12-14, Plaintiffs did not believe the notice from defendant,that was taped to

16 Plaintiff's gate on May 27, 2010, by itself, to be a violation of the restraining order, but to show the stark

17 contrast of the shooting of a beloved pet the very next morning. The pictures attached to Plaintiffs

18 AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEMPT OF RULING (incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth).show

19 that there are no neighbors around, and the shots that hit the animal, in all probability came from

20 defendants property. With a rifle there would be no need to be in Plaintiffs' yard to shoot the dog.

21 Plaintiffs believe it was retaliation for obtaining a restraining order. On page 2, lines 1-18, defendant

22 claims to not know that the dog was shot. When the dog was found shot, Plaintiffs questioned neighbors

23 about what was seen and heard. The Garretsons did tell Plaintiffs that they did not hear any gun shots.

24 The neighbor on the other side of the defendant told Plaintiffs that defendant's 9 year old daughter was

25 out shooting the 22 rifle the morning of May 28,2010. This has been typical behavior of the defendant.

26 He has his daughter steal mail out of Plaintiff's mail box, vandalize plainti:tPs box, because he knows for

27 him to do so would cause him to be guilty of a criminal act. Plaintiffs have seen Mr. Hoffman yelling at

28 his daughter demanding that she vandalize Plaintiff's mail box, and her crying. She used to call us

RESPONSE TO ANSWER of 08/24/2010 - 3

1 II Grandpa and Grandma Now she doesn't appear to care about what she does. The rest of defendants

2 II response is complete conjecture. Defendant cannot even tell the truth about the dogs which Plaintiffs

3 II have. Plaintiffs have 2 purebred dogs, one a Doberman and the other one is an Australian shepherd. Bot
4 II are big and friendly, and help keep the coyotes away, because we live next to the foothills and there are

5 II many coyotes. Other than that, Plaintiffs dogs are not much good at guarding anything.
6 II There are so many inaccuracies and conjectures in defendant's response that Plaintiff needs more

7 II time to respond and produce the evidence to show that shows the defendant purposely committed perjury
8 II to the court. Plaintiffs have the ability to obtain the evidence to show that Plaintiffs have been telling the

9 II truth and the defendant has not. Plaintiff needs at least 30 days to produce the documentation, and
10 II deposition from witnesses to show that the defendant has no credibility. Therefore, Plaintiff does hereby

11 II move this honorable court to provide a 30 day extension to completely refute the non-response that
12 II defendant put into the court record and the allegations made against Plaintiff.

14 II I, Melody Gillespie, have read the above document and do hereby declare under penalty of

15 II peIjury pursuant to the laws of The State of California the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
16 II knowledge.
Dated this September 9, 2010










RESPONSE TO ANSWER of 08/24/2010 - 4