Preview
20CV366112
1 however, it was not due to Defendants’ acts as she was being stalked by DAVID SAMPLE, A.K.A.
2 DAVID FONTEZ (hereinafter referred to as “DAVID”).
3 2. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 2 of the complaint. Defendant
4 HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION was donated the title to VICTORIA NELSON’s home as
5 a gift for the house to be used to benefit cancer patients at a nearby hospital . Defendant’s did help
6 house VICTORIA NELSON in a safe house for a time. DAVID, a man whom VICTORIA had
7 been dating, had been harassing Plaintiff for months and had even reported him to the police and
8 sought a restraining order against him . DAVID had even allegedly falsified paperwork in order to
9 arrange for a sale of VICTORIA’S home in order to purchase a new home in Saratoga California
10 for the two to live in. Defendants are informed and believe that DAVID also had placed trackers on
11 VICTORIA’S vehicle and phone. VICTORIA stated to Defendant TAMMY ADAMS that the
12 police were not doing enough to keep DAVID away and VICTORIA requested TAMMY’s
13 assistance in finding housing away from DAVID . Defendants MICHELLE and ANGELO had no
14 substantive interactions with Plaintiff after September of 2019.
15 3. HOUSE OF ANGELS supported VICTORIA NELSON in fleeing DAVID by
16 paying for hotel rooms, food and even placed her on Christmas Day 2019 with a board member of
17 the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION for two and a half weeks when VICTORIA’S own
18 sister had refused to house her. Upon VICTORIA’S arrival the first task taken was a trip to Bed
19 Bath and Beyond to furnish the safe house with anything VICTORIA would need. VICTORIA
20 there refused anything other than a futon mattress stating to Defendant TAMMY that that she had
21 slept on the floor for approximately 10 years with nothing but a small blanket. VICTORIA was
22 given the keys to the front door, the security gate and provided access to the garage to hide her car
23 from DAVID. VICTORIA was in no way trapped there by Defendants. VICTORIA spoke with
24 her older sister SALLY on the phone and informed her that Plaintiff was ok upon relocating to the
25 safe house. At that time TAMMY was introduced to SALLY over the phone. TAMMY told
26 SALLY that she was helping Plaintiff avoid a stalking ex-boyfriend and was allowing Plaintiff to
27 stay at one of her houses in Sacramento. SALLY had thanked TAMMY and also offered Plaintiff
28 a place to stay with her. Plaintiff responded promptly back that it would not be necessary because
-2-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 Plaintiff felt she was in good hands and was happy where she was. Plaintiff also provided SALLY
2 with a new number to stay in touch as Plaintiff had changed her number to avoid DAVID. Plaintiff
3 had informed TAMMY that she believed DAVID was tapping her phones, controlling her calls and
4 sending harassing messages.
5 4. Defendants deny paragraphs 3-5 of the complaint.
6 5. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 6 of the complaint.
7 VICTORIA first saw TAMMY at the fourth of July event in Shasta, however the two did not meet
8 or have any interaction at that time. Defendants cannot say whether DAVID and VICTORIA
9 walked by Defendant MICHELLE’s tent each time they ‘enjoyed the festivities on main street.’
10 6. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 7 of the complaint.
11 VICTORIA’S first reading with MICHELLE was on July 3, 2019 . VICTORIA was not
12 introduced to TAMMY during the July 4th festival.
13 7. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 8 of the complaint.
14 VICTORIA did reveal intimate details of her life and relationship with DAVID in hope that her
15 future could become clearer. Defendants deny all other portions of the paragraph.
16 8. Defendants deny paragraph 9 of the complaint. Plaintiff did pay Defendant
17 MICHELLE for services rendered and entered into multiple contracts for services including one
18 for a spiritual retreat to Maui . TAMMY had still not had any interactions with or pertaining to
19 VICTORIA at this point in time. ANGELO was only included in the Maui trip because
20 MICHELLE was 7 Vi months pregnant at the time and required his physical assistance.
21 9. Defendants deny paragraph 10 of the complaint. Defendant MICHELLE spent
22 nearly all of her time in Maui with VICTORIA. The two accompanied each other to breakfast,
23 lunch, and dinner each day while there from July 30 to August 2nd. Again, TAMMY had still not
24 had any interactions with or pertaining to VICTORIA at this point in time. At no time did
25 MICHELLE seek to obtain details about Plaintiffs finances.
26 10 . Defendants deny paragraph 11 of the complaint.
27 11. Defendants deny paragraph 12 of the complaint. Per Plaintiffs request her items
28 were all removed from the Los Gatos home and sent to storage units in Mount Shasta, California
-3-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 where the Plaintiff had been planning to move. Keys to the storage unit have been sent to the
2 attorneys for Plaintiff. Defendants are informed and believe that the only items disposed of from the
3 home were large amounts of animal feces and snake eggs within the hoarding that had occurred in
4 the home.
5 12 . Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the complaint.
6 13. Defendants TAMMY (both individually and as CEO for HOUSE OF ANGELS
7 FOUNDATION) and JIMMY ADAMS admit paragraph 14 of the complaint. Defendants
8 MICHELLE and ANGELO deny paragraph 14 of the complaint. No services were rendered by
9 ANGELO or MICHELLE within the county of SANTA CLARA.
10 14 . Defendants can neither admit nor deny paragraph 15 of the complaint. However,
11 Defendant believes them to be true.
12 15. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 16 of the complaint. Defendant
13 TAMMY ADAMS does not go by the a/k/a of Tammy Marks. TAMMY is the founder and CEO
14 of HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION and does live in Granite Bay with her husband
15 JIMMY ADAMS, their son ANGELO and his partner MICHELLE ADAMS. However,
16 ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married.
17 16. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 17 of the complaint.
18 MICHELLE is a resident of Granit Bay, and is a psychic and life coach operating as Mystic
19 Michelle. However, ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married .
20 17. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 18 of the complaint. ANGELO
21 is 23 and a resident of Granit Bay . ANGELO has not provided assistance in any “psychic
22 schemes.” ANGELO does not generally participate in the business of either TAMMY or
23 MICHELLE . Again, ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married.
24 18. Defendants admit in part and deny in part Paragraph 19 of the complaint. JIMMY
25 ADAMS is 44 and a resident of Granite Bay. JIMMY is the husband of TAMMY. JIMMY has
26 not provided assistance in any “psychic schemes.” JIMMY does not participate in the businesses of
27 MICHELLE and TAMMY, however he is the CFO of the HOUSE OF ANGELS
28 FOUNDATION.
-4-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 19. Defendants admit in part and deny in part Paragraph 20 of the complaint. HOUSE
2 OF ANGELS FOUNDATION is founded and operated by TAMMY ADAMS. However,
3 JIMMY acts only as CFO or the 501(c)3. HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION did not acquire
4 title to VICTORIA’S home through fraud. JIMMY, ANGELO, and MICHELLE had no
5 participation whatsoever in the acquisition of the Property by Plaintiffs gift.
6 20 . Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny paragraph 21 of the complaint.
7 21 . Defendants deny paragraphs 22-24 of the complaint.
8 22. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraphs 25-29 of the
9 complaint as they are not pertinent to nor involve the actual knowledge of the defendants.
10 23. Defendants deny paragraph 30 of the complaint.
11 24 . Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraphs 31-34.
12 However, Defendant believes them to be true.
13 25. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 35.
14 VICTORIA did first interact with MICHELLE without DAVID present. However, TAMMY
15 was not introduced to VICTORIA and did not speak with her at that time. TAMMY was only
16 present at the tent that day to assist MICHELLE who was pregnant at the time. VICTORIA
17 entered the tent, walked straight to MICHELLE and stated, “I want you to give me a reading.”
18 MICHELLE did not introduce VICTORIA and TAMMY at this time. During the reading,
19 VICTORIA and MICHELLE were unaccompanied.
20 26. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 36. Defendant
21 MICHELLE is an intuitive life coach and spiritual healer who communicates with guardian angels
22 and spirit guides with the goal of helping others receive true guidance from their angels on how to
23 heal and connect with their life purpose, MICHELLE makes the claims cited by Plaintiff
24 generally, but does not recall if any such claims were made to VICTORIA individually. The term
25 “a solution and not more questions” is mis-quoted here and is from TAMMY’s website header.
26 This was not a promise made by MICHELLE.
27 27. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 37.
28 MICHELLE did perform a psychic reading with VICTORIA. MICHELLE did not solicit
-5-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 information about VICTORIA’S life, but VICTORIA did confide in MICHELLE about DAVID
2 stating that all VICTORIA wanted to know about was love. Plaintiff paid for the consultation with
3 her debit card and entered into a contract for a three-day program which includes an amber crystal
4 to keep. Plaintiff then stated that she would have difficulty getting away from David for three-days
5 while in Shasta, so MICHELLE offered to continue the three-day program by phone after Plaintiff
6 returned to Los Gatos.
7 28. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 38.
8 MICHELLE does not believe the two ever spoke other than professionally nor does she believe she
9 gave the impression that the two were friends. Plaintiff was well aware of the professional
10 relationship and the contract for services entered into. VICTORIA did indeed begin calling every
11 day. Meditation was done as part of the healing program that Plaintiff had paid for. Plaintiff would
12 regularly ask which outfits would look better. MICHELLE would provide answers candidly as to
13 her own personal preferences. VICTORIA did share about her relationship with DAVID and it
14 became clear that the relationship was unhealthy. Plaintiff visited MICHELLE in Sacramento
15 twice only. Once to sign the contract for the Hawaii retreat and once to come in to meditate and
16 work together on her personal healing in Sacramento at Folsom Lake and Mimi’s Cafe. Each charge
17 made to Plaintiffs debit card was made with her explicit permission by phone. MICHELLE’s
18 square account and phone records will verily that the transactions coincided with confirmation calls.
19 29. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 39.
20 MICHELLE was told a bit of how Plaintiffs husband had handled her finances before he passed,
21 and that she was fearful of how to handle it. However, MICHELLE does not consult on financial
22 issues and did not ever have substantive conversations about the topic. At the time MICHELLE
23 was growing closer and closer to her baby’s due date. Plaintiff was inundating MICHELLE with
24 evidence of DAVID’s stalking, Plaintiff was calling and texting at all hours of the day, and Plaintiff
25 was concerned about tax issues and neighbors. MICHELLE could no longer handle the stresses
26 brought on by VICTORIA’S issues. MICHELLE was aware of TAMMY’s work professionally,
27 as an ordained minister, and CEO at the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION assisting people
28 to leave abusive situations. MICHELLE believed TAMMY to be capable and qualified to assist
6 - -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 Plaintiff in Plaintiffs personal issues. MICHELLE then terminated her professional relationship
2 with Plaintiff and referred Plaintiff to TAMMY.
3 30. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 40 of the complaint. Plaintiff
4 traveled to Sacramento to sign the contract for the Maui trip and offered to make payment
5 simultaneously. Defendant MICHELLE did not have a driver’s license , Plaintiff, rather than
6 leaving and returning alone with the money, offered to drive the two to the bank to make the
7 payment. Defendant denies that the purpose of the trip was to visit specific locations on the island
8 where Plaintiff had spent her past life with David. Defendants believe Hawaii is known to be a
9 spiritually healing location and had been told be Plaintiff that it was her favorite place she had been
10 with her deceased husband . Many of Hawaii’s locales are optimal for calm and quiet meditation.
11 31. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 41 of the complaint. Plaintiff
12 did pay $20,000.00 by cashier’s check. However, MICHELLE did not call TAMMY and was not
13 instructed by her to deposit the money into ANGELO’s account. The money was deposited into
14 ANGELO’s account. MICHELLE never requested that Plaintiff keep the trip to Maui a secret.
15 TAMMY had no contact with the Plaintiff until September of 2019 and could not have made such a
16 suggestion herself either. Plaintiff was looking forward to the trip and enjoyed her time there
17 immensely.
18 32. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 42 of the complaint. Plaintiff
19 was well aware that ANGELO was to be joining the two on the trip . ANGELO’s presence was not
20 a surprise. MICHELLE had made it very clear that at 7 months pregnant, and without a driver’s
21 license, she was going to need physical assistance with her bags and transportation. MICHELLE
22 had expressly told Plaintiff that ANGELO would accompany them for that purpose alone.
23 Defendants did not instruct Plaintiff to rent a car. Plaintiff and Defendant arranged for the car
24 together over the phone at or around the same time flights and hotels were purchased. Upon
25 Plaintiff s arrival for dinner at the intended meeting place, the Wailea Hotel and Spa, she expressed
26 her excitement at meeting ANGELO and that she was glad to finally be there. After dinner
27 Plaintiff expressed that she was exhausted from her day of travel. Defendants MICHELLE and
28 ANGELO offered her an uber to her hotel in Lahaina which was an hour away and the three
-7-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 planned together to meet at Lahaina the next morning with ANGELO and MICHELLE returning
2 the rental car to the Plaintiff. The parties did not stay at the same hotel because MICHELLE was
3 concerned that with her physical condition at seven months pregnant that she should not stay
4 overnight too far from a hospital in case of emergencies. MICHELLE accompanied the Plaintiff
5 during the majority of their stay. MICHELLE and VICTORIA toured various locations for the
6 purpose of meditating and not for the purpose of connecting with a past life. MICHELLE believed
7 the locations round the island and the water itself would be spiritually healing to Plaintiff as she
8 meditated in a variety of locales.
9 33. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43. MICHELLE specifically denies
10 that the conversations occurred as she does not recall any discussions about past lives during the
11 trip.
12 34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44. MICHELLE and Plaintiff did not
13 ever have a substantive conversation about her financial issues other than brief text conversations
14 from the Plaintiff. Again, MICHELLE does not recall any conversations with Plaintiff about a past
15 life with DAVID. MICHELLE never told Plaintiff that TAMMY could help Plaintiff with her
16 finances.
17 35. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 45 and 46. TAMMY is a spiritualist
18 and an ordained minister who helps bring people closer to God and helps them fulfill their mission
19 in life. TAMMY is an intuitive spiritual healer as well.
20 36 . Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 47. MICHELLE had been
21 overwhelmed by the concerns of the Plaintiff and could not handle the stress of something so
22 negative and dark as her ongoing issues with DAVID, so she arranged for the two to meet.
23 MICHELLE did not interact with the Plaintiff after this meeting. MICHELLE never shared any
24 conversations between her and Plaintiff with TAMMY. MICHELLE never told Plaintiff that
25 TAMMY could help Plaintiff with her finances.
26 37. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 48. TAMMY
27 felt a spiritual bond with Plaintiff after hearing Plaintiffs life story and concerns, Plaintiff
28 repeatedly mentioned that she had no where to turn to for support in her family. TAMMY was clear
-8-
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 that she was not treating Plaintiff as a client, but was helping Plaintiff out of personal concern for
2 Plaintiffs well-being . Quickly Plaintiff began corresponding with TAMMY frequently with the
3 same issues she had approached MICHELLE with and the two bonded as they shared information
4 with one another. TAMMY made no representations to Plaintiff that she had any “specialized
5 financial knowledge.”
6 38. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 49. Plaintiff herself had the idea to
7 donate her property to the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION. Any fear suffered by the
8 Plaintiff was due to the actions of DAVID. TAMMY had no psychic visions for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
9 and TAMMY would often pray together, and TAMMY would try to instill self-confidence in
10 Plaintiff that she could have anything she wanted in life. Plaintiff expressed her dream was to move
11 to Mount Shasta, California as it was a dream she had shared with her deceased husband. Plaintiff
12 expressed that she wished to donate her home to TAMMY’s foundation and move to Mount Shasta.
13 TAMMY assisted Plaintiff in living out her dream.
14 39. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 50.
15 40. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 51. Plaintiff
16 did repose deep trust and confidence in TAMMY, but Tammy acted as a friend and was not
17 employed by Plaintiff in any capacity. TAMMY never held herself out to be a financial advisor to
18 Plaintiff. TAMMY does not believe Plaintiff was ever in fear of losing her home and was only
19 instructed that Plaintiff wished to donate her home out of compassion and a desire to
20 philanthropically affect her community.
21 41. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraphs 52 and 53.
22 Plaintiff had an altercation with DAVID at the parking lot of the school where Plaintiff worked on
23 or around November 16, 2019. The next day JIMMY ADAMS drove to Los Gatos in his capacity
24 as an agent for the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATIONS and hired a locksmith to replace locks
25 as Plaintiff had been concerned that DAVID had tampered with them. Plaintiff was present as the
26 locks were changed, and DAVID visited during the process of changing the locks. VICTORIA
27 went out to speak with DAVID and Plaintiff was physically and verbally accosted by DAVID at
28 that time. TAMMY intervened with an excuse to create distance and remove Plaintiff from the
- SI -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 abusive exchange. TAMMY, JIMMY and Plaintiff had dinner together at Plaintiffs favorite
2 restaurant and asked Plaintiff what she planned to do . After Plaintiff had calmed down the three
3 went to the Los Gatos Police Department to report the incident, but it was closed. They called the
4 number listed on the door and spoke with an officer who arrived after about an hour wait.
5 42. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 54.
6 43. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 55. Plaintiff expressed concern as to
7 why Adult Protective Services was contacting Plaintiff to TAMMY while TAMMY was traveling
8 in Los Angeles. TAMMY made several calls to Plaintiffs sisters to update them as to Plaintiffs
9 whereabouts at a safe house in Sacramento in case they were the concerned parties who had called
10 APS. SALLY offered to house Plaintiff, but Plaintiff responded to the offer “I’m fine, I’m with my
11 friend Tammy and she is taking care of me.” Plaintiff requested that TAMMY follow-up to
12 discover who had reported to APS and provided information Plaintiff believed to be necessary for
13 following up, including her social security number. TAMMY never told Plaintiff to erase or delete
14 anything. Plaintiff believed David had installed a tracker on her phone and Plaintiff obtained help
15 from the apple store to erase her phone and back up her personal information to iCloud. TAMMY
16 accompanied Plaintiff to the apple store and instructed Plaintiff to call her sister SALLY to provide
17 her with her new phone number. TAMMY never told Plaintiff that the state was going to take her
18 car. TAMMY was not given Plaintiffs passport. The engagement ring from DAVID, along with
19 many other letters and evidence of his stalking were turned over to a Police Department. TAMMY
20 believes the items were given to the San Jose Police Department. JIMMY did have a set of keys to
21 Plaintiffs car from taking the vehicle to the Sacramento Honda Dealership to have the brakes
22 looked at after Plaintiff had expressed concern. TAMMY and Plaintiff followed JIMMY to the
23 dealership in TAMMY’s car . The keys were given to the service advisor and returned directly to
24 Plaintiff after the repairs were completed.
25 44. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 56. Plaintiffs items are in storage in
26 Mount Shasta where she had intended to move. The keys have been provided to counsel for the
27 Plaintiff.
28
- 10 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 45. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 57. The house
2 is not affiliated with the Ronald McDonald Foundation. Defendants made no such claims. They
3 stated that it would be established as a home similar to that of the Ronald McDonald Foundation to
4 house cancer patients. TAMMY, JIMMY and HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION have
5 sought to establish the “Nelson House of Hope” in honor of the Plaintiff, however the house was in
6 such disrepair that extensive renovations were needed. Prior to the filing and service of this
7 complaint efforts were still underway to fully associate and affiliate the “Nelson House of Hope”
8 with a local Kaiser Permanente hospital to place children suffering from cancer and their families
9 temporarily in the home. The efforts to affiliate the home included an application for a grant with
10 Kaiser to support the repairs and preparations necessary to convert the home.
11 46. TAMMY was selected by Plaintiff to act as her agent under power of attorney
12 because Plaintiff requested her assistance in fighting an insurance company that had sought to deny
13 Plaintiff her claim to her late husband’s life insurance policy. TAMMY was also told by Plaintiff
14 that her sister Sally and her financial advisor William Lange were withholding inheritance money
15 due from Plaintiffs mother’s estate for the purpose of waiting until Plaintiff was “really old aged
16 for medical expenses.” Plaintiff sought TAMMY’s help, stating “How much older to I have to
17 be?!” TAMMY sought to help her in that regard.
18 47. Defendants deny paragraph 58 of the complaint. Plaintiff herself feared that the
19 abusive DAVID would be able to find her in Capitola. Evidence of David’s stalking, menacing and
20 letters to Plaintiff were provided to the Santa Clara Police, including threats to provide Plaintiff
21 with a gift certificate to a restaurant in Santa Cruz so that he could watch PAM and the Plaintiff eat.
22 DAVID had also approached the Plaintiff at her place of employment. Plaintiff acted of her own
23 volition and sought TAMMY’s assistance in moving to the “special place” in Mount Shasta to
24 escape DAVID. TAMMY assisted Plaintiff in placing her temporarily in hotels, and then with an
25 agent of the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION during Christmas time for two weeks, as
26 Plaintiff had expressed fear of being alone. In January of 2020 Plaintiff was moved to a safe house
27 because she then expressed a desire for her own space. JIMMY and TAMMY accompanied the
28 Plaintiff to Bed, Bath & Beyond to shop for anything she might need in the safe house. Plaintiff
- 11 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 stated she would be fine with a simple futon mattress and refused a mattress and box spring because
2 she was “used to sleeping on the floor.” The mattress and sheets were purchased new. Defendants
3 did not believe the neighborhood to be dangerous. TAMMY informed Plaintiffs sister SALLY that
4 Plaintiff was in a safe house in Sacramento.
5 48. Defendants cannot admit nor deny the allegations of Plaintiffs perceptions in
6 paragraph 59 of the complaint. Plaintiff had expressed great gratitude for the assistance provided
7 by TAMMY. Defendants deny that there was no food or basic supplies. Plaintiff was accompanied
8 by TAMMY and JIMMY to a Safeway to provide her with any groceries she would need.
9 TAMMY and JIMMY helped bring in the many belongings contained in the Plaintiffs car.
10 Plaintiff moved her clothes into the bedroom closet and had begun to decorate the kitchen counter
11 and front room . JIMMY and TAMMY would visit the Plaintiff regularly. Plaintiffs fear of
12 DAVID was based in her own admissions that DAVID was in fact stalking her and had stated he
13 would follow her anywhere.
14 49. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of Paragraph 60. Defendants
15 deny the characterization of JULIE CANE’s belated assistance as a rescue. Defendants would
16 have gladly worked with JULIE to house the Plaintiff had she ever expressed any care for her aunt
17 previously.
18 50. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 61.
19 51. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of Paragraph 62.
20 Defendants did believe that Plaintiff had “reposed trust and confidence in them” due to her beliefs
21 and interactions. Defendants deny remainder of paragraph 62.
22 52. Defendants admit the first sentence of paragraph 63 but deny the remainder of the
23 paragraph.
24 53. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 63 through 67 of the complaint.
25 54. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
26 above in response to paragraph 68 of the complaint.
27 55. Defendants deny paragraphs 70 through 72 of the complaint.
28
- 12 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 56. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
2 above in response to paragraph 73 of the complaint.
3 57. Defendants deny paragraphs 76 through 86 of the complaint.
4 58. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
5 above in response to paragraph 87 of the complaint.
6 59. Defendants deny paragraphs 90 through 92 .
7 60. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
8 above in response to paragraph 93 of the complaint.
9 61. Defendants deny paragraphs 94 through 100.
10 62. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
11 above in response to paragraph 101 of the complaint.
12 63. Defendants deny paragraphs 102 through 106 of the complaint.
13 64. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
14 above in response to paragraph 107 of the complaint.
15 65. Defendants deny paragraphs 108 through 112, except the allegation that Plaintiff
16 reposed trust and confidence in TAMMY and MICHELLE . Defendants can neither admit nor
17 deny Plaintiffs perception of her relationships with the two Defendants but denies her
18 characterizations are accurate.
19 66 . Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
20 above in response to paragraph 113 of the complaint.
21 67. Defendants deny paragraphs 114 through 117 of the complaint.
22 68. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
23 above in response to paragraph 118 of the complaint.
24 69. Defendants deny paragraphs 119 through 121.
25 70. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
26 above in response to paragraph 122 of the complaint.
27 71. Defendants deny paragraphs 123 through 125.
28
- 13 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 72. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained
2 above in response to paragraph 126 of the complaint.
3 73. Defendants deny paragraphs 127 through 129 .
4
5 Respectfully submitted, t*
6 j
Date:
7 DANIEL A. HUNT,
Attorney for Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, TAMMY ADAMS, individually and as CEO for HOUSE OF ANGELS
3
FOUNDATION have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
4
VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the
.
5
attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. l am
6
aware of and approve the contents of this petition.
7
8 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
.
9 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on fH "' 1
,
10 2020, at Sacramento, California.
11
12
J
13 TAMMY ADAMS,
Defendant
14
15 VERIFICATION
16 I, MICHELLE ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO
17
COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
18
and all the attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own
19
knowledge. 1 am aware of and approve the contents of this petition,
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
22 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on
. . ,
C ~15
. ' 33Q0 ,
23 2020, atiSacramento, California.
24
25
26 MTCHELZE AHMftS,
Defendant
27
28
- 15 -
VKRII IHD ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
'
1
VERIFICATION
2
I, ANGELO ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
3
OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the
4
5 attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. I am
6 aware of and approve the contents of this petition .
7 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is .
8
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on
9
2020, at Sacramento, California.
10
11 /:
/
12 A
ANGETft) ADAMS,
13 Defendant
14
VERIFICATION
1.5
16
L JIMMY ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
17 OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the
'
18 attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. I am
,
19 aware of and approve the contents of this petition .
20
I declare under penalty' of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
21 £ -qCQ
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on .
90
2020, at Sacramento, California.
23
24 /
7, h
Y
MUW
25 vs;'
JIMiyLY ADAMS,
26 Defendant
27
28
- 16 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE .
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
3
) ss. CASE NO.: 30-2018-01013031-CU-OR-CJC
4
5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )
6
7 1. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Sacramento. I am
over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within above-entitled action.
8
2. My business address is: Law Office of Daniel A. Hunt
9
798 University Avenue
10 Sacramento, California 95825.
11
3. I served the foregoing ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA
12 NELSON FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND TO QUIET TITLE on
each person named below by enclosing a copy in an envelope addressed as
13 shown below AND
14
A. Placing the sealed envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the
15 place shown in item 4 following our ordinary business practices. I am
16 familiar with this Company's practice whereby the mail, after being
placed in a designated area, is given the appropriate postage and is
17 deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento, California
after the close of the day's business.
18
19 4. Date Mailed: Place Mailed: Sacramento, California
7 7
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
22 is true and correct.
23
Date :
24 7
/9
/ r
25 ,
ANDREW NEF A
26
27
28
- 17 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON TO WHOM MAILED
2 MAILING LIST
3 VICTORIA NELSON
c/o ANNE MARIE MURPHY
4 COTCHETT, PITRE, & McCARTHY, LLP
5 840 Malcom Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE
Preview
20CV366112 1 however, it was not due to Defendants’ acts as she was being stalked by DAVID SAMPLE, A.K.A. 2 DAVID FONTEZ (hereinafter referred to as “DAVID”). 3 2. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 2 of the complaint. Defendant 4 HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION was donated the title to VICTORIA NELSON’s home as 5 a gift for the house to be used to benefit cancer patients at a nearby hospital . Defendant’s did help 6 house VICTORIA NELSON in a safe house for a time. DAVID, a man whom VICTORIA had 7 been dating, had been harassing Plaintiff for months and had even reported him to the police and 8 sought a restraining order against him . DAVID had even allegedly falsified paperwork in order to 9 arrange for a sale of VICTORIA’S home in order to purchase a new home in Saratoga California 10 for the two to live in. Defendants are informed and believe that DAVID also had placed trackers on 11 VICTORIA’S vehicle and phone. VICTORIA stated to Defendant TAMMY ADAMS that the 12 police were not doing enough to keep DAVID away and VICTORIA requested TAMMY’s 13 assistance in finding housing away from DAVID . Defendants MICHELLE and ANGELO had no 14 substantive interactions with Plaintiff after September of 2019. 15 3. HOUSE OF ANGELS supported VICTORIA NELSON in fleeing DAVID by 16 paying for hotel rooms, food and even placed her on Christmas Day 2019 with a board member of 17 the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION for two and a half weeks when VICTORIA’S own 18 sister had refused to house her. Upon VICTORIA’S arrival the first task taken was a trip to Bed 19 Bath and Beyond to furnish the safe house with anything VICTORIA would need. VICTORIA 20 there refused anything other than a futon mattress stating to Defendant TAMMY that that she had 21 slept on the floor for approximately 10 years with nothing but a small blanket. VICTORIA was 22 given the keys to the front door, the security gate and provided access to the garage to hide her car 23 from DAVID. VICTORIA was in no way trapped there by Defendants. VICTORIA spoke with 24 her older sister SALLY on the phone and informed her that Plaintiff was ok upon relocating to the 25 safe house. At that time TAMMY was introduced to SALLY over the phone. TAMMY told 26 SALLY that she was helping Plaintiff avoid a stalking ex-boyfriend and was allowing Plaintiff to 27 stay at one of her houses in Sacramento. SALLY had thanked TAMMY and also offered Plaintiff 28 a place to stay with her. Plaintiff responded promptly back that it would not be necessary because -2- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 Plaintiff felt she was in good hands and was happy where she was. Plaintiff also provided SALLY 2 with a new number to stay in touch as Plaintiff had changed her number to avoid DAVID. Plaintiff 3 had informed TAMMY that she believed DAVID was tapping her phones, controlling her calls and 4 sending harassing messages. 5 4. Defendants deny paragraphs 3-5 of the complaint. 6 5. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 6 of the complaint. 7 VICTORIA first saw TAMMY at the fourth of July event in Shasta, however the two did not meet 8 or have any interaction at that time. Defendants cannot say whether DAVID and VICTORIA 9 walked by Defendant MICHELLE’s tent each time they ‘enjoyed the festivities on main street.’ 10 6. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 7 of the complaint. 11 VICTORIA’S first reading with MICHELLE was on July 3, 2019 . VICTORIA was not 12 introduced to TAMMY during the July 4th festival. 13 7. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 8 of the complaint. 14 VICTORIA did reveal intimate details of her life and relationship with DAVID in hope that her 15 future could become clearer. Defendants deny all other portions of the paragraph. 16 8. Defendants deny paragraph 9 of the complaint. Plaintiff did pay Defendant 17 MICHELLE for services rendered and entered into multiple contracts for services including one 18 for a spiritual retreat to Maui . TAMMY had still not had any interactions with or pertaining to 19 VICTORIA at this point in time. ANGELO was only included in the Maui trip because 20 MICHELLE was 7 Vi months pregnant at the time and required his physical assistance. 21 9. Defendants deny paragraph 10 of the complaint. Defendant MICHELLE spent 22 nearly all of her time in Maui with VICTORIA. The two accompanied each other to breakfast, 23 lunch, and dinner each day while there from July 30 to August 2nd. Again, TAMMY had still not 24 had any interactions with or pertaining to VICTORIA at this point in time. At no time did 25 MICHELLE seek to obtain details about Plaintiffs finances. 26 10 . Defendants deny paragraph 11 of the complaint. 27 11. Defendants deny paragraph 12 of the complaint. Per Plaintiffs request her items 28 were all removed from the Los Gatos home and sent to storage units in Mount Shasta, California -3- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 where the Plaintiff had been planning to move. Keys to the storage unit have been sent to the 2 attorneys for Plaintiff. Defendants are informed and believe that the only items disposed of from the 3 home were large amounts of animal feces and snake eggs within the hoarding that had occurred in 4 the home. 5 12 . Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the complaint. 6 13. Defendants TAMMY (both individually and as CEO for HOUSE OF ANGELS 7 FOUNDATION) and JIMMY ADAMS admit paragraph 14 of the complaint. Defendants 8 MICHELLE and ANGELO deny paragraph 14 of the complaint. No services were rendered by 9 ANGELO or MICHELLE within the county of SANTA CLARA. 10 14 . Defendants can neither admit nor deny paragraph 15 of the complaint. However, 11 Defendant believes them to be true. 12 15. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 16 of the complaint. Defendant 13 TAMMY ADAMS does not go by the a/k/a of Tammy Marks. TAMMY is the founder and CEO 14 of HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION and does live in Granite Bay with her husband 15 JIMMY ADAMS, their son ANGELO and his partner MICHELLE ADAMS. However, 16 ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married. 17 16. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 17 of the complaint. 18 MICHELLE is a resident of Granit Bay, and is a psychic and life coach operating as Mystic 19 Michelle. However, ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married . 20 17. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 18 of the complaint. ANGELO 21 is 23 and a resident of Granit Bay . ANGELO has not provided assistance in any “psychic 22 schemes.” ANGELO does not generally participate in the business of either TAMMY or 23 MICHELLE . Again, ANGELO and MICHELLE are not married. 24 18. Defendants admit in part and deny in part Paragraph 19 of the complaint. JIMMY 25 ADAMS is 44 and a resident of Granite Bay. JIMMY is the husband of TAMMY. JIMMY has 26 not provided assistance in any “psychic schemes.” JIMMY does not participate in the businesses of 27 MICHELLE and TAMMY, however he is the CFO of the HOUSE OF ANGELS 28 FOUNDATION. -4- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 19. Defendants admit in part and deny in part Paragraph 20 of the complaint. HOUSE 2 OF ANGELS FOUNDATION is founded and operated by TAMMY ADAMS. However, 3 JIMMY acts only as CFO or the 501(c)3. HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION did not acquire 4 title to VICTORIA’S home through fraud. JIMMY, ANGELO, and MICHELLE had no 5 participation whatsoever in the acquisition of the Property by Plaintiffs gift. 6 20 . Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny paragraph 21 of the complaint. 7 21 . Defendants deny paragraphs 22-24 of the complaint. 8 22. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraphs 25-29 of the 9 complaint as they are not pertinent to nor involve the actual knowledge of the defendants. 10 23. Defendants deny paragraph 30 of the complaint. 11 24 . Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraphs 31-34. 12 However, Defendant believes them to be true. 13 25. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 35. 14 VICTORIA did first interact with MICHELLE without DAVID present. However, TAMMY 15 was not introduced to VICTORIA and did not speak with her at that time. TAMMY was only 16 present at the tent that day to assist MICHELLE who was pregnant at the time. VICTORIA 17 entered the tent, walked straight to MICHELLE and stated, “I want you to give me a reading.” 18 MICHELLE did not introduce VICTORIA and TAMMY at this time. During the reading, 19 VICTORIA and MICHELLE were unaccompanied. 20 26. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 36. Defendant 21 MICHELLE is an intuitive life coach and spiritual healer who communicates with guardian angels 22 and spirit guides with the goal of helping others receive true guidance from their angels on how to 23 heal and connect with their life purpose, MICHELLE makes the claims cited by Plaintiff 24 generally, but does not recall if any such claims were made to VICTORIA individually. The term 25 “a solution and not more questions” is mis-quoted here and is from TAMMY’s website header. 26 This was not a promise made by MICHELLE. 27 27. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 37. 28 MICHELLE did perform a psychic reading with VICTORIA. MICHELLE did not solicit -5- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 information about VICTORIA’S life, but VICTORIA did confide in MICHELLE about DAVID 2 stating that all VICTORIA wanted to know about was love. Plaintiff paid for the consultation with 3 her debit card and entered into a contract for a three-day program which includes an amber crystal 4 to keep. Plaintiff then stated that she would have difficulty getting away from David for three-days 5 while in Shasta, so MICHELLE offered to continue the three-day program by phone after Plaintiff 6 returned to Los Gatos. 7 28. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 38. 8 MICHELLE does not believe the two ever spoke other than professionally nor does she believe she 9 gave the impression that the two were friends. Plaintiff was well aware of the professional 10 relationship and the contract for services entered into. VICTORIA did indeed begin calling every 11 day. Meditation was done as part of the healing program that Plaintiff had paid for. Plaintiff would 12 regularly ask which outfits would look better. MICHELLE would provide answers candidly as to 13 her own personal preferences. VICTORIA did share about her relationship with DAVID and it 14 became clear that the relationship was unhealthy. Plaintiff visited MICHELLE in Sacramento 15 twice only. Once to sign the contract for the Hawaii retreat and once to come in to meditate and 16 work together on her personal healing in Sacramento at Folsom Lake and Mimi’s Cafe. Each charge 17 made to Plaintiffs debit card was made with her explicit permission by phone. MICHELLE’s 18 square account and phone records will verily that the transactions coincided with confirmation calls. 19 29. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 39. 20 MICHELLE was told a bit of how Plaintiffs husband had handled her finances before he passed, 21 and that she was fearful of how to handle it. However, MICHELLE does not consult on financial 22 issues and did not ever have substantive conversations about the topic. At the time MICHELLE 23 was growing closer and closer to her baby’s due date. Plaintiff was inundating MICHELLE with 24 evidence of DAVID’s stalking, Plaintiff was calling and texting at all hours of the day, and Plaintiff 25 was concerned about tax issues and neighbors. MICHELLE could no longer handle the stresses 26 brought on by VICTORIA’S issues. MICHELLE was aware of TAMMY’s work professionally, 27 as an ordained minister, and CEO at the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION assisting people 28 to leave abusive situations. MICHELLE believed TAMMY to be capable and qualified to assist 6 - - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 Plaintiff in Plaintiffs personal issues. MICHELLE then terminated her professional relationship 2 with Plaintiff and referred Plaintiff to TAMMY. 3 30. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 40 of the complaint. Plaintiff 4 traveled to Sacramento to sign the contract for the Maui trip and offered to make payment 5 simultaneously. Defendant MICHELLE did not have a driver’s license , Plaintiff, rather than 6 leaving and returning alone with the money, offered to drive the two to the bank to make the 7 payment. Defendant denies that the purpose of the trip was to visit specific locations on the island 8 where Plaintiff had spent her past life with David. Defendants believe Hawaii is known to be a 9 spiritually healing location and had been told be Plaintiff that it was her favorite place she had been 10 with her deceased husband . Many of Hawaii’s locales are optimal for calm and quiet meditation. 11 31. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 41 of the complaint. Plaintiff 12 did pay $20,000.00 by cashier’s check. However, MICHELLE did not call TAMMY and was not 13 instructed by her to deposit the money into ANGELO’s account. The money was deposited into 14 ANGELO’s account. MICHELLE never requested that Plaintiff keep the trip to Maui a secret. 15 TAMMY had no contact with the Plaintiff until September of 2019 and could not have made such a 16 suggestion herself either. Plaintiff was looking forward to the trip and enjoyed her time there 17 immensely. 18 32. Defendants admit in part and deny in part paragraph 42 of the complaint. Plaintiff 19 was well aware that ANGELO was to be joining the two on the trip . ANGELO’s presence was not 20 a surprise. MICHELLE had made it very clear that at 7 months pregnant, and without a driver’s 21 license, she was going to need physical assistance with her bags and transportation. MICHELLE 22 had expressly told Plaintiff that ANGELO would accompany them for that purpose alone. 23 Defendants did not instruct Plaintiff to rent a car. Plaintiff and Defendant arranged for the car 24 together over the phone at or around the same time flights and hotels were purchased. Upon 25 Plaintiff s arrival for dinner at the intended meeting place, the Wailea Hotel and Spa, she expressed 26 her excitement at meeting ANGELO and that she was glad to finally be there. After dinner 27 Plaintiff expressed that she was exhausted from her day of travel. Defendants MICHELLE and 28 ANGELO offered her an uber to her hotel in Lahaina which was an hour away and the three -7- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 planned together to meet at Lahaina the next morning with ANGELO and MICHELLE returning 2 the rental car to the Plaintiff. The parties did not stay at the same hotel because MICHELLE was 3 concerned that with her physical condition at seven months pregnant that she should not stay 4 overnight too far from a hospital in case of emergencies. MICHELLE accompanied the Plaintiff 5 during the majority of their stay. MICHELLE and VICTORIA toured various locations for the 6 purpose of meditating and not for the purpose of connecting with a past life. MICHELLE believed 7 the locations round the island and the water itself would be spiritually healing to Plaintiff as she 8 meditated in a variety of locales. 9 33. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43. MICHELLE specifically denies 10 that the conversations occurred as she does not recall any discussions about past lives during the 11 trip. 12 34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44. MICHELLE and Plaintiff did not 13 ever have a substantive conversation about her financial issues other than brief text conversations 14 from the Plaintiff. Again, MICHELLE does not recall any conversations with Plaintiff about a past 15 life with DAVID. MICHELLE never told Plaintiff that TAMMY could help Plaintiff with her 16 finances. 17 35. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 45 and 46. TAMMY is a spiritualist 18 and an ordained minister who helps bring people closer to God and helps them fulfill their mission 19 in life. TAMMY is an intuitive spiritual healer as well. 20 36 . Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 47. MICHELLE had been 21 overwhelmed by the concerns of the Plaintiff and could not handle the stress of something so 22 negative and dark as her ongoing issues with DAVID, so she arranged for the two to meet. 23 MICHELLE did not interact with the Plaintiff after this meeting. MICHELLE never shared any 24 conversations between her and Plaintiff with TAMMY. MICHELLE never told Plaintiff that 25 TAMMY could help Plaintiff with her finances. 26 37. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 48. TAMMY 27 felt a spiritual bond with Plaintiff after hearing Plaintiffs life story and concerns, Plaintiff 28 repeatedly mentioned that she had no where to turn to for support in her family. TAMMY was clear -8- VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 that she was not treating Plaintiff as a client, but was helping Plaintiff out of personal concern for 2 Plaintiffs well-being . Quickly Plaintiff began corresponding with TAMMY frequently with the 3 same issues she had approached MICHELLE with and the two bonded as they shared information 4 with one another. TAMMY made no representations to Plaintiff that she had any “specialized 5 financial knowledge.” 6 38. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 49. Plaintiff herself had the idea to 7 donate her property to the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION. Any fear suffered by the 8 Plaintiff was due to the actions of DAVID. TAMMY had no psychic visions for Plaintiff. Plaintiff 9 and TAMMY would often pray together, and TAMMY would try to instill self-confidence in 10 Plaintiff that she could have anything she wanted in life. Plaintiff expressed her dream was to move 11 to Mount Shasta, California as it was a dream she had shared with her deceased husband. Plaintiff 12 expressed that she wished to donate her home to TAMMY’s foundation and move to Mount Shasta. 13 TAMMY assisted Plaintiff in living out her dream. 14 39. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 50. 15 40. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 51. Plaintiff 16 did repose deep trust and confidence in TAMMY, but Tammy acted as a friend and was not 17 employed by Plaintiff in any capacity. TAMMY never held herself out to be a financial advisor to 18 Plaintiff. TAMMY does not believe Plaintiff was ever in fear of losing her home and was only 19 instructed that Plaintiff wished to donate her home out of compassion and a desire to 20 philanthropically affect her community. 21 41. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraphs 52 and 53. 22 Plaintiff had an altercation with DAVID at the parking lot of the school where Plaintiff worked on 23 or around November 16, 2019. The next day JIMMY ADAMS drove to Los Gatos in his capacity 24 as an agent for the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATIONS and hired a locksmith to replace locks 25 as Plaintiff had been concerned that DAVID had tampered with them. Plaintiff was present as the 26 locks were changed, and DAVID visited during the process of changing the locks. VICTORIA 27 went out to speak with DAVID and Plaintiff was physically and verbally accosted by DAVID at 28 that time. TAMMY intervened with an excuse to create distance and remove Plaintiff from the - SI - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 abusive exchange. TAMMY, JIMMY and Plaintiff had dinner together at Plaintiffs favorite 2 restaurant and asked Plaintiff what she planned to do . After Plaintiff had calmed down the three 3 went to the Los Gatos Police Department to report the incident, but it was closed. They called the 4 number listed on the door and spoke with an officer who arrived after about an hour wait. 5 42. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 54. 6 43. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 55. Plaintiff expressed concern as to 7 why Adult Protective Services was contacting Plaintiff to TAMMY while TAMMY was traveling 8 in Los Angeles. TAMMY made several calls to Plaintiffs sisters to update them as to Plaintiffs 9 whereabouts at a safe house in Sacramento in case they were the concerned parties who had called 10 APS. SALLY offered to house Plaintiff, but Plaintiff responded to the offer “I’m fine, I’m with my 11 friend Tammy and she is taking care of me.” Plaintiff requested that TAMMY follow-up to 12 discover who had reported to APS and provided information Plaintiff believed to be necessary for 13 following up, including her social security number. TAMMY never told Plaintiff to erase or delete 14 anything. Plaintiff believed David had installed a tracker on her phone and Plaintiff obtained help 15 from the apple store to erase her phone and back up her personal information to iCloud. TAMMY 16 accompanied Plaintiff to the apple store and instructed Plaintiff to call her sister SALLY to provide 17 her with her new phone number. TAMMY never told Plaintiff that the state was going to take her 18 car. TAMMY was not given Plaintiffs passport. The engagement ring from DAVID, along with 19 many other letters and evidence of his stalking were turned over to a Police Department. TAMMY 20 believes the items were given to the San Jose Police Department. JIMMY did have a set of keys to 21 Plaintiffs car from taking the vehicle to the Sacramento Honda Dealership to have the brakes 22 looked at after Plaintiff had expressed concern. TAMMY and Plaintiff followed JIMMY to the 23 dealership in TAMMY’s car . The keys were given to the service advisor and returned directly to 24 Plaintiff after the repairs were completed. 25 44. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 56. Plaintiffs items are in storage in 26 Mount Shasta where she had intended to move. The keys have been provided to counsel for the 27 Plaintiff. 28 - 10 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 45. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of paragraph 57. The house 2 is not affiliated with the Ronald McDonald Foundation. Defendants made no such claims. They 3 stated that it would be established as a home similar to that of the Ronald McDonald Foundation to 4 house cancer patients. TAMMY, JIMMY and HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION have 5 sought to establish the “Nelson House of Hope” in honor of the Plaintiff, however the house was in 6 such disrepair that extensive renovations were needed. Prior to the filing and service of this 7 complaint efforts were still underway to fully associate and affiliate the “Nelson House of Hope” 8 with a local Kaiser Permanente hospital to place children suffering from cancer and their families 9 temporarily in the home. The efforts to affiliate the home included an application for a grant with 10 Kaiser to support the repairs and preparations necessary to convert the home. 11 46. TAMMY was selected by Plaintiff to act as her agent under power of attorney 12 because Plaintiff requested her assistance in fighting an insurance company that had sought to deny 13 Plaintiff her claim to her late husband’s life insurance policy. TAMMY was also told by Plaintiff 14 that her sister Sally and her financial advisor William Lange were withholding inheritance money 15 due from Plaintiffs mother’s estate for the purpose of waiting until Plaintiff was “really old aged 16 for medical expenses.” Plaintiff sought TAMMY’s help, stating “How much older to I have to 17 be?!” TAMMY sought to help her in that regard. 18 47. Defendants deny paragraph 58 of the complaint. Plaintiff herself feared that the 19 abusive DAVID would be able to find her in Capitola. Evidence of David’s stalking, menacing and 20 letters to Plaintiff were provided to the Santa Clara Police, including threats to provide Plaintiff 21 with a gift certificate to a restaurant in Santa Cruz so that he could watch PAM and the Plaintiff eat. 22 DAVID had also approached the Plaintiff at her place of employment. Plaintiff acted of her own 23 volition and sought TAMMY’s assistance in moving to the “special place” in Mount Shasta to 24 escape DAVID. TAMMY assisted Plaintiff in placing her temporarily in hotels, and then with an 25 agent of the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION during Christmas time for two weeks, as 26 Plaintiff had expressed fear of being alone. In January of 2020 Plaintiff was moved to a safe house 27 because she then expressed a desire for her own space. JIMMY and TAMMY accompanied the 28 Plaintiff to Bed, Bath & Beyond to shop for anything she might need in the safe house. Plaintiff - 11 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 stated she would be fine with a simple futon mattress and refused a mattress and box spring because 2 she was “used to sleeping on the floor.” The mattress and sheets were purchased new. Defendants 3 did not believe the neighborhood to be dangerous. TAMMY informed Plaintiffs sister SALLY that 4 Plaintiff was in a safe house in Sacramento. 5 48. Defendants cannot admit nor deny the allegations of Plaintiffs perceptions in 6 paragraph 59 of the complaint. Plaintiff had expressed great gratitude for the assistance provided 7 by TAMMY. Defendants deny that there was no food or basic supplies. Plaintiff was accompanied 8 by TAMMY and JIMMY to a Safeway to provide her with any groceries she would need. 9 TAMMY and JIMMY helped bring in the many belongings contained in the Plaintiffs car. 10 Plaintiff moved her clothes into the bedroom closet and had begun to decorate the kitchen counter 11 and front room . JIMMY and TAMMY would visit the Plaintiff regularly. Plaintiffs fear of 12 DAVID was based in her own admissions that DAVID was in fact stalking her and had stated he 13 would follow her anywhere. 14 49. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of Paragraph 60. Defendants 15 deny the characterization of JULIE CANE’s belated assistance as a rescue. Defendants would 16 have gladly worked with JULIE to house the Plaintiff had she ever expressed any care for her aunt 17 previously. 18 50. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 61. 19 51. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations of Paragraph 62. 20 Defendants did believe that Plaintiff had “reposed trust and confidence in them” due to her beliefs 21 and interactions. Defendants deny remainder of paragraph 62. 22 52. Defendants admit the first sentence of paragraph 63 but deny the remainder of the 23 paragraph. 24 53. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 63 through 67 of the complaint. 25 54. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 26 above in response to paragraph 68 of the complaint. 27 55. Defendants deny paragraphs 70 through 72 of the complaint. 28 - 12 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 56. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 2 above in response to paragraph 73 of the complaint. 3 57. Defendants deny paragraphs 76 through 86 of the complaint. 4 58. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 5 above in response to paragraph 87 of the complaint. 6 59. Defendants deny paragraphs 90 through 92 . 7 60. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 8 above in response to paragraph 93 of the complaint. 9 61. Defendants deny paragraphs 94 through 100. 10 62. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 11 above in response to paragraph 101 of the complaint. 12 63. Defendants deny paragraphs 102 through 106 of the complaint. 13 64. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 14 above in response to paragraph 107 of the complaint. 15 65. Defendants deny paragraphs 108 through 112, except the allegation that Plaintiff 16 reposed trust and confidence in TAMMY and MICHELLE . Defendants can neither admit nor 17 deny Plaintiffs perception of her relationships with the two Defendants but denies her 18 characterizations are accurate. 19 66 . Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 20 above in response to paragraph 113 of the complaint. 21 67. Defendants deny paragraphs 114 through 117 of the complaint. 22 68. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 23 above in response to paragraph 118 of the complaint. 24 69. Defendants deny paragraphs 119 through 121. 25 70. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 26 above in response to paragraph 122 of the complaint. 27 71. Defendants deny paragraphs 123 through 125. 28 - 13 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 72. Defendants incorporate by reference all relevant denials and admissions as contained 2 above in response to paragraph 126 of the complaint. 3 73. Defendants deny paragraphs 127 through 129 . 4 5 Respectfully submitted, t* 6 j Date: 7 DANIEL A. HUNT, Attorney for Defendants 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 14 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, TAMMY ADAMS, individually and as CEO for HOUSE OF ANGELS 3 FOUNDATION have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF 4 VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the . 5 attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. l am 6 aware of and approve the contents of this petition. 7 8 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is . 9 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on fH "' 1 , 10 2020, at Sacramento, California. 11 12 J 13 TAMMY ADAMS, Defendant 14 15 VERIFICATION 16 I, MICHELLE ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO 17 COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 18 and all the attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own 19 knowledge. 1 am aware of and approve the contents of this petition, 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 22 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on . . , C ~15 . ' 33Q0 , 23 2020, atiSacramento, California. 24 25 26 MTCHELZE AHMftS, Defendant 27 28 - 15 - VKRII IHD ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE ' 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, ANGELO ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 3 OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the 4 5 attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. I am 6 aware of and approve the contents of this petition . 7 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is . 8 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on 9 2020, at Sacramento, California. 10 11 /: / 12 A ANGETft) ADAMS, 13 Defendant 14 VERIFICATION 1.5 16 L JIMMY ADAMS, have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 17 OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE and all the ' 18 attachments thereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge. I am , 19 aware of and approve the contents of this petition . 20 I declare under penalty' of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 21 £ -qCQ true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on . 90 2020, at Sacramento, California. 23 24 / 7, h Y MUW 25 vs;' JIMiyLY ADAMS, 26 Defendant 27 28 - 16 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE . 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 ) ss. CASE NO.: 30-2018-01013031-CU-OR-CJC 4 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 6 7 1. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Sacramento. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. 8 2. My business address is: Law Office of Daniel A. Hunt 9 798 University Avenue 10 Sacramento, California 95825. 11 3. I served the foregoing ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA 12 NELSON FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND TO QUIET TITLE on each person named below by enclosing a copy in an envelope addressed as 13 shown below AND 14 A. Placing the sealed envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the 15 place shown in item 4 following our ordinary business practices. I am 16 familiar with this Company's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated area, is given the appropriate postage and is 17 deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento, California after the close of the day's business. 18 19 4. Date Mailed: Place Mailed: Sacramento, California 7 7 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 22 is true and correct. 23 Date : 24 7 /9 / r 25 , ANDREW NEF A 26 27 28 - 17 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE 1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON TO WHOM MAILED 2 MAILING LIST 3 VICTORIA NELSON c/o ANNE MARIE MURPHY 4 COTCHETT, PITRE, & McCARTHY, LLP 5 840 Malcom Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 18 - VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VICTORIA NELSON AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM JULIETTE CANE