Statement of facts

On 9/22/14, Plaintiff Melody Gillespie was issued an order to show cause before
Dept. 2 Judge Lloyd Hicks, why sanctions should not be imposed on her for filing a
reply to the Opposition to the prior Motion for leave to Amend the Petition for
Injunctive Relief in this Case, wherein the Court stated in its Minute Order of
9/22/14:

“Melody Gillespie is ordered to show cause why sanctions in the amount of $750.00
should not be imposed for the improper filing on August 27, 2014 as to Objections to
late Opposition and Reply to Defendants/Cross Complainants Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint”

There is no statement by the Court in the 9/22/14 minute order of any specific Statute or
Rule of Court that was violated by the mere filing of a Reply to the Opposition to Motion
For Leave to file an Amended Complaint, which a moving party, ordinarily has the Due
Process right to do, after opposition has been filed in response to a regularly served, filed
and calendered motion before the trial court. The Court has failed to inform Melody
Gillespie of the specific basis in Law for a $750 sanction. Plaintiff Melody Gillespie is
completely in the dark concerning the Court's basis in Law for a $750 sanction for
merely filing a reply to an Opposition to a Motion to Amend the Complaint. Before any
Sanctions can issue against Melody Gillespie from this Court, this Court is Required by
Law under both State and Federal Constitutions, Court Rulings, Statutes and Rules of
Court to clearly state the basis in Law and what the charge is. This has not yet happened,
and before any proceedings are initiated, the Court must fully state the basis in Law
authorizing any Sanction.

In absence of any such information, this Court is required by both State and Federal Due
Process of Law to withdraw the Order to show Cause and Dismiss the charges, and
remove the matter from the Court’s Calendar, immediately and forthwith, as without
such information provided by this Court there is no Notice or Opportunity to Defend,
and be heard. This is a denial of State and Federal Due Process of Law, inflicting
irreparable injury on Melody Gillespie.

This Court stated on 9/22/14 in Court, it was setting a hearing for sanctions against Melody
Gillespie because she withdrew the motion, and filed a Reply to Opposition. At the time of
filing the Notice of the intention to withdraw the motion on 8/19/14, to Amend the complaint,
an opposition had already been filed on 8/15/14, which being the case, a hearing date having
been calendared, an Order from the Court was required to remove the motion from calendar,
which never happened. There was never an order from the Court, prior to the date for hearing of
the motion. There was no notice from the clerk or the Court by phone, email, or postal mail and
Melody Gillespie had no knowledge and no notice from the Court by either phone or email, or
otherwise that the motion had been taken off calendar, therefore she had a Right to serve and
file a reply to the late filed and late received opposition of Attorney Robert Fletcher,until such
time as she had been informed that the matter was off calendar. She was only informed the
matter was actually removed from Calendar when she appeared before the Court on the day
of hearing the Motion. This being the case the purported prosecution by this Court for an
“improper filing” is without factual or legal basis and must be withdrawn, and the hearing
removed from the Courts Calendar. Any“charges” must be dismissed by the Court. A partial
chronology of only some of the numerous

violations of California Statutory Law, in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bar Code Rules of
Court,

and the Business and Professions Code, not to mention California Rules of Court, as well as

the Doctrine of Starre Decisis, etc., by Bar Attorney Robert Fletcher before this Court, has
been

provided to this Court in the here accompanying Affidavit, served and filed herewith this

Memorandum, for which Bar Attorney Robert Fletcher was never prosecuted by this Court

for failing to follow Rules of Court or the Law, which establishes a clear double standard

being applied by the Court. This is invidious discrimination by the Court against me, Melody

Gillespie. “Invidious discrimination” is a violation of Due Process of law, and Equal

Protection under the Law, causing irreparable harm and injury, unless the Court withdraws
the

Order to show cause, and removes the hearing from the Calendar. When I pointed out in the

Opposition that Counsel Robert Fletcher, for the other side, had Violated California Law in
the

C.C.P. and or Rules of Court in serving and filing a late Opposition, there was not a word or

mention by the Court of Mr. Fletcher's, blatant violation, which has been his continued
practice

from the day one in this case. I have complained numerous times to Judge Vortman
previously

about the unlawful pattern and practice of Mr. Fletcher in intentionally serving and filing
late

Opposition papers in violation of Rules of Court and California Code of Civil Procedure,
which Complaints were ignored by Vortman who allowed the unlawful practice throughout
the court proceedings, which was intended by Fletcher to prevent the Gillespies from being
able to file a
timely Reply to the Opposition which is an unlawful tactic, and since complaining to this

Court about it, since the very first hearing in this case, when Mr. Fletcher tried to have a

demurrer heard which had not been noticed or served, and has not stopped the practice of

violating court rules, and state and federal law, which requires him to respect the level and
fair

playing field the court is supposed to provide. Judge Vortmann ignored the violations, and
this

Court has just winked at them. On February 10, 2015, for the examination hearing of his
client,

Nicklas Hoffman for failure to follow the court order, Mr. Fletcher purposefully mislead the
court.

Mr. Fletcher showed the judgment signed by Judges that said, “Nicklas Hoffinan as Trustee
of the

H.M. Wysocki”(page 3, line 18 of 8/5/2014 Interlocutory Judgment). Judge Hicks had ruled
on