Req For Admissions
Req For Admissions
Req For Admissions
z
-)
Attorney atLaw
P.O. Box 824
Tulare, CA93274
(559) 684-1795
Attorney for Defendants and
Cross-Complainants
8
9
Case
No.: 10-238961
Plaintifls,
10
vs.
11
iz
Defendants
l3
I+
15
\
)
)
L6
PROPOUNDED BY:
SET NUMBER:
ONE
T7
l8
l9
2A
21
NOTICE
22
23
24
25
Hoffman
Case
No. 10-238e61
Zlt,I:1rT'','..7
ft=t:
\-:_l \.__*-_
j::-',
i
ADMIT THE TRUTH OF AI{Y FACT PURSUANT TO THIS REQUEST AND THE
PROPOUNDING PARTY PROYES THAT THE FACT IS TRUE. THESE PENALTIES
MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITEI} TO, PAYMENT OF TI{E PROPOUNDING
PARTY'S ATTORNEY FEES INCURRED IN MAKING THAT PROOF. UNLESS
THERE IS AN AGREEMENT OR A COURT ORI}ER PROVII}ING OTI{ERWISE, YOU
MUST RESPOND IN WRITING, AND UNDER OATI{, TO THIS RAQUEST FOR
ADMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS. THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT PENALTMS IF
10
11
FOR ADMISSION. THESN PENALTIf,S MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITEI)
TO, AN ORDER THAT THE FACTS IN ISSUE ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR PURPOSES
T2
OF TIIE CASE.
13
T4
l5
1.
Please admit
that no integrated land sales contract was ever formed between you
l6
l8
t9
201
By:
21
23
z4
25
Hoffinan
Case
No. 10-238961
ROBERT J. FLETCHER
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 824
(ssg) 684-r79s
August 24,2012
Courtney Gillespie
Melody Gillespie
P.O. Box 8323
Porterville. CA 93258
Re: Gillespie vs. Hoffrnan and Wysocki Trust vs. Gillespie
Case No. 10-238961
Dear Gillespies:
This letter is a further attempt to meet and confer, as that phrase is used in
This brings us back to the Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories that we
served on you January, 2011, over one year and a halfago. Enclosed for your references
are each ofyour inadequate responses that you each provided to those requests.
Please know that we demand not only priority in discovery at the present time on
the re-opening of discovery, but we also demand wholly adequate and non-evasive
responses now to these previously promulgated discovery requests.
I look forward to your responses to this latest written attempt to'omeet and
confer."
Thank you for your courtesy and attention in this regard.
Robert J. Fletcher
RIF/bf
enclosures
#
-00
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {Name, sl6le 84. Dumiet 8nd ddEss):
ATToRNEY FoR
TLTLARE
?31 S. X{ooneyBlvd.
Visalia" CA 93291
SHORT TITLE OF CASE:
FORM INTERROGATORIES*GENERAL
Asking
10-238961
{c)
(a)
carrect.
(d)
@ArE)
Sec. 4. Definitions
Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories
are defined as follows:
l---l
FOR M INTERROGATORIES_GENERAL
'
r*--, {,",-'-':
{SIGruATURE)
,.-
tl':'!1lt-",t*:tJ
-]
Dtsc-001
E tZl
a$)Q)):
The formation of an integrated land sales
agreement betn'een answering parfy and
any trustee of the H.M. Wysocki
Irrevocable Trust.
{b} You oR ANyoNE ACTtNe ON YOUR BEHALF
E ft
V
[l
[7l
lZ
18.0 fReservedJ
19.0 fReservedJ
20.0 How the Incident Occurred-Motor Vehicle
25.0 fReservedJ
30.0 fReservedJ
40.0 fReservedJ
50.0 Contract
60.0 fReservedJ
70.0 Unlawtul DetainerfSee separafe form DISC-0031
101 .0 Economic Litigation fSee separafe form D|SC-0441
200.0 Emptoyment Law fSee separafe form DlSC402l
Family Law fSee seperafe form FL-l451
:DISC-001 [Rev. January 1. 2008i
z.s
set
years; and
z.e st"t*'
lZ
z,z st"t*,
(a) the name
@ Z.s
lf not,
what
fl
Z.f O Can you read and write English with ease? if not, what
language and dialect do you normally use?
Page 2 of
FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL
qlb
'***
all restrictions.
5.0 fReservedJ
(d)
state:
CONTENTS
(f)
5. Interrogatories
Sec.
lnformation-individual
PERSON
d fhe responses.J
4
I{l
I I
PERSON: and
fl
il
f]
(f)
t]
(c)
| |
(c)
f]
3.7 Vlithin the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? if so, for each license or
registration:
Information-Business Entity
tl 3.2
tal(en;
Dtsc_001
3.4 Are you a jointventure? lf so, state:
(a) the current jointvenfure name;
(b) all other names used by the joint venture during the
lf
5.0 fReservedJ
f]
FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL
Pags 3 ot 8
Dlsc-00't
(c) statetheamountof damage you are claiming for each
to
or
examination
of
Civil
{a)
the
provided;
f]
n Zg
(for
example, ambulance,
of
the
rb
nursing,
f]
the
services necessitated by
the injuries that you attribute io the INCIDENT that were not
previously listed
of
f]
[_l
e.z st"t",
and
f]
L
-J
f]
f]
e.o State the dates you did not work and for which you lost
f]
g
$hte the total income you have lost to date as a result
of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated'
state:
featment.
of the damage to
the
l'.i
;t
',,r*
Page 4 o{ 8
FORM lNTERROGATORIES_GENERAL
G,,
,G.
Dtsc40?
(c) the court, names of the parties, and case number of anv
| | 9.2
action filed;
(f)
I |
pending; and
a description of the injury.
each state:
12.0 lnvestigation-General
V n.l
state:
section 2034).
ia)
II/I IZ.Z
lf .f
of
the
of
the
(a) the date, time, and place and location (closest street
ADDRESS or intersection) of the INCIDENT giving rise
to the action, claim, or demand;
individual interviewed;
{b) the date of the interview, and
f]
number of anv
Board.
f]
the
mental
of
anv
r-:-l
IV
| 12.3
statement state:
of
the
of the
individual who obtained the statement;
(c) the date the statement was obtained; and
(d) the name, r{DORESS, and telephone number of each
PERSON vrho has the original statement or a copy.
(b) the name, ADDRFSS, and telephone number
Pags 5 ol 8
@ e.+
Do
BEHALF
know of any photographs, fllms, or videotapes depicting any
place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or
pfaintiffs fnjuries? lf so, state:
(di the
videobped:
or
videotapes were
taken:
covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2A34.21O2034.310) concerning fte INCIDENT? lf so, foreach item
*lA
the
of
f]
3.0 Investigation-Surveillance
fl
of
the
individual or party;
(b) the time, date, and place of the surveillance;
(c) the name, ADDRES$, and te{ephone number of the
individual who conducted the surveillance; and
{d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each
PER$ON who has the original or a copy of any
surveillance photograph, fi lm, or videotape.
lr,,
each:
(a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special
or affirmative defense;
(b) s&te the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers
the
fl
state:
FORM INTERROGATORIES_GENERAL
fin
Dlsc-001
Pag 6 ol
.4
FK
.l
16.3
Drsc401
f,
f]
16.9
oN YOUR BEHALF
(b)
the
f, ll .t
INCIDFNT? lf so:
ia) identify each partof the loss;
(b) state all fucts upon which you base your contention;
(c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers
of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and
(d) idenfify all DOCUMENT$ and other tangibte things that
support your centention and state the name, ADDRFSS,
and telephone number of the PER$ON who has each
DOCUMFNT or thing.
If
(c)
18.4 fReserved]
19.0
/ReservedJ
f] Zo.r
ZO.Z
of
the
driver;
Page ? of
of
of
Dlsc-o01
(d) state the name, ADDRES$, and telephone number of
each
of each
f]
each
permission or
fl
f]
f]
ZO.+ Describe
INCIDENT.
25,0 fReserved]
30.0 fReserved,l
40.0 fReservedJ
50.0 Contract
[7}
DOCUMENT that
INCIDENT.
(c)
{d} identify
lZa.Z Was there a traffic signal facing you at the time of the
(f)
{c) state
all
modification
in the pleadings:
intersection.
|7l
SO.Z
|lZ|
SO.S
|7|
SO.+
fl
ls any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? lf so, identify each unenforceable agreement and
SO.S
[|
pleadings ambiguous?
lf so, identify each ambigrrous agreement and state why it is
ambigLlous.
60.0 fReservedJ
FORM INTERROGATORIESIGENERAL
hV"MlJ
'f
elfr
Ctle
- lbR-Ti
le
deTe ndqnTl
def<
T'
f5
't:
u
ToQ
n\etfi
c,
e,a
o{eFe
&E_qtr
vaaT
see.
w\
ir:Tl
#o
T
deT(
wd,a
wT
r
'=lte
'il-t
Lt=t'we--I
- --
!q V e
actt
*, lA
S-
Vor*
--
q,
t,\V ---
R.
'a
ine-
Q rr&P to
-Ti-nlq.-ArUc;
( ztt\v
-.
rt1--AcI?'A
R.:o n/
ehe
F.Ve_
e Rs
eue(
\,O;Th;vl t--
1S
ty\Vol)ed
dQutq.-
\t
1\oro
rr+e.{,c
fr
lrt
'eltso n/
,|a,l
rEenT-
7,
rt/r
tr/\ -
leasq
1eq5
*eF,he ^
(.
e-nf
nT-
F,vl.g
cf 0enf
l<qge
ter.>
r [)<}^
cftF,'n
ct6ivre-
Lg
t3,
5,
e ctgF'ne
q{[elrT'a d F
i&qS
tr vrtelt,7"
wl
el
--r
-v-
4e-F;
enT
-l.t
eqg
ec,
ct en/ i<l
-rno[e{,rq
-:4ff,'ftl.vr#reKxoqotedo"
Faif,
I-
*ad
n5e
Son3
rlR
{)
Pet<.,
onl
o{eFihe
tJh
- t
c)
Alu
odiFkorT,ord
uR,
r*o
'-
kno u,led
Doc
hr yt-
4 tl e Tecl-
T-
hq \>e
Pt
e alle (d
1<.t
trine
le
q-
CCo
fU
Sb;S ?t
Lna,3
Sqris{qofrorl
--
AenFf^Ree_qtote^ d
* qc
f C4l;
OF
q,ntt
n"t Co
fi"tr/deRSrg:
TF- 5o
laus
6Reqo,tt
Frtry
gpo't^.,tu#
fs
I
2
a
4
5
6
7
I
9
t,
Cn
r\{ lfuirrc[}l
l0
l1
I am not a parry- ofinterest to the above entitled case, and am over I 8 years ofage.
l2
t3
l4
I personalty
served Reply to Admissions by First Class lvlail using the United States Postal service
in Porterville California:
to: Robert J. Fletcher
15
16
Tulare,
t1
II
I declare under penaltv of perj ury, ptlrsuant to the lalvs of The State of California that the foregoing
CA
93?74
l9
Date: March
7, 20ll
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
?8
ly Cillepic,
rcy
Gilltroic
qintiffs
_t
-)
"7
Plaintiffs,
t0
vs.
l1
t2
Defendants
-tJ
l4
l5
)
)
)
16
PROPOTJNDED BY:
SET NUMBER:
ONE
t7
18
L9
20
t1
zl
NOTICE
22
23
25
-1-
.t-'.
l.. i-r"r'
l -\t"-'
{7:'
i7a
i1
::,',J
Ii
l
-,!'
!',:-,".i4'
.j
LJ
f7
GillesPie
c/o P.O. Box 8323
1ll Melody
tl
,l
il
4l
sl
6l
7
9
10
VISALiA DIVISIO}'{
Melody and CourtneY GillesPie
11
t2
13
Plaintiffs,
Case
No. 10-238961
2ND
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS:
vs.
)
Defendants.
l4
15
)
)
)
t6
11
LI
l8
19
beendecided/testifiedtoinpCLl3g180.
plaintiffsbelievetheseinteffogatoliesareintendedforharass-
definition'
24 CIDENT", in which most of the questions revolve around that
25
26
27
28
ly Gillespie,
Inthebeginningoftlreadrnissionslinterrogatories,Mr'Fletcherstates:
..LiNDERTHEPROVISIONSoFCALIFORNIACODEoFCIVILPROCEDURE
REQUESTED TO 4D-M!LIHE TRUTH OF
$$2033.i0 2033.42AYOU ene HEREBY
SPECIFIEDMATTERSoFFACT,OPTNIONRELATINGToFACT,oRAPPLICA.
TIONoFLAwToFACT.YoUSHOULDCONSIDERCAREFULLYYOUR
LIMITED EXCEPTIONS'
RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, WITH
ANANSWERINGPARTywTIT-NOTBEALLOWEDToCHANGEANANSWER
1
rey Gillespie
aintiffs
REPLYTOADMISSIONSANDINTERROGATORIES
2
3
IA
5
1.
Mr. Fletcher stated rve could not change our answers, and because he did not like our answers, nou'he wants us, the plaintiffs, to change the answers.
2.
Defendant Hoffman has answered most of the questions in his PCLl38130 trialtestimony,
and it lvould appeal'that Mr. Fletcher wants Plaintiffs to refute Defendant Hoffman's testi-
nrony in previous court hearings. FIe was already deposed in the court during trial, and
cannot change his testimony, so it appears that Mr. Fletcher wants us to change it for Defendant Hoffman, by Mr. Fletcher's obfuscation of the admission and interrogatories for us
10
ll
to answer.
t2
3,
rnan's personal knowledge and Mr. Fletcher needs to talk to his client for those answers. It
T3
is over reaching, over burdensome and irrelevant for us to answer questions that Defendant
L4
t5
Hoffnan already knows. There are some questions that have to do with sensitive personal
inforrnation' Plaintiffs object to releasing personal information because Defendant Hoffman
i6
has already, on two occasions, used identity theft to harass and vex
t7
Hoffman states that he can find anything about anyone on the internet, and he has already
used Cyber staiking against our daughter, and has rcvealed where our daughter, a single
18
Hoffman, oithe property already purchased by Plaintiffs, and the letter is attached to plaintiff s complaint for injunction. There is already a restraining order against Defendant
a1
zl
Hoffman for his activities against the Plaintiffs. For Defendant Hoffman to use his attomey
to compel that infotmation is in violation of the spirit of the resfi.aining order. See case
22
-.)
L)
nunber n-n7521.
.t
+.
24
the scope of knowledge of Defendant Hoffman, or already answered in another court case.
26
:y Gillespic
rintiffs
In order for Plaintiffs to change their answers, they must be given clearly defined terms
rvritten in plain simple language that is easily understandable, must not already be within
25
28
done shortly after Plaintiffs refused to sign a commercial rental agreement with Defendant
2A
27
Plaintiffs. Defendant
mother, can be forrnd by exhibiting a map on the internet of where her house
t9
/ Gillespiel
The rest of the questions are either premature, or are within the scope of Defendant Hoff-
'
Nicklas has already testified to the existepce of a land sales contract. He also stated it was for
the
purchase of property' He is the one who drew up the contract. My name is not
on any agreement
with Nicklas or WYSOCKI TRUST, BUT I AM DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY the agreement befween my husband Courtney Gillespie and Nicklas Hoffman. See Motion for judicial notice filed
Feb. 15, 2011 and the trial transcript of PCL 138180. I do not know what an "integrated land sales
contract" is, and cannot find the definition. The questions must be in plain sirnple ianguage, that is
easy to understand. An integrated conffact, has been defined by the supreme couft, but the supreme
court has not defined "integrated land sales contract. I can only refer to previous testimony as to
understand what Nicklas interrded when he drew up the contract. For whatever name Nicklas wants
to giye the contract, he took my money every month for it when I handed it to him' I have nothing
to add to the testimony and documents presented by Defendant Hoffman gave in case number 10-
1.1 This is rvithin the knorvledge of the defendants. Olrjection, irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the information in their possession is oppressive. Plain-
10
tiffs believe this are intended for harassment, we have no one helpirrg us to prepare the interogato-
11
ries.
I2
13
2.
Object due to relevance. I do not understand "formation of an integrated land sales agreement." I
can only refer to the answer of ( 1), other than that,
t4
due to being vague and arnbiguous. There is no definition of the term "formation integrated land
Nicklas
t6
Hoffman has already stated many times there is a land sales agreement in PCL 136180 transcript
11
LI
and was also ruled upon by Hon. Glade Roper in Case PCL i38180, and has been filed into the
above named case. See Motion
18
19
2.1 Objection, irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the information in their possession is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this are interided for harassment' I
20
object to personal material being given because lvir'. Hoffman has used Courtney's personal infor-
2l
mation to shut off our utilities, has put it up on the internet, and passed out the information to the
neighbors, and the church we used to go.
22
2.2 SameObjection
23
ready have the inforrnation in their possession is oppressive. Piaintiffs believe this are intended for
aA
.La
harassment.
25
2.5
Same Objection as (2.2), irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already
hahave the inforrnation iri their possession, is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this are intended for
26
27
2.6
28
ly Gillcspie,
Same Objection as (2.5), irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already
have the infonnation in their posscssion. Plaintiffs believe this are intended for harassment-
rey Gillespie
airtiffs
it'
15
2
a
2'7
for ha-
rassment.
2.8
cofirplaint? Irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the
information in their possession, is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this are intended for harassment.
2.9
rassment.
l0
have the information in their possession, and is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this are intended
for
harassment.
2.1
11
IL
i3
t5
16
t7
l8
38
I 80, therefore
for.
burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the information in their possession is oppressive.
Plaintiffs believe this are intended for harassment. I do not have anlthing to add to Defendants testirnony already submitred to the courl in pcl l3g1g0 and 10-237521.
2'12 Objection, definition is not in plain simple easy to understand language. I do not understand
what kind of answer defendant is looking for. Defendant Hoffman has already testified to
the land
sales contract in PCL 138180, AND DID
20
2T
PCL
22
L3
1381
2.13 Objection, definition is not in plain simple easy to understand language. I do not understand
what kind of answer defendant is looking for. Defendant Hoffman has already testified to the land
24
25
HUSBAND WAS STONED, INTOXICATED, OR TINDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY SUBSTANCE WHEN THE TWO MEN SIGNED THE CONTRACT, therefore I believe this is inele-
26
27
28
aintiffs
HUSBAND WAS OF MENTAL INCAPACITY WHEN THE TWO MEN SIGNED THE CONTRACT, therefore I believe this is irrelevant material, over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the information in their possession is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this
are intended for
19
cy Ciltespie
lt
t4
y Gillespie,
as (2.5)
13 8 t
vant material' over burdensome, duplicative, defendants already have the information in their possession is oppressive. Plaintiffs believe this are intended for harassment. I do not have
anything to
add to Defendants testimony already submitted to the court in PCL I 3I 1 g0 and, le-237
5Zl .
t
I
2
3
+
5
t0
11
t2
1a
IJ
l2'3 objection
t4
15
1
16
1
1't
tt
18
I
I
I
I3glg0
and 10_237521.
for.
Defendant Hoffman
19
237s21,
20
2T
22
t,)
for.
Defendant Hoffman
1A
L+
25
26
27
' Plaintiffs beiieve this are intended for harassment. Nicklas Hoffrnan was the only one deposed about the land sales contract signed by him
and Mr. Gillespie in pcl, 13 g 180. I do not have
201 l
28
;illespie,
Gillespie
tiffs
l2'6 objection
2
a
J
4
for.
Defendant Hoffinan
201
pcl-
pcl- l3g1g0
and 10-
t0
ft
ll
T2
201
13
t4
t5
13 g
pcl
I3gI
g0 and I 0-
t6
l'7
LI
13'
19
have
20
2l
22
24
25
26
27
28
l3'2 object
has been. See case number 10-23752L What has bee' stated
in bushes, be-
for us to
The
times and dates are a matter of record in case number rc-237 521 ,
what is recorded in that case is
'Gillespie,
Gillespie
object due to relevance. Move to strike due to being vague and ambiguous.
The previously
defined tenn "INCIDENT", does not appear in any of the pleadings,
and the
18
:y
15,
irtiffs
very small paff of what he is doing, but the rest will eventually make it into the record soon. Those
are the only records
l
8
i0
15,1 Objection; vague and ambiguous. There have been several pleadings filed into the above
named case,
it is unciear
as to
17.1 Objection; vague and ambiguous. Objection due to relevance, inapplicable. Move to strike
due to being vague and ambiguous. There is no definition of the term integrated land sales contract
ruled upon
b1,
it.
Hon. Glade Roper in Case PCL 138180, and has been filed into the above named
case. See Motion for judicial notice filed Feb. 15,201l. I have nothing to add that has not already
been submitted to the court in PCL 138180 and case number 10737521'.
11
50.1 Objection, the alleged agreement was drawn up by Nicklas Hoffman and is equally available
T2
to both sides. He has his own copies, and have been served several copies of what the Gillespies
13
t4
have in tlvo other related couft cases as well as the above named case.
50.2 Objection; relevance, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunction, not for any breach of contract,
calls for legal conclusions, calls for expert opinion: objection to the language, pleadings is plural,
15
agreement is singular; vague and ambiguous due to sentence is compound, it is unclear as to which
l6
pleadings are being refen'ed to; over burdensome, oppressive, all information is rvithin Defendant's
1',7
possessiou.
50.3 Objection; relevance, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunction, not for any breach of contract,
18
calls for legal conclusiorls, calls for expert opinion; objection to the language, pleadings is plural,
19
agreement is singular: vague and ambiguous due to sentence is compound, it is unclear as to which
20
pleadings are being referred to; over burdensome, oppressive, all information is within Defendant's
2I
possession.
50.4 Objection; relevance, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunction, not for any breach of contract,
22
calls for legal conclusions, calis for expert opinion; objection to the language, pleadings is plural,
LJ
agreement is singular; vague and ambiguons due to sentence is compound, it is unclear as to which
24
pleadings are being referred to; over burdensome, oppressive, all information is within Defendant's
possession. Plaintiffs are not aware of any such termination, or stating such in any pleadings, and
25
26
27
agreements, calls for legal conclusions,,calls for expeft opinion; , over burdensome, oppressive, all
28
ly Gillespie,
rcy Gillwpie
aintiffs
of
I
2
3
A
T
5
6
possession'
that the foregoing is true and corI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
rect, to the best of my knowledge and understanding'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
t6
t7
18
19
2A
2l
22
L7
24
25
26
27
28
ly Gillespie'
rey Gillespie
rintiffs
1lltl
?ll
-ll
.ll
|tn\-
'll
4ll
lil
tl
II
il
ll
6ll
I am not aparfy ofinterest to the above sntitled case, and am over 18 years ofage'
?ll
I personally served Reply to Admissions by First Class Mail using the United States Postal service
tl
sll
in Porterrille California:
ll
tl
ef
I
10
1
111
I
I
12l
CA 93274
13
t4
Date: March
7,
2011
15
T6
t7
18
19
2A
2l
22
/1
24
25
26
27
28
ly Gillespie,
rey
Gillespit
aiDtiffr