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

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -1-

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

GERARD ANGE’ / PRO SE (IN PROTEST) 3879 Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 717-8302 - voice (415) 962-4113 - fax Attorney PRO SE for PLAINTIFF and CORPORATIONS in QUESTION

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

GERARD ANGE’ et al., Plaintiff,

vs.

ANTHONY TEMPLER,

GAP INTERNATIONAL INC et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. RG05241337 PLAINTIFF’S [THIRD] OPPOSITION TO

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING GAP

INTERNATIONAL PA MOTION TO

DISMISS ACTION

Hearing Date: July 20, 2009 Time: 3:00 P.M. Dept.: 512 Judge: Honorable John M. True III Trial Date: TBD

The Motion to Dismiss Action of defendant Gap International, Inc. ("GAP

International") was set for hearing on July 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., in Department

512 of the above entitled Court, the Honorable John M. True, III presiding. Plaintiff

Gerard Ange’ appeared pro se (in protest) and Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Milavec,

LLC and Mia S. Blackler of Buchalter Nemer PC appeared for Gap Inter PA.

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.


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

I have reviewed the Defendants Third [proposed] Order to Dismiss; I feel that the

Defendants blatant fabrications and lies and misstatements are an insult to the court

and to the Plaintiffs and to me personally. It again shows that if the Defendant’s

can’t win on the facts of the case against them, then the Defendants must resort to

more lies and more fabrications.

HOW DARE YOU “Maurice R. Mitts” STATE A LIE LIKE THAT IN

YOUR MOTION:

Quote “Angé's prior history of altering documents in this case.” end quote

That is a total outright fabrication and totally over the line… HOW DARE YOU!

(ONE:) “I have NEVER altered any documents.” Period!

(TWO:) “BUT I CAN SAY FOR A FACT: that the documents produced by the

Defendants have been ALTERED and the TEXT has been DELETED. All

under the eye and guidance of Maurice R. Mitts.

The Difference between the Plaintiff & the Defendants is simple:

The Plaintiffs have NEVER stolen anyone’s property. But The Defendants HAVE.

The Plaintiffs NEVER “Retaliated against anyone.” But The Defendants HAVE.

The Plaintiff Ange’ Has never lied in court. But the Defendants HAVE repeatedly.

The Plaintiffs never Violated Federal Criminal Laws But the Defendants HAVE.


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

THE ASSIGNMENTS:

The Assignments were always in our records since 2005. But, the no one ever

asked to see them… until recently. It never was an issue until Maurice Mitts made

it one. The Issue to us was always the theft the reason why the case was filed in

the first place. There is no reason under the sun for the Plaintiff to hide our

Assignments. We have always been the ones with 99% of the evidence produced.

Yet this act that we have seen from Maurice Mitts repeatedly over the years is

nothing new.

It goes something like this: When Mr. Mitts gets in front of a Judge or a arbitrator

etc. Maurice Mitts then putts on an act. He then will ask and re-ask again and again

for the same document claiming “We have never given them to him and then adds

that the plaintiffs were always the hiding documents from the defendants’!!!. It was

laughable at first, nothing could have been further from the truth! We thought Mr.

Mitts was losing it.

So for years I have witnessed this ACT that Mr. Mitts has played over and over

again. And we have over and over again RE-produced the same documents to the

defendants again and again… And then, we get before another Judge and Maurice

Mitts starts his same act all over again”. Maurice Mitts again asks again for the

other documents that he has in his possession claiming the plaintiffs didn’t produce

them either! “It is not laughable anymore”. This act is less ACT more an TACTIC

that has been going on here. Maurice R. Mitts is playing game with all of us his

own version of Ground Hog Day. Intentionally wasting everyone’s time on these

paper chases of documents that have already been produced.


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

From day one Plaintiffs were always the ones that showed everything. The

Plaintiffs were always the ones who felt “THAT WE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE!”.

We still feel that way today and so have posted everything on our website for

everyone to see. Why? BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING WRONG!!!

http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.html

WE GOT ROBBED BY THE DEFENDANTS FIRST WITH EMBEZZLEMENT

WITH www.gapinternational.com and then, after we discovered the first theft …

Then WE WERE RETALIATED UPON By THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE

THEFT of OUR second Corporate Property WIN-TV on December 07, 2003…

Those were two separate criminal acts that were committed against us by the

DEFENDANTS.

WE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THOSE THEFTS. WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR

THE CRIME(S) COMMITTED AGAINST US BY THE DEFENDANTS.

It is easy to see by the Defendants actions their true motive to desperately search

of a way to STOP the Jury Trial… Mr. Mitts hung his hat for some reason on the

thought that we didn’t have an Assignment of Claims? (why would Mr. Mitts do

that?) It was never a secret it was just an Assignment like any other board

resolution the we made. This one gave the authorization to recover our property

from the thefts. Easy and simple to understand.


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

So Maurice Mitts claims were baseless fictional and fabricated as Mitts’s past

history shows with his Ground Hog Day paper chases. So we posted our

Assignments on line on our website for everyone to see. As I said before a blind

man could see what’s been going on here!

Maurice Mitts Strategy Shows one thing… Maurice Mitts feels that the Defendants

they can’t win in front of a Jury with the Good Citizens of Alameda County on

theft charges against them. That Maurice Mitts’s alternative was simple: that he

look for any little technicality to try to de-rail the case. If he couldn’t find one then

“fabricate” a technicality all for one goal… TO STOP THE JURY TRIAL.

Now “Maurice R. Mitts” Adds even more fabrications and lies…. He now states

that The Assignments that I included in my Opposition and posted on-line are

forged, and that Quote: “ Mr. Ange’ has a long history of altering documents”.

End Quote. = MORE LIES on top of EVEN MORE LIES!

You can’t forge faxes and emails that are all inter-linked and inter-connected and

dated: See for yourself on link below:

http://www.slideshare.net/gerardange/first-gap-wintv-faxed-signed-corporate-

assignments-2005

One thing about High-Tech every action leaves an electronic trail of evidence

somewhere.


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

TO ADD TO THAT:

I can say for a fact that the Defendants were the only parties to have produced any

documents that were ALTERED and also had DELETED Text. “That claim is

firmly attached Mr. Maurice R. Mitts.” (I have the documents to prove that).

IN CONCLUSION:

[WHAT LAW] allows the Defendants to continue the claim or any rights to

ABSCOND / STEAL / POSSESS our WIN-TV Corporations property?

[WHAT LAW] allows for the DEFENDANTS to continue to keep the

Plaintiff’s WIN-TV Corporation’s property and then to continue to RE-

REGISTER our property every year for SIX MORE YEARS?

(These acts are multiple violations of Federal Crime called “Cybersquating”).

[WHAT LAW] ALLOWS THE DEFENDANTS TO COMMIT THEFT?

This document has been copied to all the other documents in our FBI case file.

DATED: JULY 29, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST)

Gerard Ange' ________________________________________________


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

Mr. Gerard Ange'

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

News & Politics

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