In May, 2016 Mrs. Gildred Carolina approached Mr. Michael Foster owner of Foster's Economical Services Co.Here Pro Se Mr. Michael Foster complaint seeks damages on the offset of two hundred million dollars... Let's break NTRODUCTION - SUBJECTIVE

As for defendant's answer to Plaintiffs rebuttal to its dissuasive deplorable demurrer the Court's tentative rule already finds Plaintiffs Response by all appearance to be legally SUBSTANTIVE.
The Demurrer's instead uselessly "assumes" facts and law as to its own versions or titles. Similar to Defendants filings it is clear defendant is not even reading plaintiffs responses or responses yet to be filed. Rather defendants is focused on words by error as for "(1 lvs(2)" Moreover Defendant's demurrer assumes a defendant "Cohen" with Gildred of which defendants is the #2 demurrer relative too. (see Page 19 First paragraph.).
The amended complaint [FIRST] outlines the law and facts consistent with defendants past, current and ongoing unethical harmful conduct sufficiently Count by Count and legal and factual specific throughout the body of the the entire complaint. The Courts apparent sighting in tentative rule is also a fact.
The Amended complaint count 1 to 8 does not assume titles of facts legally actionable, trial-able as it established, event by event spot-on even to place defendant Gildred physically and virtually culpable under each Count. It is understandable Defendants admitted "assumption" being that Plaintiff is the legal neophyte to Legal representation not nearly as experience as the Defendant Gildred or his selective Counsels.
The facts, by law and overwhelming preponderances defeats any cause defendants demurrer assumes uncertain. therefore demurrers to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as uncertain is for dissuasive reasons only.
Amended Complaint spot-on places the defendant by sworn affirmation by written fact and other facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f). Plaintiffs amended complain [FIRST] is not consistent (admitted) with high profile legal quantifications, largely though the facts and preponderance only gravitate each current and ongoing act of unethical
conduct by Defendant Mr. Tom Gildred for misrepresentations The defendant even impersonated himself as a "Mrs. Gildred as properly outlined in each associated actionable counts and throughout the complaint.
It is clear Defendants cannot respectfully submit to the Court that the Court should sustain the Demurrer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [FIRST] base on assumption. Included Here: the Court would find that it is "Apparent" the Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiff is SUBSTANTIVE enough to deny defendants demurrer/MTS in its entirety.

for an infomercial
FASTWORD - 2024/ Justice Keri Katz San Diego Superior Court: Gildred is a Defendant - and a Cross-Complaint Plaintiff. The Gildred group often informs itself best if they are Complaining about something. Anything - even against its own confufled fictitious cross-Defendants. It seams as "A feel good moment". But Gildred already drawn the full deposit on their side of the Breach of Contract that is really not a breach - it just can't be done - Which The Gildred Group is aware of. The Group wants to Draw in the same draft in their Cross-Complaint. Most law geniuses refer to themselves as LLCs' Gildred Law Group - is first a Threat (Group). By and large no one wants to defend themselves against a GROUP. Long and Short - electing to gather individuals with the background of a poor, uneducated in some instances unethical upbringing allows the leader of the Gildred Group to sustain regardless. The leader doesn't need to name himself - if there's enough proxies willing to volunteer themselves, their names, their businesses, the professional titles. The Gildred Group Leader is: A Lawyer, Doctor of Psychiatry, an Art Collector, an individual with many other certified (equivalent to) Professional Titles. On the other hand. Michael Foster is no Sam Backman-Fried - Michael's history is written dot-by-dot slowly and meticulously. When that happens, anticipation of the future by connecting the dots becomes less stressfull. Which is to say - Michael is aware of who is the leader of this GROUP. This threat.

That was the informercial: now back to the news: ...
and believes because of witnesses, itself, it's businesses, it's actual losses and impending losses, the complaint, each cause and the facts to be unwrap over discoveries, including appropriate bills of costs and or to be tried by a jury to be well within reasonable calculating. However the application for relief is submitted with the complaint also at the courts discretion.
he-Complaint-for-Damages Foster v Gildred Hon. Justice Kari Katz This is another sad case of what has become an epidemic of abuse. Here, at the hands of 3 affluent purported business professional entities in Philip T. Gildred, Gildred Professional Businesses and The Gildred Family of San Diego. As such they use their positions and power to influence devastating circumstances upon others who are poor, intellectually a threat and without adequate legal help. This is another sad case of Judicial Intervention where the only medium where reasonable dialogue can be directed to affluent purported business professionals who are flawed. The Civil Judicial System by its rules, laws and codes allows permissions to filed by a poor person to which it demands to each filings of an honest answer or no answers and may result in justice against those who use their position and power to influence devastating circumstances upon others who are poor, intellectually a threat and without adequate legal help
THE FACTS: The Initial Conflict: a). The Public interest of Defendant’s Character was assumed flawed. b). The Defendant demanded that the romantic relationship with plaintiff must be Undone. And,. c). The verbal contract with plaintiff to use Plaintiff’s Business Content (iDears) to enhance Defendant’s footprints in current and emerging technology markets was canceled, quote: to a “Distant 2nd interest”. Unquote. So we Foster files restraining order pending certification for Tom Gildred many forms of harassment.

"Defendant usurped unauthorized authority over Plaintiff by accessing secret passwords to gain full access to Plaintiff’s Credit Bureau Accounts, Better Business Bureau Account, Paypal Business Accounts, and other personal, social, private residential, and business accounts, Filed False Criminal Police Reports and Published Publicly Maleficent Professional Mental Opinions falsely describing plaintiff. Then: Defendant Philip T Gildred, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The Gildred Family of San Diego, preempted and commenced a lawsuit against Plaintiff for punishment purposes, falsely accusing plaintiff of criminal conduct in defendant's police reports. "

Defendant Gildred Drafted & file false criminal conduct reports SDPD/NYPD, use proxies to generate impulses from plaintiff to support crime reports, use A Civil litigation for advertisements free publicity also to influence impulsive reactions consistent with crime reports, use business influence to forcefully implement and enforce a Stipulation Agreement without payments promised to be attach to the addendum at signing also to generate reactions from plaintiff consistent with Defendant Gildred Criminal Reports.

Defendant Gildred Philip T Defense attorney is San Diego Leading Pest control bisiness legal defense expert but Michael Foster Claims Fraud, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Equitable Title, Unjust Enrichment, Libel, Bad Faith is met by Mr. Terrense demurrer. Some say Terrence enters the litigation with giant roars but apparently left his legal dentures perhaps at his office.

#1. IN SIMPLE THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. The consensus leading up, at and post a settlement agreement notwithstanding the articles listed in the addendum.
#2. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff, as a poor person, is also an avid dancer who performs, choreographs, and instructs as time and finances permit. Plaintiff, as a poor individual, splits his time with the purpose of nuisance. Plaintiff, as a poor person, is an individual at all times unrepresented by legal counsel, a product of the defendant's admissions to usurp control over individuals or persons who are without counsel, with access to business trade secrets and people who are poor. Defendant is the owner of various technology-driven sales and services firms "Professional Businesses".
#3. laintiff brings claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Philip T. Gildred based on false representations made in an "Addendum/Exhibit" to "The Agreement" which resulted in misappropriations, fraud, and theft of Plaintiff's trade secrets. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a claim for statutory and common law unfair competition and interference with Plaintiff's business relations and sources of livelihood. Plaintiff, as a poor person, seeks permission to proceed with each hearing telephonically or via video conference.
#4. DAMAGES: As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Philip T Gildred's actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial and punitive* damages. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of actual, consequential, and incidental damages it suffered and continues to suffer as a result of Defendant Philip T Gildred's breaches. Plaintiff has also suffered economic losses and loss of goodwill due to Defendant's fraud and is entitled to judgment against Defendant Philip T Gildred and Defendant's Professional Businesses & The Gildred Family of San Diego to recover these damages. (Punitive: here means *Punishment to Defendant for malicious and/or incredibly reckless behavior.) .
conclusion Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including actual damages, damages for harm to reputation and loss of goodwill, punitive* damages, attorney's fees and expenses, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court. (Punitive: here means *Punishment to Defendant for malicious and/or incredibly reckless behavior.)
#5.
Certainly! Let’s delve into the Foster vs Gildred case.

In this legal battle, we have Michael Foster as the plaintiff and Philip T. Gildred, along with various entities associated with him, as the defendant. Here are some key details:

1. Case Overview:

   • Case Number: 37-2023-00038663-CU-CO-CTL

   • Location: San Diego

   • Type: Civil case

   • Plaintiff: Michael Foster

   • Defendant: Philip T. Gildred, Gildred Professional Businesses, and The Gildred Family of San Diego12.

2. Background:

   • Michael Foster, the plaintiff, alleges fraudulent conduct by Philip T. Gildred.

   • The Gildred group consists of various entities, including Gildred Professional Businesses and The Gildred Family of San Diego.

   • The case involves claims related to breach of contract and damages.

1. • Foster seeks relief for the harm caused by the defendants’ actions1.

   • "The Contract" not only perpetually survives the delineation of Plaintiff's Business URLS fraudulently., it OPENLY threatens URLS current, intermittent or future which are unrelated to Defendants Gildred et al Claims in Gildred vs Foster. Even if Gildred vs Foster were to be adjudicated and found to have be truthful by verdict of a jury the negligence by Gildred to include Base URLS Facebook.com, Google.com and Twitter.com is clear Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation. Defendant Gildred's actions by all accountability have more to do with the survival of Defendant's USPTO TEAS Trademark "Tom Gildred" rather to sustain frivolousness in filings Gildred v Foster or defendant's filings in "Foster vs Gildred". Herein: Plaintiff Request the Court to reverse geoparticulars adduce by Gildred's abusive use of a TEAS Trademark to harm plaintiff's current, intermittent and future business URLS and in General to reverse Gildred's authored fraud by "The Contract" in which Gildred intentional misrepresentation holds public URLS such as Google.com, Twitter.com and Facebook.com at hostage to extensions particularly to title or handles belonging to Plaintiff or handles Gildred deems to be negative to himself or himself as "A Service" as defined by TEAS USPTO Trademark "Tom Gildred" by the instrument Order and Judicial Seal of a duly appointed Supreme Court Judge.

   • Gildred Defense filings and open conduct, Gildred et al in general implodes grief, empathy, pity and sympathy both from the Court and the public. The question begs if grieved why haven't Gildred et al to this point does not actualize any concern for his mistakes. If deserving of empathy why enunciate the ridicules assuage to have offended Gildred et al by public media in twin states and online promotions. If provisioning pity, why attempt to enforce non-civil crimes defendant gildred assert to have been the conduct of Plaintiff in naming itself a Victim assuage to have suffered as a result of Plaintiff's criminal actions and for sake of Sympathy - How does defendant Gildred ascertain this benefit in clear retaliatory filings in "Cross-Complaints" naming among others of 1 to 10 fictitiously assigned cross-defendants. The measure of the Law as for "The Contract" by virtue of its execution in Gildred vs Foster by perpetual judicial Seal of the New York Supreme Court of Quantum Merut in ultimate reversal by the Superior Court and by Defendant's actions to defraud the USPTO TEAS registration of a Trademark for abusive purposes also be reverse to the extent of the Courts Jurisdiction so as to delineate all forms or action in Defendant's use to frame actions, complaints or causes sighting negative impact to trademark "Tom Gildred" effectively to the within Content related to the "Instrument" in "Foster vs Gildred" and "The Contract" in "Gildred v Foster".

1. • Foster seeks relief for the harm caused by the defendants’ actions1.

2. Context:

   • This case highlights an unfortunate trend of abuse, where affluent business professionals misuse their power to harm others who lack adequate legal resources. TRIAL-BRIEF-FOSTER-vs-Delmore-Greene-LLP Foster is interpreted as the Courageous Whistleblower of Unethical Practices from the Ground up in reasons for Delmore Greene LLP Terence Leo Greene synonymous to Attorneys loudly in Foster vs Gildred intervention in the reversal of Tom Gildred Fraudulent Misrepresentations. Foster vs Gildred includes Sanctions for inappropriate conduct from The defense attorney Delmore Greene LLP. Delmore Greene in San Diego Superior Court. The Court began Heating up with Her Honorable Judicial Officer Keri Katz - the next date is schedule for possible evidence hearing on June 6th 2024 Foster vs Gildred Pre Trial Brief Hon. Blaine K. Bowman. This type of Bloc-HD lawyering is summing up to ONE conclusion: SANCTIONS post TRIAL. FOSTER REQUEST WAIVER OF discovery process or in the alternate Discovery mediation from the Court by Order. Delmore Greene LLP calls it's Counter parts Attorneys and legal firms "Small & Nimble" according to information on Delmore Greene San Diego attorney website. The firm recently settle for the Rancho sante fe A Golf club defense

   • .I have a lease that is current and sporadic bills from Verizon etc., gets in.
     
     My mailbox shows signs of tampering constantly. I called the police, they only provided me with a harassment report consistent with the person and floor assumed to be responsible for tampering, destroying and or returning my mails to the post office for mails delivered in the building to my mailbox #C2.
     (I have a mailbox - there are mails addressed to people and companies without a suit or mailbox - just tossed on the floor in the lobby - but these are left untampered with).
     I repeat this is the current proper address.
     
     I don't know of a way to know WHO properly is taking mails address to "Michael Foster", destroying them or returning to the post office but it's NOT a postal worker responsible for delivering the mail.
     
     The postal office Supervisor cautioned: There are times the mail-to addressee in question have been kept for over a month then returned to the post office. If I am not contacted by a person who of certain sent me a mail? Then I could never know for sure if a mail was returned or destroyed.
     
     The only recourse I have is to file a civil lawsuit which I will. At this time, I am prepared to file a lawsuit to include "Fictitiously Named" individuals as I think at minimal, I know which floor-owner or its tenant is tampering, with my mails.
     As you can observe it is very upsetting these concerns and I am determined to get to the bottom of it.
     
     A new landlord (or proxy) in this Corp building snatches my mail then drops it at the post office under the pretense he does not know who I AM.
     
     The Preponderance is circumstantially Factual at this time: As for my current lawsuit "Foster v Gildred" in 2019 an anonymous developer purchased "428-432 West 19th street". The building hosts my office from 2016 -
     As you know under very extreme and unfortunate circumstances, I literally Lost EVERYTHING including my $0.99 socks and household stocks including a collection of paintings - in 2017-2018 of address "38 West 31st Street Unit 108A". Then, I had 1 month to vacate my office as the building was assumed to have suddenly SOLD. It was sold. I provided video surveillance cameras throughout the entire building. From my analysis after viewing video footage _The Mr. Gildred guy_ was Physically in the building and profoundly, in my office. The building was negotiated for 40 which I was partly involved, then poof another (anonymous) buyer took it for 15 million less CASH. I assume the only reason why the new owners treated me harshly under full anonymity was because the purchase was done by; "Gildred Building Development Company".
     I have tools to investigate this, but life demands for me personally have been near life threatening - say the least.
     
     I will not be surprised if a recent buyer closed on "1-3 Eldridge Street Corp" (or parts thereof) as it was rumored a sellout was in the making from couple of owners. The new owner may have purchased (buyout) a floor or floors in this building.
     I am use to racial discrimination in Chinatown as from some Chinese people to me as a "Hagquay" (black guy).
     This method of consequential harassment aligns with the shameless character of my nemesis Mr. Tom Gildred, (Who is Patient and Meticulous, a CPA, a sorry soul with ambitions too personal especially towards Michael Foster Sadly - for that I hope I am wrong). Nonetheless, it is ridiculously to destroy or return my mails, but even as my records of tenancy is consistent with this address and I LIVE HERE.
     The post office cannot intervene.
     One thing is for sure - I receive mails here. THE THING is also; I CAN'T get a name of this new LANDLORD - The Corp has 3 to 4 owners. Tenants mainly communicate to their landlords through the building management company (EVERYONE IS CHINESE SPEAKING).
     Here is a dark side to all of this "I EXISTS".
     My landlord owns 2 floors, another landlord I know herself and her family owners 2 floors - other landlords own several other floors. I try to draw reference from certain tenants who have harassed me by accusative aspersive remarks. Specific people I've seen coming in or going out overtime joking at me or calling me the termite guy. (I'm not thinned-skinned - I understand & I disarm provocations). But as I said I cannot get a name and this owner's actions is not public. The Post office only says it's an issue between me and the landlord. They cannot verify which landlord or a person by name. They cannot help me with these inquiries. So, I get mails whenever I get mails.
     
     This is great to have your communications on the record. I have this data from you-now. I can prove this postal mail issue of a bias landlord is still going on. Where I take it from here is something I must discuss with the authorities.
     Attach: New York Resident ID, Accusative Tenant, July 2023 updated lease, and recent harassment police report.
     
     With Thanks
     
     Michael

   • Judicial intervention becomes necessary when reasonable dialogue fails, especially when dealing with flawed professionals who wield their influence disproportionately1.

Remember, legal cases can be complex, and the court system aims to provide justice.

The facts are CLEAR IN THIS CIVIL LAWSUIT California San Diego Superior Court Civil Unlimited Michael Foster the Tango Instructor from New York against Defendant Philip T Gildred, for his actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The Gildred Family of San Diego, engaged in fraudulent and abusive behavior towards Plaintiff, resulting in damages. The Law Misguided Gildred into assumptions He'd gotten away with the equivalent of a major violent crime similar to that as tacit as homicide: Legal MISTAKE: A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. Foster v Gildred 37-2023-00038663-CU-CO-CTL: This case involves facts alleging fraudulent conduct by Defendant Philip T Gildred, defendant gildred actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The Gildred Family of San Diego. Plaintiff, an individual without legal representation, claims that Defendant misused their position and power to influence and harm Plaintiff. Defendant falsely accused Michael Foster of criminal conduct, gained unauthorized access to Foster's personal and business accounts, and breached the settlement agreement. Plaintiff further asserts claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for economic losses, loss of goodwill, and other related harm caused by Defendant's actions. Conclusion: Plaintiff, as a poor person without legal counsel, has brought forth a case against Defendant Philip T Gildred, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The Gildred Family of San Diego. The allegations include fraudulent conduct, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks damages for the harm suffered as a result of Defendant's actions. The court will determine whether Defendant is liable and the amount of damages to be awarded to Plaintiff. Therefore the defendant must answer to the facts proving neither exist fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, interference with business relations, damages as with the Media specific to stories reported by Julia K Marsh The New York Post, Stephen Rex Brown The New York Daily News and it's Online Press Reader and Donald Bourder of The San Diego Reader to update, make corrections to the stories Gildred admits to have functionally Defame Michael Foster and (3) To vacate each Claim against Foster in its initial Complaint before the court and (4) To compensate Foster for da mages to Foster (Punitive) stemming from 1, 2 & 3 above. The witness in private session with Foster Ordered Foster to Sign the current Agreement and to be assured the addendum to the agreement will be updated that same day before close of business. Foster followed suit and uploaded a Rescission Letter, Attention: Witnesses and Gildred after business hours that same day. Days followed and there was No response from the witnesses, Gildred or from Gildred's Lawyers summoning an all out legal back and forth to which is the result of This Lawsuit Foster vs Gildred sighting among other stuff "Breach of Contract" and "Trademark Infringements" to Foster and Foster's Professional Business URLs. Though many efforts to discourage Gildred even from the witnesses in "Off the record" video conferences? Gildred continued neverminded the breaches aforesaid. According to the applicable laws consistent with the certification of the complaint attach and filed in the Superior Court of California the Honorable Judge Kari Katz. Foster vs Gildred in an order described the use of indexing algorithms to falsely update, enlist or make available incorrectly statements falsely reporting in an article describing Michael Foster and for the Purpose of long-term Defamation to the Character of Michael Foster and for the purpose of trademark infringement on trademarks own by Michael Foster and for the purpose demarcation to business common to that of Michael Foster the attach search results are Non-factual in content, irrelevant and inconsistent with the current Facts. As such the content also enlist false statements of Defamations: 1. Dancing Devil, 2. Foster became Unhinged, 3. Adding age to Michael Foster or incorrectly listed Michael Foster 10 years older, 4. Photo false detailed image of Michael Foster, 5. Highlights of statements define in multiple certificates of filings and court documents to be false and content descriptions with intent to defame the Character of Michael Foster

By conclusion to this Press Release Report:
https://DanceWithMe.org was also Michael & Mrs. Carolina Gildred creation as reflective of Mrs. Gildred son Bryant Castillo who lives' with an assertive medical disability. Mr. Foster is not irresponsible. The facts in alignment with Tom & Carolina Gildred of Rancho Santa Fe and the couple's ability to pay for a story to be written their ways are inherently ascribed indefinitely as insidious because they are FACTS and the facts are the Facts.

Finally: Your help by transcribing to the press release will help Michael to live his life, love for family and dance, out side of the ignorance of Tom & Carolina Gildred in their public matrimonial debacle. Please give Michael a fighting chance and an opportunity to confront the couples ongoing irresponsible manifestations.
THANK YOU
DONATION LINK: DONATE
EDITOR IN CHIEF CaribbeanTimes.org NewsNetNowWire*: Seth Alan Rafkin, Jennifer Bogue
(RafkinEsq.com*): Along with websites https://carolinagildred.com, https://tomgildred.info & a hosts of
other urls Rafkinesq.com was also registered during the same period. Mr. Rafkin's Quote "