Objection To Third Proposed Order Granting Dismiss Gap Gerard Ange Win-Tv vs Gap International Pa Templer

  • 1,112 views
Uploaded on

First, I am not an Attorney. I was ordered into “Pro Se” against my will, by The Honorable John M. True, III. I am here because I am a victim of crimes against my two corporations and myself. …

First, I am not an Attorney. I was ordered into “Pro Se” against my will, by The Honorable John M. True, III. I am here because I am a victim of crimes against my two corporations and myself. I have come here to find Justice.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,112
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1 GERARD ANGE’ / PRO SE (IN PROTEST) 3879 Magnolia Drive, 2 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 717-8302 - voice 3 (415) 962-4113 - fax 4 Attorney PRO SE for PLAINTIFF and CORPORATIONS in QUESTION 5 6 7 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 9 10 GERARD ANGE’ et al., ) 11 ) CASE NO. RG05241337 Plaintiff, ) 12 ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S [THIRD] OPPOSITION TO 13 ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING GAP ANTHONY TEMPLER, 14 ) ) INTERNATIONAL PA MOTION TO GAP INTERNATIONAL INC et al., ) 15 ) DISMISS ACTION 16 Defendants. ) ) Hearing Date: July 20, 2009 17 Time: 3:00 P.M. Dept.: 512 18 Judge: Honorable John M. True III Trial Date: TBD 19 The Motion to Dismiss Action of defendant Gap International, Inc. ("GAP 20 International") was set for hearing on July 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 21 512 of the above entitled Court, the Honorable John M. True, III presiding. Plaintiff 22 23 Gerard Ange’ appeared pro se (in protest) and Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Milavec, 24 LLC and Mia S. Blackler of Buchalter Nemer PC appeared for Gap Inter PA. 25 26 First, I am not an Attorney. I was ordered into “Pro Se” against my will by The 27 Honorable John M. True, III. I am here because I am a victim of crimes against 28 my two corporations and myself. I have come here to find Justice. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -1-
  • 2. 1 I have reviewed the Defendants Third [proposed] Order to Dismiss; I feel that the 2 Defendants blatant fabrications and lies and misstatements are an insult to the court 3 and to the Plaintiffs and to me personally. It again shows that if the Defendant’s 4 5 can’t win on the facts of the case against them, then the Defendants must resort to 6 more lies and more fabrications. 7 8 HOW DARE YOU “Maurice R. Mitts” STATE A LIE LIKE THAT IN 9 10 YOUR MOTION: 11 Quote “Angé's prior history of altering documents in this case.” end quote 12 That is a total outright fabrication and totally over the line… HOW DARE YOU! 13 14 (ONE:) “I have NEVER altered any documents.” Period! 15 16 (TWO:) “BUT I CAN SAY FOR A FACT: that the documents produced by the 17 Defendants have been ALTERED and the TEXT has been DELETED. All 18 19 under the eye and guidance of Maurice R. Mitts. 20 21 The Difference between the Plaintiff & the Defendants is simple: 22 The Plaintiffs have NEVER stolen anyone’s property. But The Defendants HAVE. 23 24 The Plaintiffs NEVER “Retaliated against anyone.” But The Defendants HAVE. 25 The Plaintiff Ange’ Has never lied in court. But the Defendants HAVE repeatedly. 26 The Plaintiffs never Violated Federal Criminal Laws But the Defendants HAVE. 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -2-
  • 3. 1 THE ASSIGNMENTS: 2 The Assignments were always in our records since 2005. But, the no one ever 3 asked to see them… until recently. It never was an issue until Maurice Mitts made 4 5 it one. The Issue to us was always the theft the reason why the case was filed in 6 the first place. There is no reason under the sun for the Plaintiff to hide our 7 Assignments. We have always been the ones with 99% of the evidence produced. 8 Yet this act that we have seen from Maurice Mitts repeatedly over the years is 9 10 nothing new. 11 It goes something like this: When Mr. Mitts gets in front of a Judge or a arbitrator 12 etc. Maurice Mitts then putts on an act. He then will ask and re-ask again and again 13 for the same document claiming “We have never given them to him and then adds 14 that the plaintiffs were always the hiding documents from the defendants’!!!. It was 15 16 laughable at first, nothing could have been further from the truth! We thought Mr. 17 Mitts was losing it. 18 So for years I have witnessed this ACT that Mr. Mitts has played over and over 19 again. And we have over and over again RE-produced the same documents to the 20 21 defendants again and again… And then, we get before another Judge and Maurice 22 Mitts starts his same act all over again”. Maurice Mitts again asks again for the 23 other documents that he has in his possession claiming the plaintiffs didn’t produce 24 them either! “It is not laughable anymore”. This act is less ACT more an TACTIC 25 26 that has been going on here. Maurice R. Mitts is playing game with all of us his 27 own version of Ground Hog Day. Intentionally wasting everyone’s time on these 28 paper chases of documents that have already been produced. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -3-
  • 4. 1 2 From day one Plaintiffs were always the ones that showed everything. The 3 Plaintiffs were always the ones who felt “THAT WE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE!”. 4 5 We still feel that way today and so have posted everything on our website for 6 everyone to see. Why? BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING WRONG!!! 7 8 http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.html 9 10 11 WE GOT ROBBED BY THE DEFENDANTS FIRST WITH EMBEZZLEMENT 12 WITH www.gapinternational.com and then, after we discovered the first theft … 13 Then WE WERE RETALIATED UPON By THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE 14 THEFT of OUR second Corporate Property WIN-TV on December 07, 2003… 15 16 Those were two separate criminal acts that were committed against us by the 17 DEFENDANTS. 18 19 WE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THOSE THEFTS. WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR 20 21 THE CRIME(S) COMMITTED AGAINST US BY THE DEFENDANTS. 22 It is easy to see by the Defendants actions their true motive to desperately search 23 of a way to STOP the Jury Trial… Mr. Mitts hung his hat for some reason on the 24 thought that we didn’t have an Assignment of Claims? (why would Mr. Mitts do 25 26 that?) It was never a secret it was just an Assignment like any other board 27 resolution the we made. This one gave the authorization to recover our property 28 from the thefts. Easy and simple to understand. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -4-
  • 5. 1 So Maurice Mitts claims were baseless fictional and fabricated as Mitts’s past 2 history shows with his Ground Hog Day paper chases. So we posted our 3 Assignments on line on our website for everyone to see. As I said before a blind 4 5 man could see what’s been going on here! 6 7 Maurice Mitts Strategy Shows one thing… Maurice Mitts feels that the Defendants 8 they can’t win in front of a Jury with the Good Citizens of Alameda County on 9 10 theft charges against them. That Maurice Mitts’s alternative was simple: that he 11 look for any little technicality to try to de-rail the case. If he couldn’t find one then 12 “fabricate” a technicality all for one goal… TO STOP THE JURY TRIAL. 13 14 Now “Maurice R. Mitts” Adds even more fabrications and lies…. He now states 15 16 that The Assignments that I included in my Opposition and posted on-line are 17 forged, and that Quote: “ Mr. Ange’ has a long history of altering documents”. 18 End Quote. = MORE LIES on top of EVEN MORE LIES! 19 20 21 You can’t forge faxes and emails that are all inter-linked and inter-connected and 22 dated: See for yourself on link below: 23 http://www.slideshare.net/gerardange/first-gap-wintv-faxed-signed-corporate- 24 assignments-2005 25 26 27 One thing about High-Tech every action leaves an electronic trail of evidence 28 somewhere. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -5-
  • 6. 1 TO ADD TO THAT: 2 I can say for a fact that the Defendants were the only parties to have produced any 3 documents that were ALTERED and also had DELETED Text. “That claim is 4 5 firmly attached Mr. Maurice R. Mitts.” (I have the documents to prove that). 6 7 IN CONCLUSION: 8 [WHAT LAW] allows the Defendants to continue the claim or any rights to 9 10 ABSCOND / STEAL / POSSESS our WIN-TV Corporations property? 11 12 13 [WHAT LAW] allows for the DEFENDANTS to continue to keep the 14 Plaintiff’s WIN-TV Corporation’s property and then to continue to RE- 15 16 REGISTER our property every year for SIX MORE YEARS? 17 (These acts are multiple violations of Federal Crime called “Cybersquating”). 18 19 [WHAT LAW] ALLOWS THE DEFENDANTS TO COMMIT THEFT? 20 21 This document has been copied to all the other documents in our FBI case file. 22 DATED: JULY 29, 2009 23 24 Respectfully Submitted, 25 GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST) 26 27 28 Gerard Ange' ________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -6-
  • 7. 1 Mr. Gerard Ange' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -7-