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 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-

2. 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-

3. 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-

4. 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-

5. 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-

6. 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-

7. 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-