New State Title 17,18,42 Law Suit Mg Cg (2)

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 Ray GillespieMelody Ann GillespieRoxann DavidsonP.O. Box 8323Porterville, California 93257“Plaintiffs”

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TULARE

CASE #:

Melody Ann & VERIFIED CIVIL COMPLAINT Courtney Ray Gillespie, 17 U.S.C. §§101,201, 507Roxann Davidson, 18 U.S.C. §§1961-1964(c)

Plaintiffs, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a)v. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

Trial-by-Jury DemandedRobert J. Fletcher, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman,& Nickol D. Gerritsma, individually & as Trustees of H.M.Wysocki Trust,Nancy & Alan Casselman, individually & As Trusteesfor/Managing Directors of Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, Individually & as owner operator ofFirstAmendmentRadio.comaka far.com,also akaLiberty Radio Live,& any owned operated enterprises

Verified Complaint for R.I.C.O. Title 42 Copyright Violations Gillespie & Gillespie v. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D.

Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, et al.1

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

New Paradigm Holding Co.,Robert J. Fletcher, Attorney-at-Law Brett Thompson, andJohn & Jane Does 1-50,

Defendants. ______________________________

1. Comes now Plaintiffs Courtney Ray Gillespie & Melody Ann Gillespie, together with

Roxannn Davidson with their Original Verified Complaint for Damages, Declaratory

Judgment, Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien & Injunctions, as follows:

2.This State Court has Concurrent jurisdiction to hear Actions brought under 17 U.S.C.

§101 et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, & 1367, under RICO 18 U.S.C. §§1961-1964(c), as

well as 42 U.S.C.§§1983,1988(a), & venue is proper in the Tulare County Superior Court,

as all Defendants live & reside within the boundaries of Tulare County, California.

3. Trial-by-Jury is demanded by Plaintiffs herein on all counts.

4. In this Complaint, Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie sue (1) for partnership

accounting and dissolution according to the Common and Statutory Law of the State of

California,(2) for quiet title to their real property at 1831 North Lime Street in

Porterville, California 93257 earned in the course of carrying out and complying with

their obligations under the partnership agreement, (3) for damages for the conversion of

their time, toil, & talent as well as not inconsiderable actual cash investment all made

over the past eight years (since June 1, 2004), & (4) for reimbursement of

Plaintiffs’ payment of Defendants’ business “First Amended Radio” electricity & water.

5. The background to this rather unique story requires recounting a rather bizarre (and

possibly abnormal and dangerously psychopathic) tale of friendship, partnership,



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

betrayal, embezzlement, and trust gone bad over a deal which was both multifarious and

complex, involving real estate, “patriot movement” political radio, and an attempt to

reduce Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s former friends Courtney Ray and Melody Ann

Gillespie into debt Peonage in violation of the Civil Rights Laws of the United States,

including but not limited to both 18 U.S.C. §1581 and 42 U.S.C. §1994.

6. Plaintiffs submit that the actions and omissions of the Porterville Police, Tulare County

Police, and Southern California Edison and their complete failure to protect them from

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s predatory conduct in this case has in effect reduced them to a

condition of forced labor for an unlawful debt, in violation of their civil rights, as

a matter of state action under color of law.

7. Before the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman was “best man” at

the wedding of Courtney Gillespie and Melody Ann Castillo (now Gillespie), & they

went to the same church for a very long time, in fact, the dispute between the parties

here was at first presented to the Church elders for a decision in 2009, but Hoffman was

dissatisfied because the Church elders found in favor of the Plaintiffs, & he initiated

eviction proceedings in the California Superior Court by an unlawful detainer action

which he lost, dramatically, in 2010.

8. In 2004, Courtney Gillespie had agreed with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman to enter into a

joint partnership for purchase & development of the real estate at 1831 North Lime

Street, Porterville, California 93257. The partnership was oral, & never formally drawn

up, but the paperwork was sufficient to indicate to the California Superior Court in

2010 that the Gillespies were not mere “tenants” on Hoffman’s property. All Exhibits

Attached hereto this Verified Civil Complaint are hereby incorporated herein by



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

Reference as if fully set forth herein, & are hereby made a part of this Complaint, which

include testimonial admissions by one or more of the Defendants herein that there was

an agreement to purchase land between Nicklas Hoffman & Courtney Gillespie, & a

prior Court Judgment by Tulare County Superior Court Judge Glade Roper that such

an agreement existed, which Plaintiffs here allege & contend is Res Judicata on any

question of the existence of an agreement for purchase of the property in question, which

the trial Court in this Case is Required by Express California Law to take Mandatory

Judicial Notice of under California Evidence Code Sections 450-459.

9. The Gillespies moved onto the subject property at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville,

California, in 2004 for the purpose of leveling & developing the property, & they

began to construct a permanent home for Hoffman, investing at first their labor & time

& some money as well, although during the past two years, the Plaintiffs have been

compelled both by Law Enforcement officers & Southern California Edison to continue

to pay the Utility Bills of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, who regularly ran up an excessively

high electricity bill due to the fact he was Running a radio & internet broadcast station

in what borders on a condition of peonage in violation of both the criminal & civil

rights laws of the United States.

10. The agreement & understanding between Courtney Gillespie & Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman was for “partnership”, but Melody was not a party to this agreement on the

grounds that “men” should have the dealings and “leave the little women out of it” or

thoughts generally to that effect expressed by Nicklas Hoffman in his personal religious

form & zeal. The real reason that the agreement was finalized without her involvement

was that Melody had some training as a paralegal & wanted to become a legal affairs



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

commentator on radio as part of her “second career” & retirement plan.

11. Notwithstanding his apparent if anachronistic chauvinism bordering on misogyny,

Melody Ann Gillespie worked at Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s “First Amendment” radio

station continuously from June 1, 2005 to November 22, 2009, as a production engineer,

technical producer, & talk show hostess for her own program, as well as another live

program called “Liberty Forum with John Bryant” which she later developed with

other radio personalities.

12. Melody Ann Gillespie’s afternoon show became one of the most popular & widely

heard programs, so that in 2007, she was given a prime time spot from 6-8 pm. By this

time, as Nicklas Arthur Hoffman stated, her show was profitable; despite their implicit

intended partnership, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman never shared the profit he made from

Melody’s shows, never paid her for her extensive engineering & technical support, &

never even provided an accounting or report of earnings.

13. Melody also did two twelve-hour fundraising marathons one year, & had great success

with a relatively large radio audience, but never received any pay; she sues now in

quantum meruit for her just salary & wages.

14. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman initiated hostilities on November 22, 2009, after which time

Melody Gillespie never broadcast on First Amendment Radio again & they escalated

through November 29, 2010 when Hoffman insisted on taking his quarrel with the

Gillespies, as noted, to the elders of their Church.

15. The elders were not sympathetic t o Hoffman at all on his contention the Gillespies

had defaulted on the land-sales agreement to purchase 1/2 of the land at 18 13 North

Lime Street without any refunds for labor or time invested pursuant to the partnership



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

agreem ent, which Hoffman was denying ever existed, despite th e extensive cooperation &

collaboration of Courtney Gillespie on the land modification & infrastructure setup for

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s segment of the land & house & Melody Gillespie’s extensive

cooperation & collaboration on Hoffman’s First Amendment Radio Station.

16. All the elders can be called as witnesses at the present time to confirm the church

procedures & the consistency of testimony, & since both parties belong to the

same Church, it is even arguable that some elements of “Res Judicata”, Collateral

Estoppel, or at least equitable estoppel should be triggered & be admissible as

evidence between the Church proceedings & those of this Court.

17. This Church Procedure was part of the Contractual Agreement, the Result of

which Church Procedure, the final decision of the Church Elders, was to be binding &

final upon the parties according to the terms of the original Contract Agreement;

However even though Nicklas Arthur Hoffman represented that he would abide by the

Decision of the Church Elders, in writing & orally to Plaintiffs herein, he never did

so, but knowingly willingly & intentionally Violated his Promise & Agreement & when

the Decision of the Elders went against him, he proceeded to file an unlawful Detainer

Action in the Porterville Branch of the Tulare County Superior Court. The

Church Elders all agreed that there was an agreement to sell the property to Courtney

Gillespie; Nicklas Hoffman was to pay half of the utilities each month; These were

not complied with by Nicklas Hoffman, each Constituting a separate Violation of the

agreement for which Plaintiffs seek damages against Hoffman. Plaintiffs further allege

that the alleged Cross Complaint filed in Case #: 10-238961, is a Fraud upon the

Court, a Fraud upon the Public, & a Fraud upon plaintiffs herein.



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

Each of these violations of the agreement should be also counted as a count of fraud,

constituting treble damages for each injury.

18. To disregard the proceedings of the Church as a nullity would be a violation of the

First Amendment rights of the parties to free exercise & be free from establishment

of State superiority over their religion. Plaintiffs sue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201-

2202 & 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) for enforcement of the church elder’s judgment in their

favor as a matter of First Amendment Right to free exercise & to be free from any law

respecting an establishment of religion.

19. What Plaintiffs will prove here in this adversary proceeding is exactly what they

proved to the Church elders, namely: (1) they had been paying a large sum of money

each month but Nicklas was (2) refusing to give receipts for payment and (3) also

refused to give proper accounting for the payments against an agreed “promissory

note”; plaintiffs will also prove (4) that Hoffman refused to accept their checks, without

reason & for that reason (5) they kept their money in a bank account, & paid the

electricity for both Hoffman’s & their own segments of the property in order to keep

up the “interest” payments, so that there would be no loss or damages at anytime to

Hoffman.

20. Perfidiously, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman at that time asserted that Melody owed him for

the air time she had used, although this had NEVER been the agreement between the

parties, & in fact was contrary to the spirit of the partnership entirely---recalling

that Melody was not only doing programs, but also the production of all of the

Sunday programs, not just her own , & recalling further that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

admitted on more than one occasion that Melody’s programs paid for themselves



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

in advertising & that Melody also had done fund-raising marathons twice a year one year,

& had never been paid for her time & work. On information & belief, Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman is still actively selling recordings of Melody Gillespie’s successful radio

broadcasts through his on-line store & radio stores. He sells Products on around 7

different web pages, some of which are on out of State Locations where he is also

broadcasting on sister network stations across the Country, whereby he makes profits &

gains which he does not ever report to the appropriate Taxing Agencies, to avoid

reporting income which he intentionally hides to avoid Spousal Support & Child

Support which he owes from previous marriages.

21. Upon further information & belief, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has accumulated a large

supply of gold bullion as a result of his activities on & associated with the real estate

at 1831 North Lime, including, but not limited to, the radio station broadcasts & the

sales from his internet & radio “store”, including broadcasts of Melody Gillespie’s texts

& voice, the copyright over which voice texts Melody never sold or bartered to Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman to use as his own.

22. Until recently, Plaintiffs were paying $1600 electrical bills from month to month, but

routinely Much higher than necessary for Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s ordinary, modest

three bedroom home, even including his very low wattage radio broadcast equipment.

23. Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand a windup & accounting of their complex partnership

with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, & that the Court award them their proper share, namely

66.67%, of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s earnings over the past seven years & their proper

share of the value of property based on their investments of time, toil & talent, labor &

cash in the real estate, radio station, & sales or other business resulting from or taking



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

place on both the real estate & the radio station, including but not limited the value of the

the broadcast Voice Recordings of which Melody Gillespie claims full copyright &

ownership. These earnings gains & Profits include Plaintiffs lawful share of any & all

such assets & amounts being held by any of Hoffmans fictitious Entities or his Co-

Defendants in this Action including but not limited to: Nickol D. Gerritsma,

individually

& as Trustee of H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Casselman, individually & As

Trustees for / Managing Directors of Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, Individually

& as owner operator of FirstAmendmentRadio.com aka far.com, also aka Liberty Radio

Live, & any other owned operated enterprises.

24. In the alternative, if the evidence does not satisfy the Court that the parties ever entered

into a partnership, then the Court should award the Plaintiffs full 2/3 (66.67%) credit

either by the terms of the agreements if these can be reconstructed by a clear

preponderance of the evidence, or by comparison with similar investments of labor

during the relevant time in Tulare County, California, by an award of damages in

quantum meruit for their time, toil, & talent, labor & cash, invested without other

compensation in Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s (1) real estate, (2) radio programming, &

(3) sales or other business transactions resulting from the proceeds of both the use of his

real estate & his radio station, including but not limited the value of the broadcast

voice recordings of which Melody Gillespie claims full copyright & ownership.

Statutory penalties for failure to pay for labor & services performed should also be

assessed against Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & his associates & trustees, including but not

limited to exemplary & punitive damages for his obvious attempts to defraud 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

Plaintiffs or at least to reduce them to peonage in violation of 18 U.S.C.§1581&42 U.S.C.

§1994 as alleged above 1 , because of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s intense campaigns

of physical threats & intimidation coupled with his manipulation of the local Police &

Sheriff’s Departments & even the prosecutor’s offices. See, also,U.S. v. Clement,171 F. 974

(1909).“Peonage is the holding of persons in unwilling servitude in payment of debts, by

means either of force or intimidation ,” (U.S.D.C. For the District of South Carolina,

25. Either way, Plaintiffs assert here, claim, & will prove that at the very minimum, least

they are entitled to a full & final award of two-third 66.67% of the land by value &

half of the accumulated proceeds of 7 years of radio broadcasts on First Amendment

Liberty Radio Live & all other economic activities taking place on Nicklas Arthur

1 Peonage defined“Peonage” is a form of “involuntary servitude” within the meaning of U.S.C.A.Const.

Amend. 13, and former § 444 [now 1581] of Title 18 and this section, abolishing and prohibiting peonage and penalizing a person who holds anyone to a condition of peonage are an appropriate implementation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 13. Taylor v. State of Georgia, 62 S.Ct. 415, 315 U.S. 25, 86 L.Ed. 615 (1942)

Peonage was term descriptive of condition which had existed in Spanish America, and especially in Mexico; its essence was compulsory service in payment of debt, peon being one who was compelled to work for his creditor until his debt was paid. Bailey v. State of Alabama, 31 S.Ct. 145, 219 U.S. 219, 55 L.Ed. 191 (1911). See, also, U.S. v. Clement: “Peonage is the holding of persons in unwilling servitude in payment of debts, by means either of force or intimidation,” 171 F. 974 (USDC, South Carolina); Peonage Cases, 136 F. 707 (USDC, Arkansas 1904); U.S. v. McClellan, 127 F. 971 (USDC, Georgia 1904).

Peonage is status or condition of compulsory service based on indebtedness of peon to master. Clyatt v. U.S., 25 S.Ct. 429, 197 U.S. 207, 49 L.Ed. 726 (1905).

‘Peonage” is a status or condition of compulsory service or involuntary servitude based upon a real or alleged indebtedness. Pierce v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1944, 146 F.2d 84, certiorari denied 65 S.Ct. 1011, 324 U.S. 873, 89 L.Ed. 1427, petition denied 157 F.2d 848, certiorari denied 67 S.Ct. 631, 329 U.S. 814, 91 L.Ed. 694.

“Condition of peonage,” which was made crime, was condition of forced servitude by which servitor was restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, either real or pretended, against his will; and any agreement giving another the right to exact such servitude was invalid, and treated as though made involuntarily, and afforded creditor or master no protection. Peonage Cases, 123 F. 671, (MD Alabama1903).

Word “peonage” as used in this section includes cases of involuntary servitude to work out debt, but every case of such servitude may not be within this section. A “peon” is defined as a “species of serf, compelled to work for his creditor until his debts are paid,” and this section, in referring to service or labor of persons as “peons, in liquidation of any debt 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

Hoffman’s land, including but not limited to use of & profits resulting from Melody

Gillespie’s five year broadcasting career, for the value & profits of which, Plaintiffs’

now sue for partnership accounting, for back wages & salary & in quantum meruit.

26. Whether all of the proceeds of an accounting & resulting judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor

for these amounts will be paid in the balance of the land at 1831 North Lime Street or

whether it will be necessary to investigate & trace Hoffman’s assets, including the

allegedly large stash of gold bullion which he has accumulated & may have stored on

his own or any of his relatives or associates or trustees property, is a subject regarding

which Plaintiffs claim the right to discovery & for which discovery a full order of

fiduciary accounting by this Court will be necessary.

27. By & through this action Plaintiffs Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespie seek orders

against the defendants to return property; proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover

fraudulent conveyances, including all of Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s attempts

to convert the Plaintiffs’ property & title, subject of this lawsuit; determinations as to

the validity of particular debts,such as Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s claims for $44,800 as

of August 9, 2010, plus accruals since, all of which claims of indebtedness Plaintiffs

Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespie submit are fraudulent; determinations of the

validity, extent, or priority of liens, including the foreclosure of Courtney Ray & Melody

Ann Gillespie’s Mechanic’s Lien attached as Exhibit D to this Original Complaint;

recoupment & resolution of Plaintiffs Courtney Ray & Melody Ann Gillespie’s massive

investments in the subject property at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, CA;

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

Plaintiffs’ expense utilizing the unpaid product of Courtney Ray & Melody Ann



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

Gillespie’s labors & investments of time & money .

28. All the parties plaintiffs & defendants live &/or have their principal place of business &

all of the transactions & occurrences giving rise to this action took place within the

County of Tulare, California. This Court also has Co ncurrent Jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §§1331 & 1343, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a), & 18 USC

§§1961-1964(c).

FIRST (THRESHOLD/PRELIMINARY) CAUSE OF ACTION:

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO CONSTRUE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP OF

PARTIES & NATURE OF CONTRACT

29. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-29, & incorporate the material allegations of the same

by reference as if fully copied & restated herein below.

30. At the root of all the issues to be resolved by this adversarial action express &

implied terms of the nature of the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs Courtney

& Melody Gillespie & the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that, whatever the terms of

the contract or contracts were, they have performed in full.

31. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2201 as well as 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) & 17 U.S.C. §§101 et

seq., Plaintiffs seek that the court allow them to offer & present evidence, after a

reasonable time & meaningful opportunity for discovery pursuant to Rule 26(f) et seq.

of the Federal Rules,& to present all such evidence to a jury for findings of fact

according to Common Law, & mixed questions of fact & law as allowed by American

Case law & Precedents, that at the termination of all such evidence & upon the report

of the findings of the jury, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs &

against Defendants, construing the meaning, purpose, & intent of the contracts in a

just & equitable manner according to principles of common law & equitable

traditions of fairness.

32. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare & adjudge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§2201-2202, that a

full partnership existed between Courtney & Melody Gillespie on the one hand &



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

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman on the other, with each individual member of this partnership

entitled to 1/3 (33.33%) of the property acquired by & profit from the partnership, so

that Plaintiffs’ combined share would be 66.67% of the face value, plus statutory

penalties for non-payment for labor & services rendered plus punitive & exemplary

damages for fraud & conspiracy or attempt to reduce the Plaintiffs to peonage, or

involuntary servitude in violation of both State & Federal Law. The written Contract

was created & typed up by Nicklas Hoffman. Included in the Fraud perpetrated by

Hoffman against Courtney Gillespie was the condition of purchase, imposed by Hoffman

on Courtney Gillespie that Courtney obtain a subdivision of the property that Hoffman

knew from his own personal experience as a General Contractor in the Construction

field in Tulare County for over 20 years, would not be granted by the County, because

it was an impossibility at Law at the time, & against the Public Policy of the County of

Tulare, all of which Hoffman, having been a general Contractor in the field of

Construction in Tulare County for some 20+ years previously, knew it well, which he

intentionally knowingly willingly suppression & kept from Courtney Gillespie to the

intended detriment of Courtney Gillespie which Hoffman would Later try to use as

grounds to Void the contract, which Hoffman later in fact did use as a basis for

claiming the contract was Void, I.E.: the failure of Courtney Gillespie to obtain the

subdivision of the property. Courtney Gillespie was not aware that this “condition”of

purchase imposed by Nicklas Hoffman, was an impossibility as a matter of Law at

the time of entry into the Contract with Hoffman, & Hoffman knew that Courtney

was not aware of it at the time, & took full advantage of this in his Scheme to

swindle Courtney out of his labor, materials, time, & money.

33. Plaintiffs further ask this Court to order a full fiduciary accounting for their

partnership with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & his associates to whom he may have

transferred property in an attempt to hide or conceal his profits from the Plaintiffs or

others. Fiduciary Accounting for Nicklas Arthur Hoffman must involve discovery



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

directed to all other co-Defendants in this case, including, possibly, one or more

Defendants John & Jane Doe.

34. Plaintiffs have framed their primary claims for damages herein under the Racketeer

Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act because Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman,

acting as a “principal” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§2(b) & 1962(a), has organized

his businesses together with associates for twenty years or more as an enterprise to

acquire, direct, invest, & manage properties through the conduct of a continuing

pattern of Racketeering including Murder or attempted Murder2, continual

harassment by assault & battery,conspiracy to commit peonage in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§1581 & 42 U.S.C.§1994, intimidation of witnesses,& unfair business transactions often

disguised by the utilization of deceptive and manipulative devices such as false trusts &

or holding companies &/or other individual associates who hold title in his place, but

under his control & for his benefit, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1962(a)-(b).

35. Nickol D. Gerritsma, Robert J. Fletcher, Nancy & Alan Casselman are also sued for

racketeering under 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c) & (d) as parties acting under the direction &

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 & battery with intentional infliction

2 Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, though never convicted of nor even indicted for murder, appeared to admit having previously committed murder(s) to Plaintiff Roxann Davidson: after he shot a pellet gun twice at her within a single twenty-four hour period, Hoffman said that she was “lucky to be alive, but others have not been so lucky.” Strange circumstances and unexplained “accidents” had just recently (in the past five years) led to the death of Hoffman’s 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



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

of emotional distress, while Hoffman has sought to intimidate her as a potential

witness & thereby obstruct justice, attitudes which constitute a nearly continual &

ongoing assault & intentional infliction of emotional distress which goes far beyond

the ordinary connotations of the word “harassment.”

36. With regard to their underlying property disputes, Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody

Gillespie contend, & by & through this complaint ask this Court to review,

interpret, & construe the documents & prior testimony evidencing the parties

agreement, by entry of a declaratory judgment, to declare & 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.

37. The best characterization of the nature & 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 & Trustee suggest the intent to create a mortgage,

although these terms could also be construed to suggest an intent to create a private &

joint trust between the parties without specifying any beneficiary, but circumstances

Implying that Melody Gillespie was the intended beneficiary. Plaintiffs Courtney &

Melody Gillespie seek quiet title to the entire property &/or partition,&/or a

Declaratory Judgment that their Rights as Beneficiaries of a Trust have been Violated

through the Malfeasance & Breaches of Fiduciary Duty perpetrated against them by

both Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & Hoffman’s daughter & Trustee Nickol D.

Gerritsma, who purported to be acting as Trustees at the time of the said Breaches.

38. Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie ask this Court to Declare & Adjudge that this

Contractual amount of $60,000.00 has already been paid in full, with substantial

interest & that there is absolutely, positively, no Legitimate or Valid Debt owing by

Plaintiff to Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman or any other party to this Lawsuit, in

that Plaintiffs have paid a combination of Cash, Labor, & Equipment to Defendant



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

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman with a total value in excess of $720,000, not counting Damages

resulting from any Criminal or Tortious conduct, & that Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody

Gillespie, as husband & wife, should accordingly be granted quiet title in this property,

which is indivisible under the California Land Conservation Act aka Williamson Act.

39. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s efforts to swindle Plaintiffs & cheat them of their

money & 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, & continual harassment & acts of intimidation to try

to force the Plaintiffs to abandon their investment & leave their property.

40. Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie claim in this action that they are entitled to

both land & money damages for emotional distress, assault, battery, breach of contract,

breach of fiduciary duty (as “partners” or some other less-precisely defined special

confidential relationship of Trust & reliance, which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman initiated

&

into which he induced the Plaintiffs by fraud & false pretenses, which should be

characterized at least as a “Constructive Trust”, conversion, conspiracy to commit

peonage, constructive & actual fraud, attempts at malicious prosecution, attempted

wrongful eviction, slander of title,& trespass from Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & the other

Defendants, as well as a permanent injunction against Hoffman & anyone acting on his

behalf from further harassment & intimidation.

41. Plaintiff Roxann Davidson seeks only damages for Defendant Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman’s extreme & outrageous infliction of emotional distress, for constant, repetitive

& sexually threatening stalking (continuing up through the present day), assault,

battery, & attempted murder.

A CONTINUING PATTERN OF RACKETEERING

& INFRINGEMENT ON CIVIL RIGHTS:

PREDICATE ACTS & THREATS OF VIOLENCE, BULLYING,

COERCION & DURESS



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

42. Under 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) (with bold-italic emphasis added): "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…”

43. 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 & later that day fired at

& likewise sought to maim 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.

44. 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, & Plaintiff Melody Gillespie was in the driveway

climbing up a short stairway into the permanently parked RV on the passenger’s side.

This RV functions as Plaintiff Roxann Davidson’s home.

45. After shooting Plaintiff Roxann, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, while standing

close by the fence on his side of the property, spoke loudly to Roxann Davidson & told

her that he intended to kill the Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie as well as her.

During a previous incident, just a few weeks before the shooting, Hoffman had been

accompanied by his ten year old daughter Mattie Hoffman when he made more

verbally threatening & intimidating remarks.

46. 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 Sports shop

where it had been left on consignment in Porterville, California.

47. 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



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

Tulare County California Superior Court protecting Melody & Courtney Gillespie &

to keep Nicklas Arthur Hoffman away from their property, to wit on March 11, 2011,

Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman shot Roxann Davidson again with the same high

powered pellet gun, & this time hit her in the face while she was in the same garden.

48. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman told Roxann on this occasion that he intended to hit

her eye & would not miss next time. To quote precisely, Defendant’s first words were

spoken from his hidden location near or inside his home, “Next time it will be your eye”,

then Defendant approached the fence facing the greenhouse where Plaintiff

Roxann Davidson was sitting in shock. Then Defendant Hoffman said loudly & forcibly

to Roxann’s face, “You're lucky to be alive, others have not been so lucky.”

49. Plaintiffs submit that this episode constitutes two predicate “acts or threats involving

murder”during 2011 alone, but this story is only beginning, & that these kinds of threats

or attempted assaults constitute force or intimidation for the purpose of reducing the

Plaintiffs into peonage or in the alternative to deprive them of their property & business

Rights in 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California by force.

50. Defendant Hoffman’s attacks last year on Plaintiff Roxann Davidson and Melody

Gillespie clearly constituted criminal assault, & in the case of Roxann Davidson,

battery with bodily injury, and mayhem, which resulted in only minimal long-term

damages e.g. dermal numbness, drooping of the eye, eye & cheek, which now sag at

times or become

exhausted much more quickly than the corresponding opposite side of the face,

suggesting long term nerve or muscle damage and injury, but it all, obviously,

could have been much worse: Hoffman’s actions could have been fatal, or in the least,

cause severe maim.

51. Accordingly, Plaintiff Roxann Davidson additionally complains of & sues Defendant

Hoffman for damages resulting from the California state-law torts of assault, battery,

& intentional infliction of emotional distress, over which claims this Court has



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

jurisdiction, under California Civil Code.

52. 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 Plaintiff’s Roxann Davidson & Melody

Gillespie, he did intend to Violate & plainly did Violate the Civil Rights provisions of

Title 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, as well as §1581 (peonage) as noted several times.

53. In committing these Violations of the Criminal Civil Rights statutes, Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman took advantage of & used to his full advantage a customary, practical, &

political presumption of police disinterest, laxity & non-intervention whenever a party

is represented by an attorney, so that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman was allowed

to act illegally under color & protection of law with completely calm impunity &

effective immunity from prosecution even after his crimes had been duly reported to

the local police3, 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), 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.

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

along with another individual, Brett Thompson & identified by Plaintiff Roxann

prowling on the Plaintiffs’ Courtney & Melody Gillespie’s property, trespassing

under cover of night in plain violation of this same October 29, 2011 protective order.

55. As a direct result & in the aftermath, Plaintiffs have filed ten or more complaints &

reports concerning such conduct with the Tulare Sheriff’s Department, but the county

authorities have not taken any action against Defendant Hoffman, which leaves the

3 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).



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

Plaintiffs without effective protection.

56. On a separate & 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 &/or Melody Gillespie by rigging a propane tank to blow

them up when they next turned on the hot water.

57. 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.

58. On this occasion, Defendant Hoffman said to Brett Thompson & another younger

associate, in the presence & within the hearing of the Plaintiffs, “anyway they’re 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

Defendant’s history of threatening, murderous “chatter” & pattern of verbal

harassment .

59. This entire event including the threat was also reported to the Police, to no avail. Mr.

Hoffman’s abusive conduct was effectively continuous, repetitive & 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 Co.

to cut the electric wires & subpanels on the property occupied by Plaintiffs & used the

pretextually obtained access to the property to put rat poison into Plaintiff’s food,

leading to Plaintiff Melody Gillespie suffering symptoms of poison from poisoned milk.

60. Again, after this incident, Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie sought to file a report with the

local Porterville office of the Tulare County District Attorney. However,Tulare County

Assistant District Attorney Jason Ahn for Porterville, on or about 6/ 17/10, advised the

Plaintiffs that the State would not prosecute certain incidents involving destruction of

property & interference with use of property because a property dispute existed which



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

cast all these events in the light of a civil dispute, despite the repeated threats of violence.

61. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s conduct has been ongoing & unremitting for

several years. On April 22, 2009, between noon & 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.

62. 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, & then utilized

electronic identity information unlawfully obtained & other unlawful means to access &

“take over” Plaintiff’s electrical account from Southern California Edison, all in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7).

63. On or about April 15, 2010, & 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 &/or Melody Gillespie to investigate

& obtain information concerning them & also to terminate Plaintiff’s electricity &

transfer their fully paid & at that time current account to his own name.

64. During July–December, 2009, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman repudiated or

announced his intentions to breach & disregard his partnership & other actual express

or implied agreements with Courtney & Melody Gillespie, the terms of which

had been fully performed by the Gillespies, to the intended harm, injury, & detriment

of said Plaintiffs, amounting to an Act of Fraud & intentional breach of Contract

by Hoffman.

65. At this time, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman began a reign of terroristic acts

against these plaintiffs which included repeated violations or attempts to violate 18

U.S.C. §1029 (a)(8) & 18 U.S.C. §§1029 (b)(1)-(2) in that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & his

employee Brett Thompson had obtained & conspired to use & did in fact utilize a

listening device or devices configured unlawfully to “scan” or otherwise eavesdrop on



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

Plaintiffs’ conversations.

66. Under 18 U.S.C. §1961(5) the phrase in subsection (5) "pattern of racketeering activity"

requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one which occurred after the effective

date of this chapter & the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period

of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.

67. Plaintiffs submit that the list of assaults, robberies, & utilization of electronic means

to effect illegal & 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, & means.

68. The Plaintiffs have reported many more incidents than the above list by declarations

filed with & information provided to the Tulare County Superior Court in Visalia, but

the California State Court has not taken up any of these issues or shown any concern

for the welfare of the Plaintiffs.

The NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN et al, R.I.C.O. ENTERPRISE(s)

69. Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is not the title owner of the property on which he & the

Plaintiffs live, from which Defendant Hoffman & others involved in the Sean Ray

Enterprises Business Trust, including but not limited to Licensed California Attorney

Robert J. Fletcher, operate & broadcast Radio Liberty, First Amendment Radio, &

various other related “Patriot Movement” Television & Radio broadcast enterprises,

the complete list of which entities Plaintiffs Courtney Ray Gillespie & Melody Ann

Gillespie do not even know.

70. A major part of Defendants’ racketeering enterprise has been to cause & compel the

Plaintiffs, reduced to a state of obligation very near to debt peonage, initially to subsidize

starting June 2004, & later to support his Radio & Television Broadcast

operations by paying 100% of his electrical bills since June 2005, as well as by

contributing their labor & cash investment to the improvement & addition of real estate

by substantial construction & maintenance of all or part of 12 structures on 10 acres of



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 Nicklas Arthur Hoffman claims sole proprietary (de facto) ownership & over

which he plainly exercises (both de facto &, to the extent to which Plaintiffs have sought

& been denied police protection, effective de jure) absolute control, bordering on the

ancient Roman standard of ius vita necisque (the power of life & death), in violation of

Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C. §§241 & 242.

The purported title owner of the property, according to Nicklas Hoffman, is the H.M.

Wysocki Trust of which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s daughter Nickol D. Gerritsma is the

Trustee. Nancy & Alan Casselman are Trustees for a second trust, the Shawn Ray

Enterprises Trust which may also operate under the fictitious business name “New

Paradigm Holding Company.” Plaintiffs herein contend that all such claims by

Hoffman

& his Associates, Robert Fletcher, Nickol D. Gerritsma, Nancy & Alan Casselman, Jane

& John Does,Et Al, are knowing & intentional fraud on the public, on the Courts, & last

but not least on Plaintiffs herein. Plaintiffs will in fact show that even before Hoffman

purported to enter into a land sale contract with Courtney Gillespie, he & his Daughter

Nickol D. Gerritsma had transferred all right & interest in the said Property to “New

Paradigm Holding Company, & he intentionally kept this fact from the Plaintiffs

Gillespies herein, as well as the previous holder of a promissory Note Anne Mintor, on

the property which he had not even paid off, in violation of his written agreement with

Mintor, as he was required in that prior agreement with Minter to immediately &

forthwith inform her of any transfer of title in the property, & he would be Required

then & there to pay off the note in full upon her demand, which failure to disclose was

another Fraud in a long line of Frauds by Nicklas Arthur Hoffman.

71. Robert J. Fletcher who has previously acted as attorney & counselor for Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, & the H.M. Wysocki Trust, is sued herein as an

individual for his own actions in the furtherance of this series of Racketeer Influenced

& Corrupt Organizations, their employees & officers, & not merely as an attorney for



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

these parties, for which Plaintiffs herein contend Fletcher has nor can he claim any

personal immunity based on any alleged Statutory Privilege or Status, whether

Attorney Client or other.

72. Plaintiffs allege upon information & belief & 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, & further that they are

doing business for profit & gain at 1831 N. Lime Street in Violation of Local, County, &

State Laws, Regulations, Ordinances, which subject them to liability under the State &

Federal Laws cited herein this Complaint.

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

Casselmans, & Nicklas Arthur Hoffman have engaged in a “shell game”, passing title

ownership of the subject property & other real estate in Tulare County, California,

back & forth among each other for the purpose of staging sham “sales” & sham

“foreclosures”, & to create a false paper trail, to obfuscate the record by which they

avoid paying any state or federal taxes they would other wise be required to pay, &

which Hoffman also uses to avoid full disclosure of his income from his past wives, to

avoid paying & being prosecuted for spousal & child support.

74. As of the date of filing this complaint, it would appear from advertisements & notices

found at “Zillow.com” & elsewhere on-line that as of July 29, 2011, in violation of the

automatic stay in Melody Ann Gillespie’s 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.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, FIRST CLAIM FOR R.I.C.O. DAMAGES

under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c):

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

“Association-in-Fact” 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)

75. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-74 of this their Original Complaint & incorporate the same by



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

reference as if fully set forth herein below.

76. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is a natural person, even if he

is also a dangerous, abnormal,& psychopathic person, who has received income

derived,

directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity including murder or

attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon & assault with bodily injury, arson

or attempted arson, witness intimidation or retaliation, forgery & fabrication of

contractual documents & evidence, filed in court, & falsification of identity access

information via electronic means & unauthorized manipulation of financial identity &

account information in which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has participated as a principal

within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. §2.

77. Plaintiffs further allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has used or invested, & continues

to use or invest, both directly & 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 Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, sometimes d/b/a New Paradigm Holding

Company, & other fictitious entities whose names & identities are unknown to Plaintiffs

at this time, & who are referred to herein as Jane & John Does.

78. To wit, & in particular but without any express or implied limitation, by force, fraud,

& manipulation of documentary evidence, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has

compelled, coerced, &/or used trickery & 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 and a half years, while continuing to improve &

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 & investments

time, toil, & talents of Plaintiff Courtney Ray Gillespie & the substantial financial



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

investments & lesser investments of time, toil, & talent of Melody Ann Gillespie,

& Defendant Hoffman continually reinvested the money & material resources, & labor

value converted, stolen, or extorted from Plaintiffs Courtney Ray & Melody Ann

Gillespie in the increase & augmentation of his Racketeering Enterprise or several

Racketeering Enterprises, as the case may be.

79. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. “Association-in-Fact” is an enterprise composed

by & consisting of all the named Defendants; Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D.

Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Casselman, Shawn Ray Enterprises

Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., Robert J. Fletcher, & John & Jane Does 1-

10 in this case, working in unlawful agreement & in combination with each other & in

further agreement & combination with other individuals, including but not limited to

Brett Thompson & other unknown individuals, who are named herein as Defendants

under John & Jane Does.

80. 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 are the assets held in the name of the H. M. Wysocki Trust,

separately & 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 & d/b/a New Paradigm Holding Company, & John & Jane

Does 1-50.

81. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. “Association-in-fact” is an enterprise which is

engaged in, & 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, & the New Paradigm Holding Company.

82. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by this Defendant’s real estate

manipulations & embezzlement of funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) & related

schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C.§§1341, 1343, 1344, & 1346 in their



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

business & property interests, to wit their ownership interest & investments in & quiet

enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address &

otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257.

83. Wherefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), Plaintiffs pray for all their costs of suit &

for treble their actual damages, Plaintiffs estimate their actual damages from

Racketeering alone in the minimum amount of $720,000 the purposes of trebling

being both to fairly & justly punish the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman for his

manifold, multifarious, & complex violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) & to serve as a fair,

just, & equitable example to other defendants similarly situated.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(SECOND CLAIM FOR R.I.C.O. DAMAGES)

UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c):

Nickol D. Gerritsma 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)


reference as if fully set forth herein, below.

85. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nickol D. Gerritsma is a natural person who 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 Father’s course of racketeering activity or

conduct including murder or attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon & assault

with bodily injury, arson or attempted arson, witness intimidation or retaliation, &

falsification of identity access information via electronic means & unauthorized

manipulation of financial identity & 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.”

86. Nickol D. Gerritsma’s official role in the “Nicklas Arthur Hoffman” R.I.C.O.

Association-in-Fact Racketeering Enterprise is as “name-lender”, or “front-



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

person”/“strawman” Trustee of & for the H.M. Wysocki Trust, which at one or more

times, if not at all times, relevant to this action, complaint, & lawsuit was the title

owner of 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257.

87. Despite her possibly passive, mere status as a “front”, through a 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 Hoffman’s daughter Nickol

D. Gerritsma has used or invested, & continues to use or invest, both directly &

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 Enterprises Business Trust & New Paradigm Holding Company,

John & Jane Does 1-50, which entities may have also, at other times, purported to have

been the Title owner of 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257.

88. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. “Association-in-Fact” is an enterprise composed

by & consisting of all the named Defendants; Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D.

Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Casselman, Robert J. Fletcher, Shawn

Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co., & John & Jane Does 1-

50 in this case, working in unlawful agreement & in combination with each other &

in further agreement & combination with others, including but not limited to Brett

Thompson & unknown individuals.



racketeering activity is the H.M. Wysocki Trust, as well as Defendants Shawn Ray

Enterprises Business Trust; New Paradigm Holding Company; & 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



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, located at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257.

90. 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, & the New Paradigm Holding Company, are each

enterprises which are engaged in, & the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign

commerce.


manipulations & embezzlement of funds, for which Defendant Nickol D. Gerritsma has

special responsibility & liability equal to that of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman owing to her

title & actual role as “Trustee” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) & related schemes to

defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, 1344, & 1346 in their business &

property interests, to wit their ownership interest & investments in & quiet enjoyment

of that certain undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address & otherwise

known as 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257.

92. 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

the purposes of trebled damages under Civil R.I.C.O. being justly met here: both to

fairly & lawfully punish the Defendant Nickol Hoffman for her violations of 18 U.S.C.

§1962(a) & to serve as an example to deter other defendants who might be similarly

situated to engage in such conduct.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(THIRD CLAIM FOR R.I.C.O. DAMAGES):

NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN & LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. FLETCHER, 18 U.S.C. §1962(b)

93. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-92 of this their Original Complaint & incorporate the same

by reference as if fully set forth herein below.

94. Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman is a natural even if possibly abnormal,

dangerous, & psychopathic, person who, through a pattern of racketeering activity has



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

acquired & does still maintain, both directly or indirectly, the primary ownership

interest in & 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, & the New Paradigm Holding Company.

95. Plaintiffs allege that all of these businesses named in the above-paragraph are

enterprises which engaged in, & the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign

commerce, including but not limited to the ownership,operation,& investment of funds

derived from the ten acre parcel of commercial & residential realty located at & more

commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257.

96. Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman acting at all times together & 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 & 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 &

consisting of all the named Defendants; Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma,

H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan Casselman, Shaw Ray Enterprises Business Trust,

New Paradigms Holding Co., & John & Jane Does 1-10, in this Case, working in

unlawful agreement & in combination with each other & in further agreement &

combination with others, including but not limited to Brett Thompson & other

unknown individuals, who are named herein as John & Jane Does.



racketeering activity is the H.M. Wysocki Trust, as well as Defendants, Shawn Ray

Enterprises Business Trust; New Paradigm Holding Company, & the Law Office of

Robert J. Fletcher which entities may have served, at different times, as nominal title

owners of real property, &/or as agents &/or attorneys-in-fact or at-law for the nominal

owners, including operating as the sometime owner of the real property subject of this



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, located at 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257.

98. The Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. “Association-in-fact”, as well as Defendants

H.M. Wysocki Trust, Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, & New Paradigm

Holding Company, are each enterprises which are engaged in, & the activities of

which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.


manipulations & embezzlement of funds for which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

had de facto special responsibility & liability owed to Courtney & Melody Gillespie on

account of his representations to Courtney Gillespie that the two of them would share

title & actual roles as “Trustee” of the Trust into which 1831 North Lime Street,

Porterville,California 93257 was supposed to have been placed in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§1962(b)

100. Plaintiffs further allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman together with Robert J. Fletcher,

conceived of, “owned” the majority benefit from, directed, & operated several related

schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, 1344, & 1346 which

injured the Plaintiffs in their business & property interests, to wit their ownership

interest & investments in & quiet enjoyment of that certain undivided parcel of 10

acres located at the street address & otherwise known as 1831 North Lime Street in

Porterville, California 93257.


for treble their actual damages Plaintiffs’ actual damages from Racketeering alone in

the minimum amount of $720,000, the purposes of trebled damages allowed under

Civil R.I.C.O. being both fairly to punish the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman &

Robert J. Fletcher for their violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b) & justly to serve as a

deterrent & an example to other defendants similarly situated who might inflict similar

injuries on others.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION



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

(FOURTH CLAIM FOR R.I.C.O. DAMAGES)

UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1964(c):

R.I.C.O. Employment & Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c)-(d)



103. Plaintiffs allege that Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, at all times relevant to this Original

Complaint, was in fact the primary owner & de facto managing or controlling director

or 18 U.S.C. §2 “principal” of the Nicklas Arthur Hoffman R.I.C.O. “Association-in-

Fact”, which is an enterprise composed by & consisting of all the named Defendants

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, Nickol D. Gerritsma, H.M. Wysocki Trust, Nancy & Alan

Casselman Shawn Ray Enterprises Business Trust, New Paradigms Holding Co.,

Robert J. Fletcher, Brett Thompson, & John & Jane Does 1-50.

104. Specifically, as described above in ¶¶14-42 of this Original Complaint, Plaintiffs

allege that Nancy & Alan Casselman, the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray

Enterprises Business Trust, the New Paradigms Holding Company, & John & Jane

Does 1-50, 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, & the New Paradigm Holdings Company, all

acting together & in concert with Robert J. Fletcher d/b/a the Law Office of Robert J.

Fletcher, all of which were at all relevant times & still are enterprises engaged in, or the

activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, which conduct &/or

participate, directly &/or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through

a pattern of racketeering activity in unlawful agreement, & that they did thus plainly

violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).

105. & /or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs allege that these non-principal Defendants, whether



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

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 & in

further agreement & combination with other individuals, including but not limited to

Brett Thompson & other unknown individuals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).

106. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by these Defendants’ real estate

manipulations & embezzlement of funds for which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

had de facto special responsibility & liability owed to Courtney & Melody Gillespie on

account of his representations to Courtney Gillespie that the two of them would share

title & 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 & 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.

107. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Nancy & Alan Casselman, the H.M. Wysocki

Trust, Robert J. Fletcher, Nickol D. Gerritsma, the Shawn Ray Enterprises Business

Trust, & 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,

& operated several related schemes to defraud involving violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1341,

1343, 1344, & 1346 which injured the Plaintiffs in their business & property interests,

to wit their ownership interest & investments in & quiet enjoyment of that certain

undivided parcel of 10 acres located at the street address & otherwise known as 1831

North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257.


for treble their actual damages Plaintiffs’ actual damages from Racketeering alone 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

the minimum amount of $720,000 , the purposes of trebled damages under Civil

R.I.C.O. being both fairly to punish the Defendants Alan & Nancy Casselman, Robert

J. Fletcher, Nickol D. Gerritsma, the H.M. Wysocki Trust, the Shawn Ray Enterprises

Business Trust & the New Paradigm Holdings Company for their joint & several

violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) &/or 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) & to serve as a just &

deterrent example to other defendants similarly situated who might be tempted to

engage in similar pattern of criminal conduct or activity.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN’S 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

109. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-108 of this their Original Complaint above as if the same were

fully set forth herein below.

110. This Court has jurisdiction over Roxann Davidson’s claims for personal

injury & intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from assault with a

deadly weapon & bodily injury under 28 U.S.C. §1367, in that these claims are utterly

& inextricably intertwined with the claims for racketeering stated above, & to the

extent that the Porterville Police have, in part through Licensed California Attorney

Robert J. Fletcher’s persuasion, afforded Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman a degree

of protection.

111. On or about March 10-11, 2011, as specifically stated & described 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.

112. On or about March 11, 2011, Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman actually hit

Plaintiff Roxann Davidson’s left cheek, directly underneath her left eye, while firing

at her, & then warned her that next time he would take her eye out.



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

113. Plaintiff Roxann Davidson’s cheek was swollen & 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.

114. Furthermore,as the direct & proximate & therefore legal result of Defendant’s actions

Plaintiff Roxann Davidson has suffered from extreme anxiety, fear, & emotional

distress of every kind on a daily & nightly basis ever since the date of the shooting on

March 11, 2011.

115. Wherefore, Plaintiff Roxann Davidson prays for her actual damages in the amount of

$25,000.

116. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman believes that he is “above-the-law” & beyond the

reach of the Police, & in this he is assisted, aided, & 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 Plaintiff’s complaint

be accepted by the Porterville Police or Tulare County Sheriff’s Office, so that Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman believes, & teaches his minor children, that murder & mayhem

of people like the Plaintiffs is both morally & legally acceptable in a civilized society.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DEFENDANT

NICKLAS ARTHUR HOFFMAN against all Plaintiffs

117. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-116 of their Original Complaint & incorporate the same by


118. For the past two, now going on three years, to wit, since approximately June of 2009,

Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has engaged in a pattern of verbal, physical,

financial, & emotional harassment, including assault & battery, robbery, electronic

spying, theft of identity, invasion of privacy, & other torts which was, is, & remains up

through the day of the filing of this Original Complaint extreme & outrageous &



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

utterly unacceptable in civilized society.

119. As the direct & proximate & therefore legal result of this Defendant’s conduct, each

of Plaintiff’s Courtney & Melody Gillespie & Roxann Davidson have suffered sleep-

loss at night, fearfulness & daytime anxiety, inability to concentrate on productive

labor, including their ordinary employment in the outside world, & are constantly

afraid & fearful to leave their home-living space alone & unguarded for fear that

Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman will introduce poison or plant or create explosive

booby traps or other devices of mayhem.

120. Melody Ann Gillespie, in particular, is under constant & continuing psychological

care & counseling.

121. Plaintiffs Courtney Gillespie, Melody Ann Gillespie, & Roxann Davidson accordingly

pray for their actual damages for 3 years & three months, 1185 + days total, from

date of this filing, for continuous harassment & 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, to be increased by $100/day each day for each Plaintiff until final

judgment is paid.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

QUIET TITLE TO 1831 NORTH LIME STREET,

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 93257

(CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §§760.010-760.060)

122. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-121 of this their Original Complaint and incorporate the

same by reference as if fully set forth herein below.

123. The real estate, subject of this litigation is a ten acre plot of land whose 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 Map thereof in

Book 2, Page 131 of Maps, Tulare County Records. A.P.N. 255-230-004, more



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

commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville CA.

124. Pursuant to §760.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs file this

Action for Quiet Title to Establish & Quiet their title in the ten acres commonly

known as & located with street address 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California

93257 as a matter of rights & remedies cumulative of all other issues addressed by this

their Original Complaint. The legal description of said Property is as follows:

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,

California 93257.”

125. Plaintiffs allege, as against all Defendants to this action, that their right, title &

interest in 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 is & ought to be

declared & 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:

126. (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 & partially memorialized in

writing by Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie & Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, signing

individually & on behalf of the H.M. Wysocki Trust.

127. (2) Equitable Performance Favors the Plaintiffs: the Plaintiffs have performed

equitably & fairly more than their original obligations under said contract (Exhibits A-

C), & have so far acted to accede to all of Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s demands, & 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 Defendant’s electricity bill entirely, by his

own admission, since June 2005, with no contribution from the Defendant Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman whatsoever;



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

128. (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, & intentional infliction of emotional distress described above, Defendant

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & his attorney Robert J. Fletcher have behaved so inequitably

& unfairly, with such deceit & even perjury in the California Superior Courts, that

they cannot possibly approach this court with “clean hands” & are therefore not

entitled to any judgment in their favor as a matter of equity;

129. (4) Original Contract vitiated by Defendants’ Fraud & Tortious Abuse: Defendant

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & his attorney Robert J. Fletcher have jointly & severally

acted with malicious intent to defraud the Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie of

all their right, title, & interest in & to the subject property at 1831 North Lime Street,

Porterville, California 93257, & 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, for which purpose reference is again made to Defendant Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman’s assets in gold bullion, allegedly stored or hidden by him at 1831 North Lime

Street in Porterville, California or elsewhere on the property of one of the other

Defendants named or unknown John or Jane Does.

130. (5) Ambiguous Instrument should be construed against the Drafter to create a

Constructive Trust: the hopelessly incomplete & 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

& grantee, especially in light of the testimony & Tulare County Superior Court’s

Orders shown in Exhibits B-C.



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

131. (6) Ambiguous Instrument should be construed in favor of less sophisticated party who

has paid & suffered more: all ambiguities in the written instruments,see Exhibit A, &

live testimony given in Tulare County California Superior Court, see Transcript in

Exhibit B, & Court’s Order Exhibit C, should be construed in favor of the less

sophisticated party, namely in favor of Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie, who has paid more

than the original cash price & been subject to massive tortious abuse including assault,

battery, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., as described above,

132. (7) No Legal merit to Defendant’s Claims: Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s

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 & Nicklas Arthur Hoffman can be construed

as an agreement to acquire & administer the 10 acres as a common “trust” property

between the Plaintiff Courtney & Defendant Nicklas as trustees, Defendant Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman has never provided an accounting but only demanded more, more, &

still more cash & labor from Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie & his wife Melody, &

accordingly, this Court should declare & adjudge that the “trust” relationship should

be extinguished on account of Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty to the Gillespie

Plaintiffs, in addition to his assaultive behavior on all plaintiffs.

133. (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 & Nicklas Arthur Hoffman could be construed as a partnership or joint

tenancy, the partnership should be dissolved & all equities accounted for on Courtney

Gillespie’s side to make Courtney & Melody Gillespie the sole owners of the property.

134. Wherefore, pursuant to any one or any combination of the nine theories enumerated

herein, this Court ought to award all right, title, & interest in all ten acres located at &



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

more commonly known as 1831 North Lime Street, Porterville, California 93257 to

Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO CONSTRUE AGREEMENT & PARTITION OF

JOINT TENANCY or PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY



136. Pleading in the alternative, but without waiving the Plaintiffs’ claims to all ten acres

located at & known by the name 1831 North Lime Street, Plaintiffs, 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.”

137. The ambiguous memorandum or memoranda (Exhibits A-C) supporting the

agreement between Plaintiff Courtney Gillespie & 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 & Nicklas Arthur

Hoffman ever husband & wife with a community property interest.

138. 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 &

understood in light of Exhibits B & C Transcript of March 23, 2010 proceedings in

Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Eviction Act & Tulare County Superior Court’s Order

entered at the conclusion of that hearing, 3-23-10 .



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

139. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202, Plaintiffs

Courtney & Melody Gillespie move & pray for a declaratory judgment 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, & effect a partition of the property together with a cash judgment against

all Defendants for the several torts & pattern of racketeering described above.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD


reference as if fully copied & restated herein below.

141. 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 & that Defendant subsequently tried further & additionally to

defraud the Plaintiffs in the interpretation, construction, & application of the contract

over the next six years.

142. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s 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.

143. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman’s Daughter,Defendant Nickol

D. Gerritsma, individually & 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 & Robert J. Fletcher, & / or by

acquiescing to unauthorized &/or undue influence including coercion, pressure

applied on her by threats, etc., to comply with the illegal unlawful illicit wishes of her

father, Nicklas Hoffman, which proximately & or directly caused Plaintiffs harm &

injury for which all Defendants are liable.



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

144. Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Ann Gillespie pray for their full damages resulting from

Defendant’s fraud in the minimum amount of $720,000.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT



146. Plaintiffs are natural persons at all relevant times in direct privity of contract with

Nicklas Arthur Hoffman; & 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.

147. Plaintiffs Courtney Gillespie & Melody Gillespie performed labor upon or bestowed

skill or other necessary services on many works of improvement &/or maintenance of

the real property & structures, subject of this litigation, located at 1831 North Lime

Street in Porterville, California 93257 , which work & labor projects are partially listed

in Exhibit D: Notice of Claim of Lien by one or more direct contracts & agreements,

with certain terms both express & implied, with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman for which

performance by labor was rendered continually between June 1, 2004 & October 11,

2011, the date on which the Plaintiffs filed Notice of Claim of Lien , although damages

have continued to accrue since then .

148. Furthermore Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespie performed regular & valuable labor

upon or bestowed skill & performed other necessary services on repeated occasions,

each week, at the very least on 52 Sundays per year, plus support & preparation time

during the week, from June 1, 2005 until November 22, 2009, at around & concerning

subject of First Amendment Radio/Radio Liberty Live, far.com, all entities named as

Defendants to this litigation, which operated at 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville,

California 93257.

149. Because they lacked any known separate legal identity or “legal personality” it is

alleged that each of these entities, & possibly other entities today unknown, were mere



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

alter-egos of Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, who were created by Nicklas Hoffman

with the intent & purpose of serving as a front & scheme of concealment of his true

taxable income, & to hide income from his ex spouses & children who he owes Spousal

support & child support to, & who he is also defrauding as a matter of pattern &

Practice, which is an established character trait & habit of Nicklas Hoffman.

150. Upon information & belief, Nicklas Arthur Hoffman &/or his alter-ego entities

continue to utilize & benefit from individual texts & copyrighted materials belonging to

Melody Ann Gillespie, including CDs utilizing her voice & original voice recorded texts

on political & legal subjects & texts.

151. Courtney Ray Gillespie as a “land” or “stationary” engineer, journeyman certified in

plumbing, electrical, painting, welding, & carpentry, especially well-qualified to do all

the work & labor described in Exhibit D, the Notice of Lien, attached to this complaint.

152. Plaintiffs are natural persons who also, acting as material men, within the meaning of

California Civil Code §3090, who furnished materials or supplies to be used or

consumed in many works of improvement & / or maintenance of the real property &

structures, subject of the present litigation, continuously between June 1, 2004 &

October 11, 2011, the date of filing the attached Notice of Lien.

153. No “Notice of Cessation” has ever been filed or requested by any party to this

litigation pursuant to California Civil Code §3092, & in fact labor has never ceased on

the subject property for any period of 30 consecutive calendar days since June 1,

2004, including the time period since October 11, 2011.

154. All work performed, labor carried out, & material provided has been 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.



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

155. All work performed, labor carried out, & material provided has been provided or

carried out pursuant to one or more express &/or implied complex contracts for the

complete & 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, & Melody Ann Gillespie.

156. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions & covenants to be performed on its part

under the agreement.

157. The labor, services, equipment, & materials furnished by plaintiff had & have an

approximately but reasonably & conservatively estimated total market and/or

replacement value of $724,000 exclusive of interest, which Defendant Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman either expressly or impliedly agreed to pay, & of which labor &

material which the Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman has claimed & received &

continues to possess & enjoy all the benefits, except for the small amount of land in

which he has allowed the Plaintiffs to continue to live, in fear of their lives, & in constant

fear of the Defendant’s irrational actions & illegally abusive & assaultive conduct, from

which Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman seeks to drive the Plaintiffs by constant

harassment & 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.

158. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman breached the agreement, in that he has never

paid the Plaintiffs for any of their labor or materials, & there is now due, owing, the full

estimated & approximate sum of $724,000 to which interest at the legal rate should

be added on some amounts since August 4, 2009, the first date of clear & obvious

repudiation or breach, & since October 11, 2011 on all remaining amounts.

159. If this Court should find that the terms & conditions of these Plaintiffs’ contract with

Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman cannot be determined with requisite legal certainty



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

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 Gillespie’s actual salary for similar work with SunMaid Raisins & to Melody Ann

Gillespie for her actual cash investment in goods, services, & the rental & 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.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: TO FORECLOSE MECHANIC’S LIEN

160. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-159 & incorporate the same as if fully set forth herein.

161. Because Plaintiffs contracted directly with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman & 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.

162. On October 11, 2011, plaintiffs duly recorded a verified Mechanics' Lien Claim,

describing the building parcel & the labor, services, equipment, & materials to be

furnished on the work of improvement, in the official records of Tulare County

California, in accordance with the provisions of Civil Code §§ 3084 & 8416.

163. The cost of recording the Mechanics' Lien Claim with the Tulare County Clerk’s

Office of Property Records, recoverable by law, is hereby demanded as damages to this

suit, no part of which damages have been repaid as of the date of filing of this Original

Complaint.

164. 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 & 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

165. WHEREFORE, as to this their Twelfth Cause of Action & First Count for Foreclosure

of their Mechanic’s Lien, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all of 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

except for Fletcher & Thompson, jointly & severally, for the following:

166. The sum of $724,002.00, together with interest according to law as damages;

167. The sum total costs incurred in recording the verified Mechanics' Lien Claim,

including paper, travel & Tulare County Fees;

168. The total sum of $724,000.00 plus costs set forth in the previous two paragraphs,

together with attorney fees & interest, be ordered as a lien against the building parcel,

senior & superior to any claim of right, title or interest in or to the real property of any

Defendants, & that the real property be ordered sold by the Sheriff of Tulare County,

California, according to law, & that all proceeds of sale be applied to plaintiff's claim &

to the cost of these proceedings & the sale of the real property;

169. Reasonable costs of litigation as allowed under the Civil Code section 3148; &

170. Any & all such other & further relief as the court shall deem or consider proper as a

matter of law or in equity.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C, §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a) that

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1714.10 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

171. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶(1)-(170) as if fully set forth herein below.

172. Plaintiffs allege that each of them, individually, jointly, & severally, have been &

continue to be personally & directly injured by Robert J. Fletcher’s 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.

173. Plaintiffs allege that §1714.10 bestows upon attorneys a special class of privileges &

immunities to a certain class of professional practitioners whose membership is

controlled by “admission to the bar” under terms mandated & outlined by the state of

California itself, such that §1714.10 has the force & 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



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

duty of good faith & 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.

174. 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.

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 & denies both equal protection of the law & 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, &/or breaches of contract &/or the implied duty of good

faith & fair-dealing in contractual relations .

175. The Court should declare & adjudge that California Civil Code §1714.10 is facially

unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, Ninth, & 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, & a violation of equal protection of laws by creating a

privileged class.

176. The creation of this privileged class of attorneys also & 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 & immunities clause of Article IV, §1, Cl. 2 by creating

for California lawyers a special privilege & immunity not available to citizens of any

other of the several states.



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

177. 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 & those of another, but Cal Civil Code §1714.10 has this precise effect.

178. 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,

& other acts of racketeering, both privately against the Plaintiffs & in the Tulare

County Superior Court of both limited & unlimited jurisdictions.

179. Thus the provisions of §1714.10 are the direct & proximate, & 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.

180. 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 &

consent of all potentially contracting parties.

181. Plaintiffs submit that because both the California legislature & the United States

Congress never abrogated common law contractual doctrines such as “fraud-in-the-

inducement,” “fraud-in-fact” &/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 .

182. The laws cannot essentially reverse the actual action. It’s 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.

183. If the State of California or the United States should wish to abrogate the law of



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

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.

184. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that California Civil Code §1714.10 be Declared

Unconstitutional on both its face and as applied to Plaintiffs herein in this Case, null &

Void for all purposes & applications, & 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 & conspiracy with other Defendants & non-Defendants,

including Superior Court Judges who may be immune from suit.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1714.10

DOES NOT IMMUNIZE ROBERT J. FLETCHER

185. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶(1)-(184) as if fully set forth herein below.

186. Plaintiffs allege that Robert J. Fletcher has actually committed fraud on the Court &

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)] & for direct violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981. 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 & of equal access to

the courts & legal processes in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

187. Access to discovery of facts is a key element of due process of law & equal access to the

Courts as discovery procedures are often critical to the determination of the accuracy 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

inaccuracy of any legal complaint, suit at law, or equitable action.

188. Plaintiffs also alleges that Robert J. Fletcher’s relationship with certain Judges of the

Tulare County Superior court, including but not limited to the Judge Paul Vortman,

who appears to hate pro se litigants & wishes to deny them equal protection under the

laws to begin with4, is so close & intimate that there exists a continuing and ongoing

agreement & understanding between them in derogation of due process of law & equal

protection of persons & property, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1982 & also of the

1st, 5th, 9th,14th Amendments, which California State law regarding Recusal prevents pro

se litigants from effectively remedying as a matter of state law.

189. 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 & in his

relationship with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman at all, & Plaintiffs pray that this Court will so

declare & adjudge, granting them all their costs of suit as allowed by both 28 U.S.C.

§§2201-2202, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), & 42 U.S.C. §1988.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §405.21

DEPRIVES PLAINTIFFS OF BOTH DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW

190. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶(1)-(189) & incorporate the same by reference as if fully set

forth herein below.

191. Plaintiffs have sought & still need injunctive relief to preserve the status 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

4 The Honorable Paul A. Vortman never read any of the Plaintiffs’ pleadings or motions in his Court but relied entirely on the oral arguments of Robert J. Fletcher.



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

automatic stay, which has since been dismissed & remains dismissed at the time of the

filing of this Original Adversary Complaint . Now the Plaintiffs sue for quiet title & to

enforce & foreclose their Mechanic’s lien.

192. This Court should declare & adjudge that California Code of Civil Procedure §405.21,

together with California Civil Code §1714.10, & all similarly 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 & bar

number from the State Bar of California are unconstitutional deprivations of Due

Process of Law & the Equal Protection of Law in Violation of the First, Fifth, Ninth, &

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.

193. 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 & 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 recorder’s office.

194. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray, in that 405.21 & 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, or Notice of Pending Action

over Title to Real Property, with the Tulare County Recorder’s office to notify any

potential buyer that a suit concerning the real property in question is in fact pending.

SIXTEENTH: PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME



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



196. Plaintiffs Courtney & Melody Gillespie & Roxann Davidson are exhausted after in

the Gillespie’s case two years of continual fighting & litigation with Defendants Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman & his attorney Robert J. Fletcher.

197. 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 & 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.

198. Abuse of authority & 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.

199. 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 & 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

200. Plaintiffs will seek to conduct a psychological &/or psychiatric examination of 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

Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ,

Discovery Provisions but they allege upon information & belief at the present time, &

for at least two years now, that they can recognize in themselves the symptoms of Legal

Abuse Disorder/PTSD in their psychological & physical conditions resulting directly &

proximately & therefore legally from the abusive & 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 & the H.M. Wysocki Trust, & the other

defendants, in & concerning the Tulare County California Superior Court & prior

proceedings filed 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.

201. Plaintiffs move & requests that this Court, again pursuant to its remedial powers

under 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202, recognize the existence of this simple creditor’s suffering

from Legal Abuse Disorder as a partial but in & of itself sufficient reason for

accommodating what may be their slow pace in prosecuting the present case, & that the

Plaintiffs may need extra time & extensions of time, even if requested ex-parte, as an

accommodation to their Post-Traumatic or continuously traumatized state of mind &

ability to operate.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (and/or State Law Conversion) of

COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS UNDER 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.

202. Plaintiffs re-allege ¶¶1-201 & incorporate the same by reference as if fully set forth

herein below.

203. For five years, between June 1, 2005 & November 22, 2009, Plaintiff Melody Ann

Gillespie created over 260 original voice text broadcasts over which she claims

copyright at all times, never bought sold or bartered to any person, but held by her as

at least 33% owner, with Nicklas Hoffman, of First Amendment Radio & Liberty Live



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

broad cases, which recordings are now being kept by Nicklas Hoffman who prevents

Melody from obtaining access or possession of her said property to the continual injury

& violation of her Rights & Interests to said personal property, for which Hoffman

& his fictitious entities are liable to Melody Gillespie.

204. Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespie never granted to any other person or entity the right to

copy her voice or text, nor any other constituent elements of her original works, but as

a partner with Nicklas Arthur Hoffman retained all such rights for herself & her

community estate with her husband Courtney Ray Gillespie.

205. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman copied during broadcast & kept recordings of

Melody Ann Gillespie’s original voice broadcasts & texts, over which she claims

copyright, and right of possession.

206. Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman continues to market & sell Melody Ann Gillespie’s

copyrighted works to the present day.

207. Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespie asks this Court to declare & adjudge her to be the

owner of the copyright on all her materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §201, & to further

adjudge that she has the right of possession of her said property, or at the least equal

access & right of usage with any other right holder.

208. Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespie’s cause of action against Nicklas Arthur Hoffman did

not accrue until the effective termination of her broadcasts on November 22, 2009, &

accordingly, this lawsuit for copyright infringement is filed within the 3 year period of

limitations provided by 17 U.S.C. §507.

209. In addition or in the alternative Plaintiff prays for civil damages arising from

California State Law for conversion &/or unjust enrichment owing from the profit

which Nicklas Arthur Hoffman received from the broadcasts of Melody Ann Gillespie’s

original voice texts & commentaries live & from the subsequent sale of her original

voice texts & commentaries on CD, tape, or by internet download.

210. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Melody Ann Gillespie prays for all damages at law, & an



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

injunction against Nicklas Arthur Hoffman, First Amendment Radio, far.com, Radio

Liberty Live, & any other “Doe” associations, or any organization to which Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman may have transferred, sold, or assigned the rights to her original voice

& textual commentaries.

211. Plaintiffs would submit to this Court for trial-by-jury all questions relating to the

contract for the purchase of 1831 North Lime Street in Porterville, California 93257, as

well as to the partnership involving services rendered to & for, as partner with Nicklas

Arthur Hoffman or as part owner of all of her own copyrighted material broadcast on

First Amendment Radio, Radio Liberty Live, far.com, etc..

212. All matters relating to personal injuries, including legal abuse syndrome, & Roxann

Davidson’s personal injuries in particular, arise from the same common nucleus of

operative fact, & Roxann Davidson also demands a trial-by-jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF and JURY DEMAND

Wherefore, all of the above matters & premises considered, Melody Ann Gillespie prays

that this Court will take notice of this her Original Complaint filed together with her co-

Plaintiffs Courtney Gillespie & Roxann Davidson & that the Court will grant these

Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend this Complaint as may be necessary prior to trial

during the course of litigation to raise all such other & further grounds relief as a matter of

law & equity to which she may be justly entitled, including but not limited to:

(1) Quiet title to all ten acres located at & known as 1831 North Lime Street in

Porterville, California 93257 &/or partition of said property;

(2) All actual damages incurred by the Plaintiffs Courtney Ray Gillespie, Melody

Ann

Gillespie, & Roxann Davidson as a direct & proximate & therefore legal result of

Defendants’ torts of assault, battery, breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty &

accounting, conversion, fraud & intentional infliction of emotional distress;



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

(3) All actual damages incurred by the Plaintiffs as a direct & proximate &

therefore

legal result of Defendants’ Pattern of Racketeering, plus an award of costs of suit

plus treble damages as a punitive & exemplary award of damages as expressly

allowed by law.

(4) Recognition of & granting special accommodation to & for the fact that Plaintiff

suffers from that certain clinically diagnosed although only recently recognized

species of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder now widely known & accepted as Legal

Abuse Syndrome as described, at:

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/legalabuse.htm, & as will be substantiated by

psychological counselor(s) for Plaintiffs Courtney Ray Gillespie, Melody Ann

Gillespie and Roxann Davidson at or before trial.

(5) Wherefore the Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow a fair and reasonable

time for discovery in light of their disabilities & only then & there, after the

conclusion of discovery, set all matters so triable for a trial-by-jury, demand for

which is hereby made & tendered to the Court as guaranteed under the California

Code of Civil Procedure's Discovery Provisions & upon final trial, render judgment

for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, awarding damages not less than $360,000.

September , 2012Tulare County, California

By:____________________________________________Melody Ann Castillo Gillespie, Plaintiff

Pro se/in propria persona

September , 2012




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

Tulare County,California

By:___________________________________________Courtney Gillespie, Plaintiff

Pro se/in propria persona

September , 2012signed inPorterville, California

By:____________________________________________Roxann Davidson, Plaintiff



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 of ORIGINAL COMPLAINTBY ROXANN DAVIDSON

I, Roxann Davidson, am a woman over the age of 18 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, & a plaintiff in the above-entitled-&-numbered action-at-law and suit-in-equity. I have read & reviewed and hereby verify all parts of my above-and-foregoing Original Complaint which relate to facts and matters within and of my own personal & knowledge, largely & primarily, but not exclusively, relating to the abusive, assaultive, battering, and stalking conduct by Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman against my person. However, I have no direct or personal knowledge of any events prior to my arrival in Porterville.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true & correct & that this declaration was executed at Porterville, California.

DATED: September , 2012

___________________________________Roxann Davidson



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-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: September, 2012

___________________________________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-and-numbered 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: September , 2012

___________________________________Melody Ann Gillespie



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 Gillespieand Defendant Nicklas Arthur Hoffman

(This Document Must be Construed in light ofMarch 23, 2010 Testimony, Transcript in Exhibit B)



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



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



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 StreetPorterville, California 93258



Documents

New State Title 17,18,42 Law Suit Mg Cg (2)