Ortiz Has Filed New Lawsuit Against Charles Perry for Incidents Occurring After First Suits Were Filed

Ortiz filed a new law suit against Charles Perry, Mrs. Perry, and Matthew Powell in Federal Court, Northern District of Oklahoma today seeking remedy for damages and injuries occurring after she filed the first. Evidence will be much of the same that has already been filed with the Federal Courts, but numbered differently and will include a few new items.  Case No 19-CV-159-CVE-FHM and Evidence to be filed next week can be viewed by clicking links below:

OriginalComplaint159CVEFHM

EvidenceCVE159

SecondAdmitEvidenceCVE

OkFedCourtAdmittanceofEvidenceSecondAdmittanceEvOKThird Admit EvidenceOK

2ndAdmitEvidencefiledCVE

ThirdFiledEvidence02775

Pinto32518Transcripts1

DrRussell10616Transcripts

Link to Audio of Dr. Russell, Oct 6, 2016 Transcripts Posted Above

Voicemail of TPD Det. Eagan, Tulsa Police left after Defendants arranged false arrest to prevent reporting of their crime

Audio of Pinto on 2/25/2018, Perry’s prostitution solicitor transcripts posted above

MickeyJamesTexts

Marvin Estills Private Facebook

OrderofDismissalCVE159

MotiontoVacateCVE

RespBursonMTDMay201902775Rev1IMG_20190524_165443004

 

Mr James’ texts were filed with the docket, however some were oddly not included, not as a result at all of the Clerk, but rather Ortiz had them filed in her One Note, and printed them up not realizing some key texts had oddly been deleted. She has long argued with Defendant Perry about his hacking. He has admitted it to her but refused to stop. These arguments date back to 2011 when she lived in Lubbock. As such, they have been re-added to One Note, and now put in a PDF document to be refiled with the Courts. These texts would involve one of several incidents occurring after the first law suit was filed that she sought remedy in the law suit of which the Judge ruled was nothing but a frivolous repeat of the first failing to recognize these incidents occurred after the prior case and the suit included a “breach of contract” claim not addressed at all in the first. Just seems like sloppy and careless work, at the very least. Above is the PDF containing Mr James’ texts that include some texts that oddly disappeared and have not yet been entered as evidence. It will be added to the State Court case next week.

 

Ortiz is not an attorney and frankly had great difficulty finding an attorney that wanted to take on a political scandal such as then when it involved death threats. She is learning as she goes along. The Judge, however, does not have that obstacle as Ortiz has. Maybe its just us, but we were taught before you sign your name to something, you make sure you get it right. As this matter has become more and more exposed, and remember Ortiz kept her mouth shut about Mr Perry’s stalker problem, for four years and only a few of her close friends even knew he had a problem, the more he does, the more the evidence of this builds. Five years ago, no one but her close friends knew there even was a problem. She then changed careers and moved twice to get away from him and to avoid conflict which had he left her alone at that point, still nobody would know. He did not however and for the first time in his life, his problem is more exposed than ever before despite the fact that he’s probably spent more than ever before in his life to try to cover it up. So, if you are just a common sense type person, you can look back at how things have evolved and anticipate how things will continue to evolve if he does not leave her alone as she’s asked him to for over half a decade. Its not going away. Its beyond shoving under the rug hoping nobody will suspect a thing at this point. How much worse will it get and if you are smart enough to anticipate things evolving moving forward just as they have over the past five years going from no one knowing anything was wrong to the current situation, you know people are smart enough to suspect a thing. They just are. The public is not stupid. They can put two and two together just fine and in decisions, that must be given serious consideration. If he’s been caught this many times over the past five years because he simply is not able to stop himself from stalking a woman who does not like him, five years from now, how much more will pile up, what else will come out and how ridiculous will it look for those who just failed to think that through?

Barbara Simonelli Facebook

RobertandMandyFacebookSept2011

 

For More Information See Justice4Cyn Facebook Page

Initially, the docket could not be pulled up, however later, we were able to download Court documents which are now posted here.

 

 

 

 

Clearly the Judge did not get that this lawsuit was to address incidents occurring AFTER the first law suit was filed which is being appealed. Evidence was submitted to the Court’s this morning and she had it before she entered her dismissal. The background of events occurring are not addressed under “causes of action”, but are simply part of the factual background and in the original complaint posted here, anyone can see that. Again, just more underhanded Perry tactics. This does not change my wishes that he get out of my life nor any ongoing investigations by law enforcement in fact, it may simply add to what is already ongoing.

This is the Order from Judge Eagan and again she seems not to get that this litigation was to address incidents occurring AFTER the first lawsuit was filed.

In the first law suit, the suit was brought on Civil Rights violations 42 §1983. Ortiz filed a police report in compliance with requirements of Oklahoma Statute which was one of two reasons her first protective order was denied. She was arrested on charges out of Lubbock, TX, while the crime against her occurred and was reported in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ortiz can still appeal denials to the US Supreme Court and exercise options under Federal Civil Rule 60. These were very blatant, serious, egregious violations of her civil rights and any attorney or judge at all worth their salt can see that. This claim involved Defendants flat out straight up obstructing justice and destroying evidence and that is not something that is a gray area of the law. Its very clear. Oklahoma law pursuant to 22 OS §60.2 (A) upheld in Marler v Kloehr 2012 OK Civ Apps 23, 274, P. 3d 849 requires the filing of a police report in order to get a Protective Order. The denial of the first was in part due to Ortiz’s failure to comply with this statutorial requirement and Defendants knew this. They have same order Ortiz has. They had her arrested anyway, then dismissed a year and a half later. This law suit was far from frivolous and they know it.

This second law suit is not any part of the first. The Judge got two important key facts incorrect one being state on page two of her order stating no evidence was filed in support of Ortiz’s claims however, the evidence was filed at 8:30 am with the Court Clerk and docketed about an hour before the ruling. On page two of the order, the Judge states no evidence was filed by the Plaintiff. She just didn’t read. There are actually 400 pages of evidence filed and they were filed prior to the Order being docketed. The second is on page five of her order the Judge states there is nothing different about this claim than the first. The factual background reviews events of the first because it is part of the history of events that have occurred causing injury. The claims are regarding incidents occurring after the first suit was filed, breach of contract is not even addressed by the Judge in this order and frankly the misstatement of three or four key significant facts seems like sloppy and careless work at best.

Lastly, there are nine judges on the US Supreme Court, who give careful, well thought out, detailed rulings and they do not all agree. For all judges to simply agree without any thought or thorough review, is fishy and there is review into Judicial impropriety at this point as it is warranted. Judges simply do not always fall in step and agree. The one Judge who has reviewed this case, who did not dismiss Mr Perry’s Motion to Dismiss, was the Magistrate Judge on the first case, Judge Jodi Jayne, and frankly while Ortiz disagreed with the recommendation of transfer, as all the injuries occurred in Oklahoma, she’s not been to Lubbock, Texas since she moved in 2013, therefore all witnesses are in Oklahoma, not Texas, she did at least give more thought, effort and detailed her reasoning, to some extent, for her rulings. The disagreement occurred in her recommendation that the perjured statement by Burson was done in Lubbock, Texas, however it was done before a Judge and Grand Jury, none of whom can be used as witnesses. The Grand Jury is sealed. Court documents only need be used. The remaining witnesses are all in Oklahoma. Also oddly, while the Tenth Circuit dismissed her claim, and cite Chrysler Credit Corp v. Country Chrysler Credit 928 F. 2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1991), the court upheld a transfer is made for the convenience of the parties, but convenience of the parties does not outweigh convenience of witnesses. Defendants clearly have more control over the Courts where they live and probably more than is even legal. The act of the illegal arrest was corrupt as it is and “corrupt” typically is just what someone does if they have that type of inclination. But for nine judges on the US Supreme Court, who do take the time and make the effort to be thorough, to carefully think through using evidence, law, prior court decisions, and material facts before just haphazardly making a ruling, to not all agree, it would be highly “off” and raise a lot of flags when all judges simply regurgitate the other and in fact, just flat out get facts incorrect. The evidence was either filed or it wasn’t. Look at the docket. Its right on the docket. There is no guesswork required. The claim made for incidents causing injury after the first which included breach of contract, which was not addressed in the first, nor dates of injuries addressed in the first but for Pinto on March 25, 2018. This is a very easy to determine fact and requires no guesswork at all. So, there will be a Motion to Alter/Reverse filed and we see if Judicial rulings continue to be in lock and step with each other, and just a little fishy.

Click links below to see Order of dismissal and Ortiz’s Motion to Alter/Reverse/Notice of Appeal

OrderofDismissalCVE159

Motiontoalterappealfiledcve159

MotionWithdrawAlterCVE

MotiontoVacateCVE

 

The first law suit, 4:18-cv-00489-JHP-JFJ filed by Ortiz on August 25, 2017, was seeking damages for civil rights violations under 42 USC §1983 for the false arrest. Additionally, Ortiz sought remedy for damages for tortious interference, slander and defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for events occurring the year before the arrest. Statute of limitations begins when a person could reasonably have known they have a cause of action, which in this case, began the day the illegal charges against her were dismissed. The events occurred before August 25, 2017.

The second law suit dismissed in the Order above, and the order states the claim is just a repeat of the first and the Plaintiff filed no evidence, both of which are just flat out false statements, case number 4:19-cv-00159-CVE-FHM sought damages for

breach of contract, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

invasion of privacy, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

negligence against Mr Powell, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

contributory infliction of emotional distress, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

intentional infliction of emotional distress, addressing acts committed after the first suit which addressed acts occurring before August 25, 2017, and the new suit seeks remedy for acts causing injury occurring from March 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019

conversion, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

tortious interference, addressing acts committed after the first suit which addressed acts occurring before August 25, 2017, and the new suit seeks remedy for acts causing injury occurring from March 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019

slander and defamation – addressing acts committed after the first suit which addressed acts occurring before August 25, 2017, and the new suit seeks remedy for acts causing injury occurring from March 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019

First Amendment Rights Violations, not a claim or cause of action even mentioned in the first lawsuit

for events occurring from August 25, 2017 to the filing date of March 22, 2019. It is a completely different cause of action and seeks damages for acts causing injury during a completely different time period. This claim addresses acts causing injury after the first suit was filed. This judge just did not read anything at all, and her decision was frankly embarrassing, sloppy and careless. To have such blatant misstatements of fact and then to sign her name on that, does not speak very highly of this judge. Mr Perry made comments to individuals in Lubbock that he arranged for the dismissal and wanted the dismissal done by a female judge to avoid the appearance of gender bias. The concern goes much further than simple gender bias. The impropriety and what acts may have occurred that led to this is what is currently under review. Ortiz is simply effective in her approach as Defendant Perry has had a lifelong stalker creeper problem but has never been more exposed in his life as he is now, despite having spent more money in his life than ever before attempting to cover it up. If you are not effective, you are not attacked. She is and she has been, the goal being regarding criminal matters and having nothing at all to do with Defendant Perry’s public servant job. Being a public servant subjects an individual to public scrutiny. It does not give a guy a “get out of jail” free card when a crime is committed, especially when committed repeatedly . The complaint, evidence filed in support, and the order in question is posted here on this page above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 thoughts on “Ortiz Has Filed New Lawsuit Against Charles Perry for Incidents Occurring After First Suits Were Filed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s