PLAINTIFF’S 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 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:

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 International PA.

I Gerard Ange’ in observance of the proceedings and was witness to what took place in the hearing on July 20. 2009 and, throughout the six years since the theft(s) were committed. I have

reviewed the Defendants [proposed] Order and feel that the Defendants creative and wishful words

are “again” not in line with reality and the FACTS of this case.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -2-

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 FOUR ISSUES IN REGARDS TO THE DEFENDANTS [proposed] ORDER and, ONE ISSUE / OBSERVATION IN THE COURT ROOM ON JULY 20, 2009. ISSUE # 1 (OBSERVATION IN THE COURT ROOM ON JULY 20, 2009). A clear violation of EXPARTE RULES was observed in the court room between the

Defendant attorneys and Judge John M. True III. Plaintiff observed a “Binder” Identified as a

Binder from the Defendants. It was also stated from the bench by Judge John M. True III that he

acknowledged reviewing the contents of the Defendants binder. It was also noted is that Judge

True III also made suggestions from the bench to the content of that binder directly to the

Defendants. That advice for them to make changes in those documents and ONLY THEN…

to present a copy the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION: By Judge True’s own statements in Court on July 20 2009: that (A) Judge

John M. True III took Possession of Defendants documents { at some point } before the hearing

date. (B) Judge John M. True III then took the liberty to examine and to read those documents

contained in that binder. Then (C) Judge John M. True III in the court room on July 20, 2009

contributes his input and critiques the contents of defendants Binder and makes suggestions to the

defendants towards modifications of the Defendants documents… All while knowing that the

documents he has in his possession have never been produced to the Plaintiff. Only after, Judge

True’s critique in the court room to the Defendants on July 20, 2009 that Judge True then adds:

that the defendants are to make sure that the [NEXT] version is presented to the Plaintiff… That,

is a clear violation to the EX PARTE RULE. And at the very least, is a sanction-able act. This also

clearly shows a continuing bias and continuing favoritisms towards the Defendants by Judge John

M. True III.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -3-

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

ISSUE # 2 As much as the defendant would like to vindicate themselves from the charges pointed

towards them by the Plaintiffs for their acts. THE FACTS ARE STILL THE FACTS… THIS

CASE WAS NEVER WAS BEFORE A JURY, and was dismissed on technical grounds by

Judge John M. True III. But, regardless of these facts, the defendants still try to write into the

[proposed] ORDER to dismiss, As if the defendants were the victims as this dismissal is a

punitive action directed towards the plaintiffs for misdeeds. Their claims are baseless fictitious

based on fantasy and fabrication and not on facts or the truth. Much that same as their earlier

fabricated claim of the missing “Assignment of Claims Documents” That were never missing at

all. http://www.slideshare.net/gerardange/first-gap-wintv-faxed-signed-corporate-assignments-2005

The defendants can only give an “appearance of innocence”, and only if they [exclude] the reality of solid damming evidence against them.

ISSUE # 3 Damming Evidence #1 : The theft of WIN-TV on December 07, 2007 (three hours after

the call to Jon Greenawalt of Gap International in Pennsylvania and after Plaintiff threatened

legal action) The second theft took place. Both Defendants refuse to acknowledge or to ever

talk about this [SECOND THEFT].

[THIS DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WAS ALL, EXCLUDED AND REMOVED BECAUSE

IT CLEARLY SHOWED CRIMINAL INTENT BY THE DEFENDANTS.]

ISSUE # 4

Damming Evidence #2 : The [FACT] that after our WIN-TV.COM property was stolen

on DECEMBER 07, 2003 it was then continually RE-REGISTERED by The Defendants every

year for (SIX YEARS) up to one month ago.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -4-

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

CONCLUSION: “If” Co-Defendant Templer supposedly was paid off in a dollar amount in

excess of (10 X OVER ) what Templer’s (self claimed bill) for services was [ WITH A

PAYMENT ] from the sale of our 1st property www.gapinternational.com. (embezzled)

Then, why three months after the first theft… What Legal Justification would give the

Defendants the right to; ABSCOND / STEAL / POSSESS our other Corporation’s Property

WIN-TV.COM?

[WHAT LAW] could the DEFENDANTS site to convert the corporate property of the

Plaintiff’s WIN-TV Corporation’s ? And then to continue to RE-REGISTER Plaintiffs

property in every year for SIX MORE YEARS ?

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

[WHAT LAW] could the Honorable Judge John M. True, III site that would allow the

defendants the legal right to commit multiple Theft(s) against Plaintiff’s other Corporate

property WIN-Tv ?

The Answer: There is no law he can site. ISSUE # 5 THE BIG QUESTIONS…

(1) WHOM DID THE THEFT OF THE WIN-TV’s PROPERTY BENEFIT ? (2) WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE BEHIND THOSE SECOND CRIMINAL ACTS? (3) [WHAT LAW] do the defendants base their second theft on?

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS -5-

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 Defendants, continue to {TRY] to claim that they were a “Bonafide

Purchaser” to do that, they would have to change reality. As we can see in

the [ISSUES 2 -5] That any [Exclusion] of the evidence and the facts mentioned

above, changes Reality and creates Fantasy, Fiction and Fabrication. It also

creates victims!

“A blind man could see clearly what was and is going on here.”

FINAL CONCLUSION

“If” the Defendants were so innocent of crime, you would think that they would be more

than willing to go to trial and present their case and share all the their evidence with a

jury. Because, that would allow the Defendants to prove their claim of innocence. But,

that is not that case here. Documents and evidence have been [EXCLUDED] and

[REMOVED] and also [DELETED]. The final solution was stopping the trial from going

forward all together. Their bold act and motion to dismiss showing clearly that the

defendants action and intent was to stop the trial in an attempt to change reality.

THE FUTURE:

If any party thinks that after this “Technical Dismissal” that this is over and it is case closed…

and its business a usual again, then, your wrong. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. The

next phase has already started.

A FORMAL INVESTIGATION:

We have been asking for a formal investigation of all the past actions that transpired. (there

have been many irregularities). Starting with the transfer of our trial Judge: Judge Barbara

Miller from Department 512, and then the Assignment of Judge John M. True III to our case [for

all purposes]. and many other irregularities following that substitution.

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

The plaintiff’s have been turning over all evidence to the FBI and it seems now… that there is some new interest on that end. We will have to wait to see where this new interest leads.

IN ADDITION: We also will be moving forward with our appeal.

I will now dedicate my life to continue to share my experience about the thefts, corporate crime and, about our search for justice. It is important for everyone to learn from what has happened to us, as we tried to do something good in the world only to become a target of theft. And then watch as everything we worked so hard for destroyed. I will be making public appearances to share my experiences of the last six years, to educate the public. In a world where a lack of integrity and greed are thought of as “Break-Though-Performance”. Where the rule of law is looked at as only a tool used to circumvent evidence and dance around the facts. For the sake of education and the truth, it important that I share my story so that all people can study and understand whom did what to whom and why. And learn that integrity is the key to good business. One way or another the truth will all come out… I will make certain of that..

DATED: JULY 27, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST)

Gerard Ange' ________________________________________________

Mr. Gerard Ange'

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