Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer F

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Hearing Date: July 20, 2009 Time: 3:00 P.M. Dept.: 512 Judge: Honorable John M. True III Trial Date: TBD

The case before the Court is simple. Defendant GAP International of Philadelphia (“GAP

Pennsylvania”) stole property from Plaintiff in a blatant, malicious and bold transaction with Co-

Defendant, Anthony Templer.

All of the facts and all of the exhibits clearly show that Defendant GAP Pennsylvania

first attempted to purchase the domain name www.gapinternational.com from Plaintiff on

October 17, 2003. [Exhibit #1Gap PA / Greenawalt email]

At the time Plaintiffs first were contacted by GAP Pennsylvania, the ownership of

www.gapinternational.com was fully and legally owned by the California corporation called

G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL, a Satellite Broadcast company.


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

Additionally, the ownership record also showed that Co-Defendant Anthony Templer

and/or Atanda Web Presence Services was only listed as technical contact & internet host.

(similar to a gardener or maintenance service) [Exhibit #2 www.gapinternational.com whois]

Moreover, anyone that went to Plaintiff’s web site www.gapinternational.com prior to

the theft, “even a novice,” would clearly see the website’s the owner was, G.A.P.

INTERNATIONAL of California, a satellite broadcasting company and its President and CEO

Gerard Ange’ prior to the theft. [Exhibit # 3 web page]

The Defendant Jon Greenawalt was by his own claim, a “Professional in Internet

Services”. As a true internet professional, it would be normal and take no longer than “15

seconds” to type in a URL ( website address ) to check the “whois” Registration of any website

to view everything: from ownership, hosting details, contact information and expiration dates.

( That 15 seconds is a standard in the world of Internet IT business). So, we can expect that

self-described highly educated professional who claims to be an expert in the internet services,

would know what all IT professionals know… “ That in 15 seconds anyone can type in a URL

and have before them the full ownership and contact information and expiration dates of any

website. Surely this was the case with the Website of the Plaintiff’s G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL

of California. www.gapinternational.com

[Exhibit # 4 Greenawalt Deposition ]

But NO , That is not what the defendants want us to believe. What they have presented

for us in their Motion and in their Defense. That GAP of Pennsylvania and their paid internet

professional, Jon Greenawalt, that none of them would take “fifteen seconds” to look up the

ownership of the Plaintiff’s web site www.gapinternational.com on or before October 17, 2003.


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

Additionally, GAP Pennsylvania and internet professional, Jon Greenawalt want us all to

believe that this “15 second process” was only performed a month after GAP International of

Pennsylvania contacted Plaintiff, and only after Plaintiff’s property was embezzled by Co-

Defendant Anthony Templer. To have all of us assume that GAP International of Pennsylvania a

self, proclaimed genius organization, spouting business elite professionalisms not to be aware of

the “whois” information or who the legal owner was or, to do any due diligence before

contacting the Plaintiffs in California on October 17, 2003 is…. Utterly ridiculous and is

untruthful.

[Exhibit #2 Oct 17th 2003 whois www.gapinternational.com]

The Defendants continue to try to confuse the date of November 20th 2003 a month after

their first date of contact with the Plaintiffs and their Co-Defendant, Templer.

The only defense that the defendants have is based on fantasy and fabrication and not on

the facts or the truth. The defendants can only give an appearance of innocence, and only if they

exclude the reality of solid damming evidence against them. For the defendants, Gap

international of PA to try and claim that they were a Bonafide Purchaser they would have to

change reality.

All the evidence paints a clear picture that GAP international of Pennsylvania knew that

Templer wasn’t the owner of the website and also knew it was embezzled was stolen property.

The Plaintiffs can prove to a Jury with any doubt that the Defendant is guilty of crimes

against the Plaintiffs. But, in order to do that, we need the Jury to have all the evidence before

them. Exclusion of any evidence changes reality and creates fantasy, fiction and fabrication.

This is why “All the evidence” is crucial in order to have a fair and just trial. It must contain all

the evidence and all the testimony and all merits of this case.


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

If the Defendants were so innocent of crime, you would think that the defendants would

be willing to share all the evidence and all the documents because that would prove the

defendants innocence. But, that is not that case here. Documents and evidence are being

excluded and deleted in an attempt to change reality.

If the Defendants are so innocent… then why do they want to exclude their own

documents? Documents that show a true attempt to conceal and hide what they were doing. The

documents in question are “nine emails” with deleted content and text sent between GAP

international of Pennsylvania and Co-Defendant, Anthony Templer, prior to the sale of the

Plaintiff’s embezzled property. If the Defendants are really so innocent… then why do they

want to exclude their own documents? [Exhibit #5 Nine Deleted emails]

But what actually happened is the following:

Gap International of Philadelphia felt that they needed Plaintiff’s property

www.gapinternational.com to "brand" their company. And in order to do that, they needed

Plaintiff’s domain name. The Defendant, GAP International of Pennsylvania, felt that without

having the domain owned by the Plaintiff, they could not effectively brand their Company. So

the Defendants were extremely motivated to get possession of that one and only web domain

name www.gapinternational.com at any cost.

At the time that Plaintiffs were first contacted by GAP International of Pennsylvania in an

“unsolicited email” on October 17, 2003, that property was fully and legally owned and

registered to G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL of California. [Exhibit # 1 whois & Gap PA email]

And because of Gap International of Philadelphia, the internet host (Anthony Templer)

was seduced $$$$ into selling something that both Templer and that Philadelphia company knew

very well that he did not own. Because of that seduction, Co-Defendant Templer embezzled

Plaintiff’s property and then signed it over to that Philadelphia company.


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 raise issues where there are none in order to distract and confuse.

They bring up the issue about money owned to Templer by Plaintiffs, and of a registered letter

stating “Pending Sale of Plaintiff’s Property” that was supposedly sent to Plaintiff from

Defendant Templer along with an email and invoices requesting payment. First, Plaintiff’s

STRONGLY CONTEST THE VALIDITY of such claims. Defendant Templer’s in a business

proposal 2002 that was in effect between Defendant Templer and Plaintiffs and Templer’s

proposal where Defendant Templer agreed to provide internet “hosting services” to Plaintiff’s

start-up company with deferred payments until funded. In exchange, Templer would be

guaranteed all our corporate internet hosting business after WIN-Tv was funded. Prior to that

funding Plaintiff was “only responsible” for any “out of pocket expenses” that Defendant

Templer had.††

†† THE TEMPLER BUSINESS PROPSAL: Anthony Templer came to us with a business proposal in 2002, to secure all Plaintiff’s internet hosting 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 be deferred until WIN-Tv was funded. {END OF TEMPLER GAP AGREEMENT}

In addition, Co-Defendant Templer states that he made every attempt to contact the

Plaintiff to notify him of the Sale of his property. When in fact, that claim was a LIE.

(1) . Defendant Templer chose NOT to send any email notification to any of the 10 active

working email addresses that Templer himself hosted for the Plaintiffs on Templer’s own

servers. Instead, Templer’s email address of choice was to send that “Very Important Email”

about the pending sale of the Plaintiff’s property” to one single email account: An old dialup

CompuServe account that wasn’t used and was not even valid. Templer could have sent that

email to “ALL of Plaintiff’s active email addresses” But Templer chose NOT to.

[Exhibit # 6 Templer letter of demand email] [Exhibit # 7 Templer Gap email]

(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


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

place of business located at: “400 Tamal Plaza, Corte Madera, California. But, Co-Defendant

Templer’s choice was to send that “One Very Important Letter” to an old closed Post Office Box

in San Rafael that was not even in use. Co-Defendant Templer did this all for one reason… To

make sure that the Plaintiff did not find out about the embezzlement and the sale of Plaintiffs

Property. [Exhibit # 7 Templer Gap email]

In November of 2003 Gerard Ange' was contacted by Tom Knight. †† Tom Knight was

a very close associate of Templer. Tom Knight called Ange at his home and asked Gerard

Ange’ if the he was interested in selling www.gapinternational.com. Mr. Knight went on to

say that someone had contacted Anthony Templer and wanted to buy www.gapinternational.com

. Ange’ responded to Mr. Knight : “No, I am not interested in selling my domain. That’s my

corporate identity.” Knight says: what?? Plaintiff Ange’ again restates to Mr. Knight, “I do not

want to sell www.gapinternational.com .” Tom Knight says: quote: “That he will tell Templer. “

†† Defendant Knight was the person who brought Anthony Templer to Plaintiff’s office and introduced Mr. Templer and his business proposal to the Plaintiffs. Mr. Knight was at the time of the introduction of Templer an associate of WIN-Tv.

In Conclusion,” if “ Co-Defendant Templer was so confident that he had the right to sell

Plaintiff’s Corporate property, as both of the Defendants now state in their Motion and Defense,

then why is Templer asking Tom Knight to contact the Plaintiff and ask (nicely) “if the

Plaintiff was willing to sell “their” corporate property? [Exhibit #8 Schenk Templer Letter]

The Answer is simple: Defendant Templer was already in the middle of the impending

sale and had already embezzled Plaintiff’s property. Defendant Templer didn’t want Plaintiff

to find out about the theft before the transaction was complete. Co-Defendant Templer also did

everything he could to make sure that Plaintiff never received those two letters of “Notification

of the Pending sale of Plaintiff’s property” by either email or by US Mail. Because Templer

didn’t want Plaintiff to discover the theft that was already in progress…


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 actions of both the Defendant Gap PA and Co-Defendant Templer, suggest that both

the Defendant & Co-Defendant made every effort to conceal the transaction and transfer of

property from the Plaintiff to the Defendants. This was intentional, this was planned and this was

deliberate and was done with the intent to conceal... BECAUSE THIS WAS THEFT!

THE SECOND THEFTS:

On December 07, 2003, Plaintiff discovered the first theft of www.gapinternational.com

and immediately phoned Jon Greenawalt, of GAP International of PA to find out why the

Defendants were using the Plaintiff’s web domain. Plaintiff attempted to resolve this matter

without litigation. However GAP International of Philadelphia continued its malicious,

oppressive and fraudulent conduct, and refused to return the property and hung-up the phone on

the Plaintiff.

Shockingly the Plaintiff’s then were attacked and retaliated on. Just three hours after that

one phone call to Defendant Gap International of Philadelphia, what remained of Plaintiff’s

business then came under cyber attack by the defendants. Out of that attack, Plaintiff’s lost all

email stored on Co-Defendant Templer’s servers. All past email and the ability to either receive

or send any email, all lost and all stolen, forever. Along with all of Plaintiff’s remaining three

websites: ALL GONE! (1) www.worldindigenousnetwork.com, (2) www.win-tv.net,

3) www.win-tv.com All of these retaliatory thefts were committed three hours after Plaintiff’s

were hung-up on by Jon Greenawalt of Gap International of PA.

Prior to the attack, Plaintiff had no contact, no email, no letters to or from Defendant

Templer. Plaintiff just contacted one person, and one person only and that person was

Defendant, Jon Greenawalt of Gap International of Philadelphia. As Plaintiff discovered after

the theft Co-Defendant Templer had fled to Berlin the same day of the theft. But Plaintiff’s also


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

knows that Jon Greenawalt & Anthony Templer had exchanged his cell phone number

Greenawalt in an email so both were in quick cell phone contact in Germany.

Plaintiffs can conclude from the speed of the response and the gangster’ like conduct

exhibited by the Defendants, their motives behind the second attacks and also behind the

additional thefts on December 07, 2003 (1 ½ months after the first theft) Were to (1) send a

direct message to the Plaintiffs to intimidate them, (2) to cause major damage to the plaintiff’s

finances. (3) To destroy the funding of WIN-TV. All in an attempt to stop Plaintiff from

attempting to initiate a legal action to recover their stolen property.

The Plaintiffs can prove without a doubt from the time of the second theft and attack in

December 07, 2003 through to last March of 2009 Plaintiff’s remaining websites were

continuously cyber squatted (a violation of US Federal Law) by the defendants in an attempt to

make sure that Plaintiff’s business was continuingly damaged year after year. Plaintiffs have

never seen their property again. [Exhibits # 9 Templer CYBER SQUATTING PROOF]

We also can conclude from the evidence before us and testimony that Plaintiff’s email

was being stolen from Plaintiff’s corporations and their investors starting back in mid-October

2003. We also have direct evidence that some of that stolen email was actually “re-sent by the

defendants” to Plaintiff’s investors (with the date removed from the email ††). It is safe to

conclude that when the defendants were stealing and re-sending Plaintiff’s email, then they were

also reading the content of that email as well. The content of that email back in September

through October of 2003 was plain for any of them to see that the Plaintiffs and WIN-TV were

in the process of being funded for $50 million dollars. [Exhibit 10 Orgel / Rudkin Letters]

Taking all these known factors into account, from the Defendant’s viewpoint, an

investment of $50 Million into the Plaintiff’s company, WIN-TV, would have been a huge

nightmare for the Defendants! The Defendants knew that as soon as that funding went through,

the Plaintiff’s would go after them to recover their property! The defendants felt that their only


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

option was to go on the attack to destroy Mr. Ange’ personally and to destroy G.A.P.

INTERNATIONAL California, and most of all to destroy the WIN-Tv's 50 Million in funding.

The defendants knew that if they failed to stop that WIN-TV’s funding that they would all be

all prosecuted for theft. In this context the crime now escalates from a single stolen domain

name to retaliation against the Plaintiffs with malicious and multiple thefts with intent to commit

harm. A twisted viewpoint of self-defense, but more like an evil Shakespearean plot.

The plan was simple: destroy the Plaintiff’s businesses to cover-up what they had done,

regardless of the Plaintiff’s attempts to resolve this problem. The Defendants felt that they could

over power Plaintiff and out spend the plaintiffs in Plaintiffs attempt to recover their property.

Gap International of Philadelphia has two goals… (1) to keep this from ever going to trial. And

(2) to make sure that the Plaintiffs never ever recovered their property again.

The Plaintiff, subsequent to the thefts and attacks of the defendants, suffered huge

damage, particularly with the destruction of the WIN-TV investment. Immediately following

the thefts, Plaintiffs first contacted the Law firm of Hoge Fenton Jones and Appel in an attempt

to avoid litigation However after repeated malicious and fraudulent conduct from the

Defendants and their attorney, the plaintiff’s then preceded in contact the DA office and then file

a case against the defendants with the FBI for interstate wire fraud. [Exhibit #11 Siner letters]

Plaintiff had no other choice but to file suit in November 2005. But prior to filing that law

suit it was proceeded by two board meetings and a Assignment of Claims Resolution that was

signed by the all of board members of G.A.P. & WIN-TV. Prior to filing the Law suit.

So Gerard Ange’, aka the Plaintiff, and his corporations, all had the proper authority to move

forward to recover both their corporation’s stolen property and seek restitution for the crime(s)

and criminal acts that were committed against them.


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 attached Assignment of Claims Resolution documents are nothing more that a

technical distraction from the main issues of this case which are criminal in nature with intent to

commit a crime, to suppress evidence, to commit fraud, theft, embezzlement, conversion,

conspiracy, intent to cause harm with criminal intent by the Defendants. The main issues of this

case are serious and All need to be thoroughly addressed and heard in their entirety by a Jury to

decide for themselves who did what to whom. [Exhibit #12 & 13 Assignments 1 & 2]

Although Defendants characterize Plaintiff as someone who violated their purchase of legal

property, the full records and full testmony do not reflect a legal transaction at all. It reflects

embezzlement and theft with the first theft and conversion of www.gapinternational.com. And

with the second retaliatory gangland style attack on the Plaintiff and the multiple thefts of his

property, www.win-tv.com , www.win-tv.net, www.worldindigenousnetwork.com, that along

with the first theft all these act reflect serious criminal wrongdoing with malicious criminal

intent and to damage Mr. Gerard Ange’ personally. All these acts are criminal and were

committed with the intent to cover up the initial criminal act of the first theft of one web

domain. Plaintiff has pursued justice and for all crimes committed against his business and

against him personally since the thefts began in October 2003.

Plaintiff Will Suffer Further Prejudice and Hardship if this Motion is Granted

Plaintiff was ready for trial in July of 2006 and then once again in September 2006. And

again in July 2008, August 2008, and November 2008 Plaintiff has been without his web

domain, that was stolen from him, since November 2003. Plaintiff’s website was essential to his

business and everyday that his website remains heisted. Plaintiff continues to suffer a great

hardship as his properties all have yet to be returned to him.

[Exhibit #14 : Memorandum of Points & Authorities]


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

A. Defendants’ continuing reluctance to proceed to trial year after year by claiming any

excuse they can to delay, postpone and de-rail the trial as Plaintiffs have witnessed in the last

five years is understandable, given the Defendants on going criminal conduct and history against

the Plaintiffs. However at some point, if no settlement is reached, a trial must be held.

B. Justice is a right of every citizen... it is not an option. A judge is an employee like

any other employee of the county or of the state, and is paid a wage to provide a service for

which he is entrusted to provide. A Judge is neither a God nor a King. he has a prime

responsibility to see that all citizens are administered a fair and equal Justice under the law; as

written in our constitution. His schedule, the court’s schedule, personal ego and granted power

of discretionary judgement, are all secondary to the supreme act of overseeing that every citizen

receive their constitutional rights and equal justice under the law.

DATED: JULY 8, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

GERARD ANGE PRO SE (IN PROTEST)

Gerard Ange' ________________________________________________

Mr. 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

Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer F

News & Politics

Transcript of Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer F