Opposition To Proposed Order Granting Dismissal: Gerard Ange G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL & Win-Tv v. Gap International &,Templer et al

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 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: 19 20 The Motion to Dismiss Action of defendant Gap International, Inc. ("GAP International") 21 was set for hearing on July 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 512 of the above entitled 22 Court, the Honorable John M. True, III presiding. Plaintiff Gerard Ange’ appeared pro se 23 (in protest) and Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Milavec, LLC and Mia S. Blackler of Buchalter 24 Nemer PC appeared for Gap International PA. 25 I Gerard Ange’ in observance of the proceedings and was witness to what took place in the 26 hearing on July 20. 2009 and, throughout the six years since the theft(s) were committed. I have 27 reviewed the Defendants [proposed] Order and feel that the Defendants creative and wishful words 28 are “again ” not in line with reality and the FACTS of this case. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -1-

1 I HAVE FOUR ISSUES IN REGARDS TO THE DEFENDANTS [proposed] ORDER and, ONE ISSUE / OBSERVATION IN THE COURT ROOM ON JULY 20, 2009. 2 3 ISSUE # 1 (OBSERVATION IN THE COURT ROOM ON JULY 20, 2009). 4 5 A clear violation of EXPARTE RULES was observed in the court room between the 6 Defendant attorneys and Judge John M. True III. Plaintiff observed a “Binder ” Identified as a 7 Binder from the Defendants. It was also stated from the bench by Judge John M. True III that he 8 acknowledged reviewing the contents of the Defendants binder. It was also noted is that Judge 9 True III also made suggestions from the bench to the content of that binder directly to the 10 Defendants. That advice for them to make changes in those documents and ONLY THEN… 11 to present a copy the Plaintiff. 12 13 14 CONCLUSION: By Judge True’s own statements in Court on July 20 2009: that (A) Judge 15 John M. True III took Possession of Defendants documents { at some point } before the hearing 16 date. (B) Judge John M. True III then took the liberty to examine and to read those documents 17 contained in that binder. Then (C) Judge John M. True III in the court room on July 20, 2009 18 contributes his input and critiques the contents of defendants Binder and makes suggestions to the 19 defendants towards modifications of the Defendants documents… All while knowing that the 20 documents he has in his possession have never been produced to the Plaintiff. Only after, Judge 21 True’s critique in the court room to the Defendants on July 20, 2009 that Judge True then adds: 22 that the defendants are to make sure that the [NEXT] version is presented to the Plaintiff… That, 23 24 is a clear violation to the EX PARTE RULE. And at the very least, is a sanction-able act. This also 25 clearly shows a continuing bias and continuing favoritisms towards the Defendants by Judge John 26 M. True III. 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -2-

1 2 ISSUE # 2 3 As much as the defendant would like to vindicate themselves from the charges pointed 4 towards them by the Plaintiffs for their acts. THE FACTS ARE STILL THE FACTS… THIS 5 CASE WAS NEVER WAS BEFORE A JURY, and was dismissed on technical grounds by 6 Judge John M. True III. But, regardless of these facts, the defendants still try to write into the 7 [proposed] ORDER to dismiss, As if the defendants were the victims as this dismissal is a 8 punitive action directed towards the plaintiffs for misdeeds. Their claims are baseless fictitious 9 based on fantasy and fabrication and not on facts or the truth. Much that same as their earlier 10 fabricated claim of the missing “Assignment of Claims Documents” That were never missing at 11 all. http://www.slideshare.net/gerardange/first-gap-wintv-faxed-signed-corporate-assignments-2005 12 The defendants can only give an “appearance of innocence”, and only if they 13 [exclude] the reality of solid damming evidence against them. 14 15 16 ISSUE # 3 17 Damming Evidence #1 : The theft of WIN-TV on December 07, 2007 (three hours after 18 the call to Jon Greenawalt of Gap International in Pennsylvania and after Plaintiff threatened 19 legal action) The second theft took place. Both Defendants refuse to acknowledge or to ever 20 talk about this [SECOND THEFT]. 21 [THIS DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WAS ALL, EXCLUDED AND REMOVED BECAUSE 22 IT CLEARLY SHOWED CRIMINAL INTENT BY THE DEFENDANTS.] 23 24 25 ISSUE # 4 26 Damming Evidence #2 : The [FACT] that after our WIN-TV.COM property was stolen 27 on DECEMBER 07, 2003 it was then continually RE-REGISTERED by The Defendants every 28 year for (SIX YEARS) up to one month ago. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -3-

1 CONCLUSION: “If” Co-Defendant Templer supposedly was paid off in a dollar amount in 2 excess of (10 X OVER ) what Templer’s (self claimed bill) for services was [ WITH A 3 PAYMENT ] from the sale of our 1st property www.gapinternational.com. (embezzled) 4 5 Then, why three months after the first theft… What Legal Justification would give the 6 Defendants the right to; ABSCOND / STEAL / POSSESS our other Corporation’s Property 7 WIN-TV.COM? 8 9 [WHAT LAW] could the DEFENDANTS site to convert the corporate property of the 10 Plaintiff’s WIN-TV Corporation’s ? And then to continue to RE-REGISTER Plaintiffs 11 property in every year for SIX MORE YEARS ? 12 13 ( These acts are multiple violations of Federal Crime called “Cybersquating” ). 14 15 [WHAT LAW] could the Honorable Judge John M. True, III site that would allow the 16 defendants the legal right to commit multiple Theft(s) against Plaintiff’s other Corporate 17 property WIN-Tv ? 18 19 20 The Answer: There is no law he can site. 21 22 ISSUE # 5 23 THE BIG QUESTIONS… 24 (1) WHOM DID THE THEFT OF THE WIN-TV’s PROPERTY BENEFIT ? 25 (2) WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE BEHIND THOSE SECOND CRIMINAL ACTS? 26 (3) [WHAT LAW] do the defendants base their second theft on? 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -4-

1 The Defendants, continue to {TRY] to claim that they were a “Bonafide 2 Purchaser” to do that, they would have to change reality. As we can see in 3 4 the [ISSUES 2 -5] That any [Exclusion] of the evidence and the facts mentioned 5 above, changes Reality and creates Fantasy, Fiction and Fabrication. It also 6 7 creates victims! 8 “A blind man could see clearly what was and is going on here.” 9 10 11 FINAL CONCLUSION 12 “If” the Defendants were so innocent of crime, you would think that they would be more 13 than willing to go to trial and present their case and share all the their evidence with a 14 jury. Because, that would allow the Defendants to prove their claim of innocence. But, 15 that is not that case here. Documents and evidence have been [EXCLUDED] and 16 [REMOVED] and also [DELETED]. The final solution was stopping the trial from going 17 forward all together. Their bold act and motion to dismiss showing clearly that the 18 defendants action and intent was to stop the trial in an attempt to change reality. 19 20 THE FUTURE: 21 If any party thinks that after this “Technical Dismissal” that this is over and it is case closed… 22 and its business a usual again, then, your wrong. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. The 23 next phase has already started. 24 A FORMAL INVESTIGATION: 25 We have been asking for a formal investigation of all the past actions that transpired. (there 26 have been many irregularities). Starting with the transfer of our trial Judge: Judge Barbara 27 Miller from Department 512, and then the Assignment of Judge John M. True III to our case [for 28 all purposes]. and many other irregularities following that substitution. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -5-

1 The plaintiff’s have been turning over all evidence to the FBI and it seems now… 2 that there is some new interest on that end. We will have to wait to see where 3 this new interest leads. 4 5 IN ADDITION: We also will be moving forward with our appeal. 6 7 I will now dedicate my life to continue to share my experience about the 8 thefts, corporate crime and, about our search for justice. It is important for 9 everyone to learn from what has happened to us, as we tried to do something good 10 in the world only to become a target of theft. And then watch as everything we 11 worked so hard for destroyed. 12 I will be making public appearances to share my experiences of the last six 13 years, to educate the public. In a world where a lack of integrity and greed are 14 thought of as “Break-Though-Performance”. Where the rule of law is looked at as 15 only a tool used to circumvent evidence and dance around the facts. 16 For the sake of education and the truth, it important that I share my story so 17 that all people can study and understand whom did what to whom and why. And 18 learn that integrity is the key to good business. One way or another the truth will 19 all come out… I will make certain of that.. 20 21 DATED: JULY 27, 2009 22 23 Respectfully Submitted, 24 GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST) 25 26 27 Gerard Ange' ________________________________________________ 28 Mr. Gerard Ange' PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -7-

Opposition To Proposed Order Granting Dismissal: Gerard Ange G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL & Win-Tv v. Gap International &,Templer et al

by Gérard Angé on Jul 28, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 3

Statistics

Opposition To Proposed Order Granting Dismissal: Gerard Ange G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL & Win-Tv v. Gap International &,Templer et al — Document Transcript