Evidence filed in Oklahoma Law Suit In Ortiz v Perry et al
OkFedCourtAdmittanceofEvidence
You Tube Channel Containing Audio Evidence Filed With Federal Courts
Case filed in OK State Court CJ-2018-02775 Removed by Defendants to Federal Court-
4:18-cv-00532-GKF-JFJ -with Ortiz’s Motion to Remand. Removal contains Initial Petition Filed as Attachment Click Below to View
Link below is to Appeal Brief to the Tenth Circuit on the Breach of Contract Case/ 4:19-cv-00159-CVE-FHP filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on March 22, 2019. This law suit addresses incidents occurring almost a year after the first suit was filed. The judge dismissed citing reasons were that it was simply relitigating past events. The time period is not even close to being the same. A Rule 60 Motion to Vacate was filed, denied, and has been appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Links below are the Writ of Certiorari appealing the transfer on the first suit, which involved serious egregious violations of Ortiz’s civil rights. The appeals has been docketed and the letter from the US Supreme Court, linked below. This case is on the first suit filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma, 4:17-cv-00489-JHP-JFJ.
There have been too many denials that do not make sense and do not comport with case law. This was picked up by individuals investigating Perry on another matter and reporters in fact one reporter stated, “They have buried her in costly appeals for denials that are without merit. “. Now, judicial bribery is being looked into very closely.
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
- Ortiz worked in political consulting and medical supplies all of her adult life. In December, 2009, while attending a political event, Ortiz met Defendant Perry and his friend Jack Galloway. She then worked as Mr Galloway’s campaign manager. Mr Galloway and Defendant Perry held joint events during the election cycle to conserve resources. During this time, Defendant Perry began making unwanted romantic advances towards the Ortiz, in public. Petitioner asked Defendant Perry’s campaign manager to ask him to stop, the manager threatened to ruin the Petitioner’s business, and Defendant Perry then began stalking the Petitioner.
- Ortiz was worried the conduct of Defendant Perry would be seen by other people and would negatively affect her clients. As such she told only a few close friends from 2011 to 2014, relaying specific conduct of Defendant Perry that constitute, as a matter of law, “stalking”.
- In 2012, Ortiz abruptly ended her career in political consulting and has not even voted since, in attempt to avoid all contact and conflict with Defendant Perry and began focusing her time instead on the sales of medical supplies. When that proved ineffective, his stalking became unbearable, she moved from Lubbock, Texas, uprooted her minor child, and relocated to Dallas, Texas in November, 2013. She then started working in the adult entertainment industry, believing Defendant Perry would consider his reputation and family and would be dissuaded by the stigma of stalking a dancer due to his position as deacon in his church and his representation to the public as a happily married family man and cease his unwanted contact with the Petitioner. When a person is stalked, they want to go where they think the stalker will not go. Ortiz believed Perry would not contact her or bother her in a strip club. She was wrong. Instead, Defendant Perry’s stalking became even more unbearable than it had been previously. She then again uprooted her minor child and herself and relocated to Oklahoma in September, 2014.
- Since Ortiz’s arrival in Oklahoma, on September 9, 2014, she has remained domiciled in Oklahoma and has not left the state at all, but for the time during her unlawful detainment, which is part of the injury for which remedy is being sought in this litigation.
- Again Defendant Perry’s unwanted attention, stalking and harassment became unbearable. Ortiz sought an order of Protection in state Court, Creek County, in Judge Mark Ihrig’s Court from Defendant Perry in May, 2015 and the matter was covered on the national news. The Order was denied due to a lack of proper information available at the time on jurisdiction, and due to the Ortiz’s failure to comply with Oklahoma Statute in the requirement of filing and producing a police report in Court, pursuant to 22 OS § 60. 2 (A) (1), held in Marler v Kloehr 2012 OK Civ App 23, 274, P. 3d 849.
- In August, 2015, Petitioner was approached by two off duty police officers who advised her Defendant Perry had contacted Oklahoma law enforcement and asked them to “find a way to arrest her”. The two officers advised the Petitioner they wanted no part in facilitating his request. Ortiz was never charged or arrested in Oklahoma. However, the conversation resulted in her sending a letter to Defendant Powell demanding he “cease and desist” his participation in unlawful harassment of the Petitioner and the letter stated if he did not, he would be sued. A copy of the letter was then sent to the US Attorney on August 27, 2015.
- During the months of October, 2015 through January, 2016, Defendant Roberson approached the Petitioner at her workplace, stated he was a “hitman” for Defendant Perry, threatened to kill her if she did not recant her claims that Defendant Perry’s actions was stalking her, told her he would “put her in the lake”, and texted her “let your life fade away”. He admitted to sexual battery, stated he did not intend to stop, and answered “yes”, when the Petitioner asked him if he was poisoning her with Arsenic and/or Phenobarbital. These conversations were conducted for the most part in texts however some were made face to face in person at the Ortiz’s workplace in Oklahoma.
- Ortiz tweeted Tulsa Police of her belief that she was being poisoned. They replied in a tweet instructing her to file a police report.
- On October 29, 2015, Ortiz emailed her ex husband telling him Defendant Perry had threatened to arrange a false arrest.
- On January 4, 2016, Ortiz texts a friend discussing Defendants threats to kill her and arrange a false arrest.
- On January 21, 2016, Ortiz filed a police report intending to then pursue a protective order after forensic testing for poisoning had been conducted. The desk clerk advised the Ortiz her report would be assigned to a detective, the detective would then call to schedule a time when the Ortiz could provide evidence for proper inspection and investigation.
- On January 29, 2016, however, while Ortiz was awaiting a call back from Tulsa Police, she was arrested at her home in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. The officer stated she had been charged in Texas with “Retaliating against a public servant, Charles Perry, intending to harm him by filing a false police report, on account of his job.” The unlawful seizure occurred at her home in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. Ortiz was denied counsel needed to fight extradition in Court, and therefore did not fight extradition as she was advised by an attorney during consult she would have access to an attorney only if she went back to Lubbock, Texas, where the unlawful charges against her were filed.
- Tulsa Police Detective, Liz Eagan, called Ortiz and left a voicemail on February 15, 2016 asking her to come in to give a statement and provide evidence. Ortiz was unable to take the call as she was sitting in jail in Lubbock illegally detained.
- Defendants acts violated 18 USC §§1512 and 1513. Ortiz was acting in compliance with Oklahoma law, and acting as any reasonable prudent individual would do when threatened with death. Defendants intentionally retaliated, and by physical force prevented and delayed the reporting of the crime to Tulsa police and proper collection of evidence.
- Ortiz did not relay vague threats were made but rather states specifically Defendants had threatened to 1) kill her and 2) arrange a false arrest which were then carried out in Oklahoma. The fact that Ortiz first told people in her life of these specific threats to injure her shows intent and premeditation by Defendants.
- Defendants Burson and Powell completely ignored Brady Requirements and not only impeded the investigation of Tulsa Police and the ability of Tulsa Police to properly collect blood and hair evidence for inspection by their forensic pathologist but allowed the petitioner to sit unlawfully detained in Lubbock for two months so the evidence of poison worked itself out of her system. This resulted in destruction of evidence they knew existed. Had they not intentionally poisoned Ortiz, they would have demanded forensic testing to show the Ortiz lied. Instead, they ignored Brady Rules and did not test the petitioner for poisoning and caused its destruction.
- Defendants then offered, through her attorney, to dismiss charges if she would refrain from giving media details of her false arrest. This was an act of coercion. She agreed IF Defendant Perry never again made contact with her in any form. The agreement is evidenced in the Ortiz’s Bond Conditions which contain a provision that Defendant Perry agreed never to contact the Petitioner again in any form. Bond Conditions only apply to the individual bonded and therefore, short of such an agreement, his name need not be stated with instructions from the judge he not to contact Ortiz.
- Ortiz’s Bond Conditions also contained a provision that she seek counsel with Dr. Jeannie Russell, Ed. D. which she did for a year and a half, for one to two hours, twice a month, but for a few times when schedules only permitted once per month. The result was a statement recorded on October 6, 2016 in which Dr. Russell states the arrest was a “stalking escalation” intending to harm the Petitioner. Furthermore, Dr. Russell provided a finalized opinion in writing to Petitioner’s attorney, Mallory Miller in June, 2017 which states she found the Petitioner to be intelligent, honest, and all her actions indicate she had done everything within her power to get away from Defendant Perry, had no wish to harm him, is in fear of her safety and of those in her life and wanted no contact with Defendant Perry.
- Charges against Ortiz were dismissed by Defendant Powell on June 28, 2017 in favor of the Petitioner.
- The causes of action for which remedy is being sought are Civil Rights Violations under Title 42 § 1983, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and remedy available under state law as follows: 1) Stalking and Harassment 2) Tortious Interference, and 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 4) Assault and Battery, Sexual Assault, and Aggravated Assault, 4) Attempted Murder 5) Malicious Prosecution 6) Defamation and Slander. Ortiz also sought to amend to include Breach of Contract in that an oral agreement was made by Perry agreeing never ever to contact Ortiz in any form at all as evidenced in her bond conditions. He breached this agreement the second she returned home however, she was better able to collect the evidence proving her claim in the March 25, 2018 contact Pinto made with her on behalf of Perry at her workplace in Oklahoma.
- Ortiz’s Initial Petition, filed on August 25, 2017, included a Motion for Injunctive Order against Defendants, filed as Document No. 1, the Magistrate Denied the Order for Injunctive Relief on September 26, 2017, due to a procedural error by the Petitioner. The Ortiz filed an Amended Petition to remedy the procedural defects in the request for Injunctive Relief on October 10, 2017 Document No. 14, addressing procedural defects, which was denied in a Minute Order by the District Judge, Judge James H. Payne on October 24, 2017, Document No. 16. He then refers the matter to the Magistrate Judge in Minute Order 17 on October 24, 2017. The Petitioner then filed a Second Amended Petition, filed on November 3, 2017, Document No. 19, also requesting an Injunctive Order, Injunctive Relief. The Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery specific to jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 26 (b) (1) on January 11, 2018, Document No. 65 , which the Magistrate denied on January 31, 2018, Document No. 70. Due to a subsequent incident of victim/witness harassment and tampering, at the Petitioner’s workplace in Oklahoma from Defendant’s, the Ortiz filed another Motion for Injunctive Relief on March 27, 2018, the incident occurring at her workplace in Oklahoma on March 25, 2018, Document No. 88 with supporting audio evidence, (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, filed on April 20, 2018, Documents 101 and 102). In the audio evidence, the individual who contacted the Petitioner at the Petitioner’s workplace in Oklahoma attempts to persuade her to drop the lawsuit, and seek remedy through illegal means. He states he believed Defendant Perry and the Ortiz were in a consensual committed relationship. Petitioner vehemently denies having consented to any such thing. He then solicits prostitution, offering the Petitioner $5,000 to sleep with Defendant Perry, tells the Ortiz she is not seeing the “big picture”, but when asked to clarify the meaning of that comment states he cannot say because he is concerned the Ortiz is wearing a wire. He then offers to beat up Defendant Perry for the Ortiz to which she replies, “That is not how I roll.” This act constitutes, as a matter of law, witness/victim tampering, stalking and harassment and occurred in the forum state of Oklahoma. The District Judge denied the request for Injunctive relief and transferred the case to Texas. The certification was requested by the Petitioner, and denied as “MOOT”. Part of the requirements to obtain an Injunctive Order is that irreparable harm has occurred and is likely to occur again. The acts were criminal acts, have and continue to cause irreparable harm. Ortiz is in fear for her life, for obvious reasons and therefore suffers economic loss when Defendants contact her at her workplace causing any reasonable person to fear going to work. Defendant Perry attempted to murder the Ortiz at her workplace. All contact from him is unwanted, immoral, illegal, and due to prior threats being carried out, terrifies her as it would any reasonable prudent individual. Unlawful contact from Defendants are consistently made at the Ortiz’s workplace in Oklahoma.
- Due to subsequent acts causing injury as outlined herein, Ortiz withdrew consent to dismiss Defendant Roberson. His attorney requested Ortiz file a Motion to Dismiss in the transferred case in the District Court, Northern District of Texas to which the Petitioner declined consent. Defendant Roberson was then sued in State Court. Petitioner does not wish to dismiss Defendant Roberson from any suit at all, at this time. Prior consent was withdrawn. This case is under appeal currently. All events but for the planning, premeditation of the unlawful arrest were committed in OK, not TX and therefore all witnesses are in Oklahoma and the case should never have been transferred to TX. Judicial impropriety is currently under some scrutiny and is an area of focus currently.
- Ortiz was again approached at her workplace in Tulsa, Oklahoma, by a man identifying himself as Mickey James and a former officer in law enforcement. About a week after meeting the Ortiz, Mr James made a very concerning comment at her workplace to which she questioned in a text the following day, June 21, 2018 stating “about what you said last night, he cannot kill me without there being the same suspicion on him as we saw in the Condit/Levy case”. James returned the text by stating “but is it worth the risk. That is the question.” Why would anyone ever be asking that question about whether or not its work the risk of suspicion to kill another human being? He states she will never get justice and that he’d watched her from “behind the scenes” and signed a non disclosure agreement. This occurred in Oklahoma.
- Ortiz filed a state court claim, filed as CJ-2018-02775 against Defendants Perry, Powell, Burson, Roberson, and Bi-Centennial, Inc., for negligence, as that was the employer/workplace where the acts causing injury giving rise to this litigation occurred. Defendants removed to Federal Court, the case number 4:18-cv-00532-GKF-JFJ.
- Ortiz filed a Motion to Remand arguing the case does not meet the criteria required for removal as it lacks complete diversity. Two defendants are domiciled in Oklahoma. The case is currently sitting in Federal Court growing mold. In the Initial Petition and First Amended Petition, Ortiz is seeking an order of Protection and in compliance with aforementioned Oklahoma statute, filed a police report as is required by law. Ortiz has sought leave from the court to Amend her complaint to include breach of contract as Defendant Perry agreed never ever to contact Ortiz again as evidenced by the Bond Conditions. Also in this state case, currently removed to Federal Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, Ortiz seeks an order of Injunction due to continued acts by Defendants of ongoing stalking, harassment, witness/victim tampering outside of court as the original complaint requested an Order of Protection pursuant to domestic violence/stalking laws. – Update – case is going back to state court.
- Ortiz filed an email sent to her attorney in June, 2018 telling him her concerns about Defendant Powell continuing to seek her whereabouts. Ortiz requested Defendant’s attorneys restrain their clients from all contact, direct or indirect, with Petitioner. Ortiz supplied to the Court a copy of a letter from the Oklahoma Attorney General showing her participation in the address confidentiality program and a copy of her program card as referenced in the letter. In October, 2018, Petitioner received mail from Defendant Powell’s attorneys, not at the address Petitioner supplied to Defendants and the Court, but rather her legally protected address. No Defendants should have even been looking for the Ortiz much less breaching her protected address in attempt to make unlawful contact. The address confidentiality is issued under 22 OS §60.14. Ortiz is entitled, as a matter of law, to the benefits and protections of the state where she is domiciled, lives, works and pays taxes. Defendants are not entitled to violate these rights.
- Defendants continue to engage in unwanted contact, stalking and harassment, and have threatened to arrange a second false arrest, kill the Petitioner, cause job and income loss, intentionally, to cause the loss of her vehicle, and kidnap Ortiz. All are continued acts causing injury, outside of Court, and are criminal acts and violate the Ortiz substantive rights. Nobody in this country, where we share equally the rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness, land of the free, home of the brave, should have to live like this.
- Defendant Perry’s attorney requested in an email that he be included in emails to Petitioner’s Texas civil attorney, documenting his client’s ongoing threats. The emails he requested are no different than the email of October 29, 2015 and the text of January 4, 2016 stating Defendant Perry had made specific threats intending to injure the Petitioner. He then perpetrated a deliberate deception and fraud upon the Court claiming his client was being harassed. Ortiz was excluded from hearings and not allowed to make oral arguments shedding light on the matter. The court failed to due diligence and properly apply material facts, evidence and the law and as a result of the fraud, dismissed the case. It is upon that finality, Petitioner seeks appeal again on the transfer. The Writ of Mandamus was still pending in this Court during all of this.
- Ortiz requests this Court make the proper inferences of guilt, pursuant to Fed Civ Rules of Evidence 404 (b) (2), from the acts of Defendants including but not limited to acts which constitute obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence. Due to the fact that Defendants deliberately caused the loss of forensic evidence of poisoning, attempted murder and foul play cannot be ruled out.
- Defendant Burson gave a Sworn Affidavit before a Court of law, which was an intentionally, knowingly perjured in his intentional and malicious concealment of material facts that likely would have changed the outcome of the decision making body and a deliberate deception and fraud upon the Court. The material facts intentionally concealed were: 1) he failed to disclose that while the Ortiz complained of poisoning, she had never been tested to confirm or rule out poisoning. 2) the charges he sought were for filing a false police report and yet he failed to disclose there was no investigation required to make that determination, 3) There are no political rants by Ortiz anywhere on social media, emails or texts against Defendant Perry over a period of time of nearly a decade being there is no political issue causing the complaints of the Petitioner. Her complaints in every email, text, and post on social media is regarding his stalking going back to 2011, which is not part of his legislative duties. 4) she was required by law to file a police report when seeking a Protective Order as is stated clearly on the previously denied protective order. 5) Defendant Perry threatened to kill the Petitioner and/or arrange a false arrest and she told people via texts and emails before the threats were carried out. 6) He failed to disclose the material fact that his intent was actually to impede the police investigation in Tulsa where the crimes occurred, 7) Ortiz made multiple life altering decisions and changes to get away from Defendants, to avoid all contact and conflict with Defendants. Pursuant to US v Vreeland 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012); US v McNeil 362 F.3d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2004); and US v Strohm 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) the knowing, willful and malicious concealment of material facts that were likely to change the outcome of the decision making body does by law constitute “perjury” in violation of 18 USC §1623. Two material facts specifically that were likely to have changed the outcome of the jury who decided to indict Ortiz would be 1) there was no police investigation in fact, Defendants intentionally obstructed the police investigation in Tulsa to prevent her blood from being tested for poison and to prevent them from seeing Defendant Roberson’s texts and the video of the events at her workplace the weekend before. The knew she complained of being poisoned and intentionally impeded Tulsa PD from taking possession of the evidence. They intentionally interfered with the chain of custody of forensic evidence. Had the Grand Jury known this material fact, it is not likely they would have voted to indict on charges of a “false” police report. 2) The charges were “in retaliation of Defendant Perry on account of his job as a public servant” and yet Defendant Burson had not one political rant to submit to the Grand Jury as there simply are none. There has never been frustration with Perry on his job as a legislator, in fact, Ortiz discounts him as inconsequential one way or the other. She was actually a life long Republican and a search of FEC donations will show all her donations were to Republicans. She supported Perry until he began stalking her. It was due to his offensive behavior she withdrew her support. She never lived in his district, but lived in State Assemblyman John Frullo’s district who is also a conservative Republican. She had already left Lubbock when Perry ran for State Senate. Once she left the area and for sure the state, Perry’s political positions have zero bearing or influence on her life at all whatsoever. As it turns out, Oklahoma is also a very conservative Republican state. Stalking women is not any part of Perry’s job as a public servant or any part of his legislative duties. All her tweets, Facebook posts or private messages, emails, texts and so forth going back to 2011 are regarding Perry’s unwanted romantic advances, stalking and harassment which is a personal moral failure on his part, not part of his job as a public servant. Burson disclosed none of this to the Grand Jury all which are pertinent material facts. He also failed to disclose he had no jurisdiction to interfere or impede or by physical force, obstruct a police investigation in another state. The crime was committed in Tulsa and reported appropriately to Tulsa Police. In other words, Defendant Burson submitted a knowingly false statement before a Court and Grand Jury with intent to obstruct justice.
- Once in their custody, Defendants Powell and Burson allowed Ortiz to sit illegally detained for a month and a half knowing she had not committed any crime at all. They further violated Brady Rules (Brady v Maryland 373 US 83 (1963), requiring them to take her hair and blood to test for poisoning. They alleged she committed a crime, made her sit illegally detained in jail, smeared her mugshot everywhere on the basis that she lied about being poisoned and about who did the poisoning. Defendant Perry would never ever have missed that in fact he sits on the Board of Forensic Nurses Association. He never would have let that go in a million years. He was being accused of attempted murder, his weapon of choice being poison. Had he not poisoned Ortiz, he would have moved Heaven and Earth to get her tested, taken negative results to media with a statement saying “See! She lied. She is just making crap up. I have been falsely accused and here is the evidence of that.” Instead, he made sure she sat illegally detained for two months until the poison worked its way out of her system destroying the forensic evidence. As such, attempted murder and foul play cannot be ruled out. The emails referenced in Defendant Burson’s Sworn Affidavit also contained not one political rant at all and were in response to Ben Campbell’s threats to ruin her business after asking him to get Defendant Perry to stop making unwanted romantic advances and going into jealous rages in public. In fact, Ortiz has not been able to locate the emails but says if memory serves, she actually said “I am not going to be anyone’s damn mistress.” The other side needs to produce the actual emails Defendants intentionally misrepresented in Court. The matter was clearly personal and had nothing to do with Defendant Perry’s job as a public servant
- Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, 404 (b) (2), Ortiz asked the Court to draw inferences of guilt from the acts of Defendants.
- Perry has told people he wishes to speak with Ortiz, explain himself, and coerce, threaten, and bribe hoping she will change her testimony. This is clear witness/victim tampering and she will not be changing her testimony. He has told people in Oklahoma he believes they are in a relationship and is angry that Ortiz “won’t do what he tells her” and that he would make it worth her while. She has rejected him for nearly a decade and has never consented to be in any romantic relationship with Perry at all. At the end of 2012, beginning of 2013 she ended, or tried to end all forms of any kind of relationship. Ortiz, in all her actions and words have indicated over the years that she wants nothing at all to do with Mr Perry, does not want any contact with him at all whatsoever, and he is unable to get a grip on reality. She agreed to allow him to explain his criminal activity as long as its at the police station, without his attorney present, after he’s been Mirandized. There is no other scenario she would agree to speak to Defendant Perry or allow him anywhere near her, now or ever. In the audio with Pinto, Pinto clearly believed the two were in a relationship. No such thing exists. That is stereotypical stalker in that they suffer some type of delusion and believe there is a relationship when nothing like that exists to the victim. If Perry thinks there is a relationship, he needs to be admitted to a psych ward. He is all alone in that imaginary affair of his. John Hinkley Jr. did the same to actress Jodi Foster in creating a relationship in his mind with Ms Foster that did not exist to Ms Foster. Stalkers can become dangerous, as we saw with Hinkley and as Defendant Perry has shown already in that he has already mentally snapped once when attempting to murder Ortiz, and could snap again at any moment and try again. Ortiz said being stalked is like being raped every day and living with a gun to your head all the time never knowing what crazy thing the stalker will do next to cause some type of loss. Her psychologist, Dr. Russell said Defendant Perry intentionally causes loss trying her attention. She states “What you’ve got with Charles is sometimes he escalates more than you can ignore.” That conversation is available on the You Tube Channel, link above. He cannot get her attention any other way but by causing terror, loss, injury, and some type of hardship she is forced to address.
- There is a charge for murder in Oklahoma associated with “depraved indifference to human life” when an individual knows they are placing another person in danger. If that person is killed as a result, the person fails to act appropriately and causes the death of another, they can be charged with murder in the state of Oklahoma. The instructions state ”
You are further instructed that a person evinces a “depraved mind” when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another.
You are further instructed that “imminently dangerous conduct” means conduct that creates what a reasonable person would realize as an immediate and extremely high degree of risk of death to another person.” When an individual knows a murder was already attempted once, and they place that person in a situation where an attempt can occur again or foul play can be carried out, they can in fact be charged with murder in showing a reckless disregard and total indifference to the life and safety of another human being. Being that Perry mentally snapped and tried once before, what is to stop him from trying again? Mr James said in his texts in June, 2018 they were still asking the question as to whether or not its worth the risk of suspicion on Perry to try again to kill her. Why would anyone at all be asking that question?
Oklahoma Jury Instructions – Depraved Indifference – Murder Charge
Report on Incidents of Homicide Associated With Stalking
Victims Of Crime – National Stalking Resource Center
All facebook messages, emails, texts, court documents and audio evidence filed with the court and referenced herein in support of Ortiz’s claims is linked above.
See FACEBOOK Page For More Information
Texas Senator Charles Perry Stalking Case 
6 thoughts on “Timeline with Evidence Filed in Oklahoma Law Suit In Ortiz v Perry et al”