Motion To Reconsider Filed by Ortiz on Dismissals of Perry, Powell and Roberson Claims in State Court Case

Defendants in the law suits Ortiz has filed against Texas Senator Charles Perry, Matthew Powell and Dave Roberson have been twice dismissed, but only when hearings are held where she is not present in the Courtroom. Ortiz was present during the hearing in front of the Magistrate Judge on her federal law suit and the Magistrate Judge Denied Perry’s Motion to Dismiss. The matter was then transferred to Texas where Perry went before a Judge, again making sure Ortiz was not in the courtroom to refute his claims, took emails his attorney requested in writing then claimed he was being harassed. The emails were exactly the same as she’d sent prior to her false arrest telling people months before Perry was threatening to arrange a false arrest, which he then carried out, for which he and those who assisted him are now being sued. Perry perpetrated an intentional fraud upon a court of law, and that was the second. The first was when he obtained the warrant for the false arrest he’d threatened for months to arrange. Ortiz was not arrested for committing any crime at all but for filing a false police report she’d filed in Oklahoma, however there was never any investigation because Perry had her arrested just a week after filing the report before a detective in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the crime against her occurred and was reported, as that is where she lives, had called her back or taken evidence into custody. Further, Perry testified the false report was “in retaliation for his job as a public servant”, knowing he had not one shred of evidence there is any political vendetta against him at all. All her correspondence, public posts and so forth have expressed frustration about his stalking, not his job as a Texas legislator. He didn’t even present an issue she’d be upset about and this is communications going back almost a decade, from 2011 to the present. Ortiz is very very vocal about her opinions and aggravations and for there not to be even one rant against Charles Perry anywhere at all in a period of almost a decade about his political views but rather his stalking and harassment, not at all part of his job as a legislator, speaks the intent on her part not being related at all to his politics. She couldn’t care less about his politics. He had not been in an elected position at all when they met, she’d been in politics for ten years. He simply had no history to attack at all and she kept her mouth shut for four years but to a few close friends whom she told of Perry’s conduct that constitutes, as a matter of law, stalking and harassment. She didn’t want her business to be ruined by becoming a scandal. Perry has forced that upon her. For a third time, he has now perpetrated a knowing fraud upon a Court, making sure she wasn’t even in the courtroom to obtain an order that does not comport with like cases. Below is her Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Default Judgments against Defendants Burson and BiCentennial for not filing timely answers or in the case of BiCentennial, no answer at all to the state case law suit.

This document contains over 60 pages of a nearly ten year history of Mr Perry’s behavior that constitutes “stalking and harassment”. She goes through what has occurred in each location although there is much not she didn’t include but hit on the main points of history of events. If she went through and listed each and every creepy sadistic thing Perry has done to her, the document would be well over 300 pages. This is almost a decade of history of Mr Perry’s conduct that constitutes as a matter of law, “stalking and harassment” wherever she has lived. That is what stalkers do. They follow you, creep on you and cause problems to get attention. Ortiz has never sued anyone in her life, despite opportunity to do so, but has had to sue Perry three times now and he still has not stopped with the unwanted contact, stalking and harassment.




Below is a great article on the use of technology stalkers are now more commonly using to creep on their victims.


Stalkers create an imaginary romance with their victims that is not real to the victim and Perry has clearly done that here. Ortiz moved to Lubbock from glamorous Las Vegas, had worked in Federal government reform for ten years before even meeting Perry, had been around powerful people all her life, and Perry had done none of that but rather lived a boring life as an accountant in a small town. He appears to have just fixated on her much more interesting life. There is no romance for Ortiz and she’s sick and tired of his unwanted contact and its all unwanted.

Click Here to See Article on Delusional Stalkers

Click Here to See Article by on Emotionally Disturbed Stalkers

Click Here to See State Court Claim filed in Tulsa County Case No CJ 2018 02775

Click Here To See Supreme Court Appeal Scheduled for Conference on October 1 2019 Case No 19-50003, Ortiz v Perry 18-9170

Click below to see Writ of Certoirari


Click Here to See You Tube Channel Containing Audio Filed with the Three Courts in the Three Different Legal Actions Against Perry et al

Below is a link  to the Evidence Admitted in Both the Federal Breach of Contract suit and the State Court Claim CJ-2018-02775


The remainder of the evidence Ortiz has filed can be found on the State court’s website and easily downloaded. Again that link is below. Case is filed in Tulsa county, number CJ-2018-02775.


Click Here to See Oklahoma State Court Docket on Case No CJ-2018-02775


Due to Perry’s continued stalking and harassment and the agreement made as evidenced in her bond conditions that Perry would never again contact her at all, Ortiz sued Mr Perry, Mrs Perry for negligence, and Mr Powell in the Northern District of Oklahoma, United States Court, Case No. 4:19-00159-CVE-FHM. Within a week, the Judge dismissed it citing it was re-litigation of the past suit. This suit addressed incidents occurring almost a year after incidents addressed in the first suit and the State Case. She’s never before sued for Breach of Contract. This was a blatant factual error on the part of Judge Eagan. She’s filed an appeal with the Tenth, where the appeals sits growing mold. The Tenth circuit Case No. is 19-5034. Below is her brief.



Click Here to Follow the Case on Facebook

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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