Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer F


Published on







  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer F

  1. 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 ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. RG05241337 12 ) vs. ) 13 ) ANTHONY TEMPLER, ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 14 ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ) GAP INTERNATIONAL INC et al., ) Hearing Date: July 20, 2009 15 ) Time: 3:00 P.M. 16 Defendants. ) Dept.: 512 ) Judge: Honorable John M. True III 17 Trial Date: TBD 18 19 The case before the Court is simple. Defendant GAP International of Philadelphia (“GAP 20 Pennsylvania”) stole property from Plaintiff in a blatant, malicious and bold transaction with Co- 21 Defendant, Anthony Templer. 22 23 All of the facts and all of the exhibits clearly show that Defendant GAP Pennsylvania 24 first attempted to purchase the domain name www.gapinternational.com from Plaintiff on 25 October 17, 2003. [Exhibit #1Gap PA / Greenawalt email] 26 At the time Plaintiffs first were contacted by GAP Pennsylvania, the ownership of 27 www.gapinternational.com was fully and legally owned by the California corporation called 28 G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL, a Satellite Broadcast company. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -1-
  2. 2. 1 Additionally, the ownership record also showed that Co-Defendant Anthony Templer 2 and/or Atanda Web Presence Services was only listed as technical contact & internet host. 3 (similar to a gardener or maintenance service) [Exhibit #2 www.gapinternational.com whois] 4 5 6 Moreover, anyone that went to Plaintiff’s web site www.gapinternational.com prior to 7 the theft, “even a novice,” would clearly see the website’s the owner was, G.A.P. 8 INTERNATIONAL of California, a satellite broadcasting company and its President and CEO 9 Gerard Ange’ prior to the theft. [Exhibit # 3 web page] 10 11 12 The Defendant Jon Greenawalt was by his own claim, a “Professional in Internet 13 Services”. As a true internet professional, it would be normal and take no longer than “15 14 seconds” to type in a URL ( website address ) to check the “whois” Registration of any website 15 to view everything: from ownership, hosting details, contact information and expiration dates. 16 ( That 15 seconds is a standard in the world of Internet IT business). So, we can expect that 17 self-described highly educated professional who claims to be an expert in the internet services, 18 would know what all IT professionals know… “ That in 15 seconds anyone can type in a URL 19 and have before them the full ownership and contact information and expiration dates of any 20 website. Surely this was the case with the Website of the Plaintiff’s G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL 21 of California. www.gapinternational.com 22 [Exhibit # 4 Greenawalt Deposition ] 23 24 25 But NO , That is not what the defendants want us to believe. What they have presented 26 for us in their Motion and in their Defense. That GAP of Pennsylvania and their paid internet 27 professional, Jon Greenawalt, that none of them would take “fifteen seconds” to look up the 28 ownership of the Plaintiff’s web site www.gapinternational.com on or before October 17, 2003. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -2-
  3. 3. 1 Additionally, GAP Pennsylvania and internet professional, Jon Greenawalt want us all to 2 believe that this “15 second process” was only performed a month after GAP International of 3 Pennsylvania contacted Plaintiff, and only after Plaintiff’s property was embezzled by Co- 4 Defendant Anthony Templer. To have all of us assume that GAP International of Pennsylvania a 5 self, proclaimed genius organization, spouting business elite professionalisms not to be aware of 6 the “whois” information or who the legal owner was or, to do any due diligence before 7 contacting the Plaintiffs in California on October 17, 2003 is…. Utterly ridiculous and is 8 untruthful. 9 [Exhibit #2 Oct 17th 2003 whois www.gapinternational.com] 10 11 The Defendants continue to try to confuse the date of November 20th 2003 a month after 12 their first date of contact with the Plaintiffs and their Co-Defendant, Templer. 13 14 The only defense that the defendants have is based on fantasy and fabrication and not on 15 the facts or the truth. The defendants can only give an appearance of innocence, and only if they 16 exclude the reality of solid damming evidence against them. For the defendants, Gap 17 international of PA to try and claim that they were a Bonafide Purchaser they would have to 18 change reality. 19 20 All the evidence paints a clear picture that GAP international of Pennsylvania knew that 21 Templer wasn’t the owner of the website and also knew it was embezzled was stolen property. 22 23 24 The Plaintiffs can prove to a Jury with any doubt that the Defendant is guilty of crimes 25 against the Plaintiffs. But, in order to do that, we need the Jury to have all the evidence before 26 them. Exclusion of any evidence changes reality and creates fantasy, fiction and fabrication. 27 This is why “All the evidence” is crucial in order to have a fair and just trial. It must contain all 28 the evidence and all the testimony and all merits of this case. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -3-
  4. 4. 1 If the Defendants were so innocent of crime, you would think that the defendants would 2 be willing to share all the evidence and all the documents because that would prove the 3 defendants innocence. But, that is not that case here. Documents and evidence are being 4 excluded and deleted in an attempt to change reality. 5 6 If the Defendants are so innocent… then why do they want to exclude their own 7 documents? Documents that show a true attempt to conceal and hide what they were doing. The 8 documents in question are “nine emails” with deleted content and text sent between GAP 9 international of Pennsylvania and Co-Defendant, Anthony Templer, prior to the sale of the 10 Plaintiff’s embezzled property. If the Defendants are really so innocent… then why do they 11 want to exclude their own documents? [Exhibit #5 Nine Deleted emails] 12 13 But what actually happened is the following: 14 Gap International of Philadelphia felt that they needed Plaintiff’s property 15 www.gapinternational.com to "brand" their company. And in order to do that, they needed 16 Plaintiff’s domain name. The Defendant, GAP International of Pennsylvania, felt that without 17 having the domain owned by the Plaintiff, they could not effectively brand their Company. So 18 the Defendants were extremely motivated to get possession of that one and only web domain 19 name www.gapinternational.com at any cost. 20 21 At the time that Plaintiffs were first contacted by GAP International of Pennsylvania in an 22 “unsolicited email” on October 17, 2003, that property was fully and legally owned and 23 registered to G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL of California. [Exhibit # 1 whois & Gap PA email] 24 25 And because of Gap International of Philadelphia, the internet host (Anthony Templer) 26 was seduced $$$$ into selling something that both Templer and that Philadelphia company knew 27 very well that he did not own. Because of that seduction, Co-Defendant Templer embezzled 28 Plaintiff’s property and then signed it over to that Philadelphia company. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -4-
  5. 5. 1 The defendants raise issues where there are none in order to distract and confuse. 2 They bring up the issue about money owned to Templer by Plaintiffs, and of a registered letter 3 stating “Pending Sale of Plaintiff’s Property” that was supposedly sent to Plaintiff from 4 Defendant Templer along with an email and invoices requesting payment. First, Plaintiff’s 5 STRONGLY CONTEST THE VALIDITY of such claims. Defendant Templer’s in a business 6 proposal 2002 that was in effect between Defendant Templer and Plaintiffs and Templer’s 7 proposal where Defendant Templer agreed to provide internet “hosting services” to Plaintiff’s 8 start-up company with deferred payments until funded. In exchange, Templer would be 9 guaranteed all our corporate internet hosting business after WIN-Tv was funded. Prior to that 10 funding Plaintiff was “only responsible” for any “out of pocket expenses” that Defendant 11 Templer had.†† 12 †† THE TEMPLER BUSINESS PROPSAL: 13 Anthony Templer came to us with a business proposal in 2002, to secure all Plaintiff’s internet hosting 14 business in the future. That Templer would provide Plaintiff’s start-up company internet hosting services and Plaintiffs would only be responsible for Templer’s“out of pocket expenses” All other charges were to 15 be deferred until WIN-Tv was funded. {END OF TEMPLER GAP AGREEMENT} 16 17 18 In addition, Co-Defendant Templer states that he made every attempt to contact the 19 Plaintiff to notify him of the Sale of his property. When in fact, that claim was a LIE. 20 (1) . Defendant Templer chose NOT to send any email notification to any of the 10 active 21 working email addresses that Templer himself hosted for the Plaintiffs on Templer’s own 22 servers. Instead, Templer’s email address of choice was to send that “Very Important Email” 23 about the pending sale of the Plaintiff’s property” to one single email account: An old dialup 24 CompuServe account that wasn’t used and was not even valid. Templer could have sent that 25 email to “ALL of Plaintiff’s active email addresses” But Templer chose NOT to. 26 [Exhibit # 6 Templer letter of demand email] [Exhibit # 7 Templer Gap email] 27 28 (2) Co-Defendant TEMPLER’s next choice was a choice “NOT” to send a “Registered Letter via the US Postal Service about the pending sale of Plaintiffs Property” to Plaintiff’s principal PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -5-
  6. 6. 1 place of business located at: “400 Tamal Plaza, Corte Madera, California. But, Co-Defendant 2 Templer’s choice was to send that “One Very Important Letter” to an old closed Post Office Box 3 in San Rafael that was not even in use. Co-Defendant Templer did this all for one reason… To 4 make sure that the Plaintiff did not find out about the embezzlement and the sale of Plaintiffs 5 Property. [Exhibit # 7 Templer Gap email] 6 7 In November of 2003 Gerard Ange' was contacted by Tom Knight. †† Tom Knight was 8 a very close associate of Templer. Tom Knight called Ange at his home and asked Gerard 9 Ange’ if the he was interested in selling www.gapinternational.com. Mr. Knight went on to 10 say that someone had contacted Anthony Templer and wanted to buy www.gapinternational.com 11 . Ange’ responded to Mr. Knight : “No, I am not interested in selling my domain. That’s my 12 corporate identity.” Knight says: what?? Plaintiff Ange’ again restates to Mr. Knight, “I do not 13 want to sell www.gapinternational.com .” Tom Knight says: quote: “That he will tell Templer. “ 14 †† Defendant Knight was the person who brought Anthony Templer to Plaintiff’s office and introduced Mr. Templer 15 and his business proposal to the Plaintiffs. Mr. Knight was at the time of the introduction of Templer an associate 16 of WIN-Tv. 17 In Conclusion,” if “ Co-Defendant Templer was so confident that he had the right to sell 18 Plaintiff’s Corporate property, as both of the Defendants now state in their Motion and Defense, 19 then why is Templer asking Tom Knight to contact the Plaintiff and ask (nicely) “if the 20 Plaintiff was willing to sell “their” corporate property? [Exhibit #8 Schenk Templer Letter] 21 22 The Answer is simple: Defendant Templer was already in the middle of the impending 23 sale and had already embezzled Plaintiff’s property. Defendant Templer didn’t want Plaintiff 24 to find out about the theft before the transaction was complete. Co-Defendant Templer also did 25 everything he could to make sure that Plaintiff never received those two letters of “Notification 26 of the Pending sale of Plaintiff’s property” by either email or by US Mail. Because Templer 27 didn’t want Plaintiff to discover the theft that was already in progress… 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -6-
  7. 7. 1 2 The actions of both the Defendant Gap PA and Co-Defendant Templer, suggest that both 3 the Defendant & Co-Defendant made every effort to conceal the transaction and transfer of 4 property from the Plaintiff to the Defendants. This was intentional, this was planned and this was 5 deliberate and was done with the intent to conceal... BECAUSE THIS WAS THEFT! 6 7 8 THE SECOND THEFTS: 9 On December 07, 2003, Plaintiff discovered the first theft of www.gapinternational.com 10 and immediately phoned Jon Greenawalt, of GAP International of PA to find out why the 11 Defendants were using the Plaintiff’s web domain. Plaintiff attempted to resolve this matter 12 without litigation. However GAP International of Philadelphia continued its malicious, 13 oppressive and fraudulent conduct, and refused to return the property and hung-up the phone on 14 the Plaintiff. 15 16 Shockingly the Plaintiff’s then were attacked and retaliated on. Just three hours after that 17 one phone call to Defendant Gap International of Philadelphia, what remained of Plaintiff’s 18 business then came under cyber attack by the defendants. Out of that attack, Plaintiff’s lost all 19 email stored on Co-Defendant Templer’s servers. All past email and the ability to either receive 20 or send any email, all lost and all stolen, forever. Along with all of Plaintiff’s remaining three 21 websites: ALL GONE! (1) www.worldindigenousnetwork.com, (2) www.win-tv.net, 22 3) www.win-tv.com All of these retaliatory thefts were committed three hours after Plaintiff’s 23 were hung-up on by Jon Greenawalt of Gap International of PA. 24 25 Prior to the attack, Plaintiff had no contact, no email, no letters to or from Defendant 26 Templer. Plaintiff just contacted one person, and one person only and that person was 27 Defendant, Jon Greenawalt of Gap International of Philadelphia. As Plaintiff discovered after 28 the theft Co-Defendant Templer had fled to Berlin the same day of the theft. But Plaintiff’s also PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -7-
  8. 8. 1 knows that Jon Greenawalt & Anthony Templer had exchanged his cell phone number 2 Greenawalt in an email so both were in quick cell phone contact in Germany. 3 Plaintiffs can conclude from the speed of the response and the gangster’ like conduct 4 exhibited by the Defendants, their motives behind the second attacks and also behind the 5 additional thefts on December 07, 2003 (1 ½ months after the first theft) Were to (1) send a 6 direct message to the Plaintiffs to intimidate them, (2) to cause major damage to the plaintiff’s 7 finances. (3) To destroy the funding of WIN-TV. All in an attempt to stop Plaintiff from 8 attempting to initiate a legal action to recover their stolen property. 9 10 The Plaintiffs can prove without a doubt from the time of the second theft and attack in 11 December 07, 2003 through to last March of 2009 Plaintiff’s remaining websites were 12 continuously cyber squatted (a violation of US Federal Law) by the defendants in an attempt to 13 make sure that Plaintiff’s business was continuingly damaged year after year. Plaintiffs have 14 never seen their property again. [Exhibits # 9 Templer CYBER SQUATTING PROOF] 15 16 We also can conclude from the evidence before us and testimony that Plaintiff’s email 17 was being stolen from Plaintiff’s corporations and their investors starting back in mid-October 18 2003. We also have direct evidence that some of that stolen email was actually “re-sent by the 19 defendants” to Plaintiff’s investors (with the date removed from the email ††). It is safe to 20 conclude that when the defendants were stealing and re-sending Plaintiff’s email, then they were 21 also reading the content of that email as well. The content of that email back in September 22 through October of 2003 was plain for any of them to see that the Plaintiffs and WIN-TV were 23 in the process of being funded for $50 million dollars. [Exhibit 10 Orgel / Rudkin Letters] 24 25 Taking all these known factors into account, from the Defendant’s viewpoint, an 26 investment of $50 Million into the Plaintiff’s company, WIN-TV, would have been a huge 27 nightmare for the Defendants! The Defendants knew that as soon as that funding went through, 28 the Plaintiff’s would go after them to recover their property! The defendants felt that their only PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -8-
  9. 9. 1 option was to go on the attack to destroy Mr. Ange’ personally and to destroy G.A.P. 2 INTERNATIONAL California, and most of all to destroy the WIN-Tv's 50 Million in funding. 3 The defendants knew that if they failed to stop that WIN-TV’s funding that they would all be 4 all prosecuted for theft. In this context the crime now escalates from a single stolen domain 5 name to retaliation against the Plaintiffs with malicious and multiple thefts with intent to commit 6 harm. A twisted viewpoint of self-defense, but more like an evil Shakespearean plot. 7 8 The plan was simple: destroy the Plaintiff’s businesses to cover-up what they had done, 9 regardless of the Plaintiff’s attempts to resolve this problem. The Defendants felt that they could 10 over power Plaintiff and out spend the plaintiffs in Plaintiffs attempt to recover their property. 11 Gap International of Philadelphia has two goals… (1) to keep this from ever going to trial. And 12 (2) to make sure that the Plaintiffs never ever recovered their property again. 13 14 The Plaintiff, subsequent to the thefts and attacks of the defendants, suffered huge 15 damage, particularly with the destruction of the WIN-TV investment. Immediately following 16 the thefts, Plaintiffs first contacted the Law firm of Hoge Fenton Jones and Appel in an attempt 17 to avoid litigation However after repeated malicious and fraudulent conduct from the 18 Defendants and their attorney, the plaintiff’s then preceded in contact the DA office and then file 19 a case against the defendants with the FBI for interstate wire fraud. [Exhibit #11 Siner letters] 20 21 Plaintiff had no other choice but to file suit in November 2005. But prior to filing that law 22 suit it was proceeded by two board meetings and a Assignment of Claims Resolution that was 23 signed by the all of board members of G.A.P. & WIN-TV. Prior to filing the Law suit. 24 25 So Gerard Ange’, aka the Plaintiff, and his corporations, all had the proper authority to move 26 forward to recover both their corporation’s stolen property and seek restitution for the crime(s) 27 and criminal acts that were committed against them. 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -9-
  10. 10. 1 The attached Assignment of Claims Resolution documents are nothing more that a 2 technical distraction from the main issues of this case which are criminal in nature with intent to 3 commit a crime, to suppress evidence, to commit fraud, theft, embezzlement, conversion, 4 conspiracy, intent to cause harm with criminal intent by the Defendants. The main issues of this 5 case are serious and All need to be thoroughly addressed and heard in their entirety by a Jury to 6 decide for themselves who did what to whom. [Exhibit #12 & 13 Assignments 1 & 2] 7 8 Although Defendants characterize Plaintiff as someone who violated their purchase of legal 9 property, the full records and full testmony do not reflect a legal transaction at all. It reflects 10 embezzlement and theft with the first theft and conversion of www.gapinternational.com. And 11 with the second retaliatory gangland style attack on the Plaintiff and the multiple thefts of his 12 property, www.win-tv.com , www.win-tv.net, www.worldindigenousnetwork.com, that along 13 with the first theft all these act reflect serious criminal wrongdoing with malicious criminal 14 intent and to damage Mr. Gerard Ange’ personally. All these acts are criminal and were 15 committed with the intent to cover up the initial criminal act of the first theft of one web 16 domain. Plaintiff has pursued justice and for all crimes committed against his business and 17 against him personally since the thefts began in October 2003. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Will Suffer Further Prejudice and Hardship if this Motion is Granted 21 Plaintiff was ready for trial in July of 2006 and then once again in September 2006. And 22 again in July 2008, August 2008, and November 2008 Plaintiff has been without his web 23 domain, that was stolen from him, since November 2003. Plaintiff’s website was essential to his 24 business and everyday that his website remains heisted. Plaintiff continues to suffer a great 25 hardship as his properties all have yet to be returned to him. 26 27 [Exhibit #14 : Memorandum of Points & Authorities] 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -10-
  11. 11. 1 2 3 CONCLUSION 4 A. Defendants’ continuing reluctance to proceed to trial year after year by claiming any 5 excuse they can to delay, postpone and de-rail the trial as Plaintiffs have witnessed in the last 6 five years is understandable, given the Defendants on going criminal conduct and history against 7 the Plaintiffs. However at some point, if no settlement is reached, a trial must be held. 8 9 B. Justice is a right of every citizen... it is not an option. A judge is an employee like 10 any other employee of the county or of the state, and is paid a wage to provide a service for 11 which he is entrusted to provide. A Judge is neither a God nor a King. he has a prime 12 responsibility to see that all citizens are administered a fair and equal Justice under the law; as 13 written in our constitution. His schedule, the court’s schedule, personal ego and granted power 14 of discretionary judgement, are all secondary to the supreme act of overseeing that every citizen 15 receive their constitutional rights and equal justice under the law. 16 17 18 19 DATED: JULY 8, 2009 20 Respectfully Submitted, 21 GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST) 22 23 Gerard Ange' 24 ________________________________________________ 25 Mr. Gerard Ange' 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -11-
  12. 12. 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’ MOTION TO DISMISS -12-