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. 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 [THIRD] 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: TBD
19
The Motion to Dismiss Action of defendant Gap International, Inc. ("GAP
20
International") was set for hearing on July 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., in Department
21
512 of the above entitled Court, the Honorable John M. True, III presiding. Plaintiff
22
23 Gerard Ange’ appeared pro se (in protest) and Maurice R. Mitts of Mitts Milavec,
24 LLC and Mia S. Blackler of Buchalter Nemer PC appeared for Gap Inter PA.
25
26
First, I am not an Attorney. I was ordered into “Pro Se” against my will by The
27
Honorable John M. True, III. I am here because I am a victim of crimes against
28
my two corporations and myself. I have come here to find Justice.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-1-

2. 1 I have reviewed the Defendants Third [proposed] Order to Dismiss; I feel that the
2
Defendants blatant fabrications and lies and misstatements are an insult to the court
3
and to the Plaintiffs and to me personally. It again shows that if the Defendant’s
4
5 can’t win on the facts of the case against them, then the Defendants must resort to
6 more lies and more fabrications.
7
8
HOW DARE YOU “Maurice R. Mitts” STATE A LIE LIKE THAT IN
9
10 YOUR MOTION:
11 Quote “Angé's prior history of altering documents in this case.” end quote
12
That is a total outright fabrication and totally over the line… HOW DARE YOU!
13
14
(ONE:) “I have NEVER altered any documents.” Period!
15
16
(TWO:) “BUT I CAN SAY FOR A FACT: that the documents produced by the
17
Defendants have been ALTERED and the TEXT has been DELETED. All
18
19
under the eye and guidance of Maurice R. Mitts.
20
21
The Difference between the Plaintiff & the Defendants is simple:
22
The Plaintiffs have NEVER stolen anyone’s property. But The Defendants HAVE.
23
24 The Plaintiffs NEVER “Retaliated against anyone.” But The Defendants HAVE.
25 The Plaintiff Ange’ Has never lied in court. But the Defendants HAVE repeatedly.
26
The Plaintiffs never Violated Federal Criminal Laws But the Defendants HAVE.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-2-

3. 1 THE ASSIGNMENTS:
2
The Assignments were always in our records since 2005. But, the no one ever
3
asked to see them… until recently. It never was an issue until Maurice Mitts made
4
5 it one. The Issue to us was always the theft the reason why the case was filed in
6 the first place. There is no reason under the sun for the Plaintiff to hide our
7
Assignments. We have always been the ones with 99% of the evidence produced.
8
Yet this act that we have seen from Maurice Mitts repeatedly over the years is
9
10
nothing new.
11 It goes something like this: When Mr. Mitts gets in front of a Judge or a arbitrator
12
etc. Maurice Mitts then putts on an act. He then will ask and re-ask again and again
13
for the same document claiming “We have never given them to him and then adds
14
that the plaintiffs were always the hiding documents from the defendants’!!!. It was
15
16 laughable at first, nothing could have been further from the truth! We thought Mr.
17 Mitts was losing it.
18
So for years I have witnessed this ACT that Mr. Mitts has played over and over
19
again. And we have over and over again RE-produced the same documents to the
20
21 defendants again and again… And then, we get before another Judge and Maurice
22 Mitts starts his same act all over again”. Maurice Mitts again asks again for the
23
other documents that he has in his possession claiming the plaintiffs didn’t produce
24
them either! “It is not laughable anymore”. This act is less ACT more an TACTIC
25
26
that has been going on here. Maurice R. Mitts is playing game with all of us his
27 own version of Ground Hog Day. Intentionally wasting everyone’s time on these
28
paper chases of documents that have already been produced.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-3-

4. 1
2
From day one Plaintiffs were always the ones that showed everything. The
3
Plaintiffs were always the ones who felt “THAT WE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE!”.
4
5 We still feel that way today and so have posted everything on our website for
6 everyone to see. Why? BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING WRONG!!!
7
8
http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.html
9
10
11 WE GOT ROBBED BY THE DEFENDANTS FIRST WITH EMBEZZLEMENT
12
WITH www.gapinternational.com and then, after we discovered the first theft …
13
Then WE WERE RETALIATED UPON By THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE
14
THEFT of OUR second Corporate Property WIN-TV on December 07, 2003…
15
16 Those were two separate criminal acts that were committed against us by the
17 DEFENDANTS.
18
19
WE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THOSE THEFTS. WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR
20
21 THE CRIME(S) COMMITTED AGAINST US BY THE DEFENDANTS.
22 It is easy to see by the Defendants actions their true motive to desperately search
23
of a way to STOP the Jury Trial… Mr. Mitts hung his hat for some reason on the
24
thought that we didn’t have an Assignment of Claims? (why would Mr. Mitts do
25
26
that?) It was never a secret it was just an Assignment like any other board
27 resolution the we made. This one gave the authorization to recover our property
28
from the thefts. Easy and simple to understand.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-4-

5. 1 So Maurice Mitts claims were baseless fictional and fabricated as Mitts’s past
2
history shows with his Ground Hog Day paper chases. So we posted our
3
Assignments on line on our website for everyone to see. As I said before a blind
4
5 man could see what’s been going on here!
6
7
Maurice Mitts Strategy Shows one thing… Maurice Mitts feels that the Defendants
8
they can’t win in front of a Jury with the Good Citizens of Alameda County on
9
10
theft charges against them. That Maurice Mitts’s alternative was simple: that he
11 look for any little technicality to try to de-rail the case. If he couldn’t find one then
12
“fabricate” a technicality all for one goal… TO STOP THE JURY TRIAL.
13
14
Now “Maurice R. Mitts” Adds even more fabrications and lies…. He now states
15
16 that The Assignments that I included in my Opposition and posted on-line are
17 forged, and that Quote: “ Mr. Ange’ has a long history of altering documents”.
18
End Quote. = MORE LIES on top of EVEN MORE LIES!
19
20
21 You can’t forge faxes and emails that are all inter-linked and inter-connected and
22 dated: See for yourself on link below:
23
http://www.slideshare.net/gerardange/first-gap-wintv-faxed-signed-corporate-
24
assignments-2005
25
26
27 One thing about High-Tech every action leaves an electronic trail of evidence
28
somewhere.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-5-

6. 1 TO ADD TO THAT:
2
I can say for a fact that the Defendants were the only parties to have produced any
3
documents that were ALTERED and also had DELETED Text. “That claim is
4
5 firmly attached Mr. Maurice R. Mitts.” (I have the documents to prove that).
6
7
IN CONCLUSION:
8
[WHAT LAW] allows the Defendants to continue the claim or any rights to
9
10 ABSCOND / STEAL / POSSESS our WIN-TV Corporations property?
11
12
13 [WHAT LAW] allows for the DEFENDANTS to continue to keep the
14
Plaintiff’s WIN-TV Corporation’s property and then to continue to RE-
15
16
REGISTER our property every year for SIX MORE YEARS?
17 (These acts are multiple violations of Federal Crime called “Cybersquating”).
18
19
[WHAT LAW] ALLOWS THE DEFENDANTS TO COMMIT THEFT?
20
21 This document has been copied to all the other documents in our FBI case file.
22
DATED: JULY 29, 2009
23
24
Respectfully Submitted,
25
GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST)
26
27
28
Gerard Ange'
________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-6-

7. 1 Mr. Gerard Ange'
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 THIRD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ [Proposed] MOTION GRANTING DISMISS
-7-