Sei sulla pagina 1di 48

1 2 3 4

Anshu Pathak 25517 Los Cabos Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92551 Phone 951-657-7299 - Fax 951-657-6599 E-Mail:anshupathak@aol.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

) ) Plaintiff. ) ) OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL INC, ) ) A Nebraska Corporation, ) and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) A ANSHU PATHAK, an individual

Case No. CIVIL COMPLAINTFOR (1) AN INDEPENDENT ACTION TO RELEIVE PLAINTIFF FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER OR PROCEEDING UNDER F.R.C.P. 60 (d) (1)FOR CASE # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx) [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]

INTRODUCTIONTO FRAUD ON THE COURT After 7 years documents and affidavits are available to prove "Fraud on the District court" in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). Plaintiff has filed this action to relieve him from Judgment obtained by Fraud on the court under F.R.C.P. 60 (d) (1) and (3). [Exhibit A] Plaintiff was using the words, Omaha Beef, Triple Trimmed Filet Mignon and Steak of the Month Club on his web site, www.omahabeef.com since February 13, 1999. Defendant Omaha was unable to obtain Trademarks for the word, TRIPLE-TRIMMED, Steak of the Month and "Omaha Steaks" from United States Patent and Trademark Office due to existence of Plaintiffs on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. Defendant Omaha and their attorneys made a Fraud on the Court in following pattern to close down Plaintiffs business to obtain the Trademarks from United States Patent and Trademark Office and domain names from Plaintiff.
Page | 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(a) Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff with the help of filing False evidence with the court to influence the District Court to take a wrong decision to proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit B and C] (b) As per their scheme, attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116 to influence the court to believe that their client Defendant Omaha Steaks International Inc. owned five [5] Trademarks on February 27, 2003. [Exhibit C] (c) As per their scheme, attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey did not serve Plaintiff with Summons, complaint, and Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Plaintiff before the hearing date of June 9,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2003. (d) As per their scheme, on June 9 2003, attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey obtained Preliminary Injunction by filing fraudulent proof of services with the District Court against Plaintiff. [ Exhibits K,L,M,N and O] (e) As per their scheme, on June 17 2003, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey did not mail, court order obtained on June 9, 2003 to Plaintiff. [Exhibit O] (f) As per their scheme, on or around July 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II approached Yahoo Inc. and closed down Plaintiffs on-line retail stores so Defendant can obtain the Trademarks. (g) Defendant Omaha obtained Trademark, TRIPLE-TRIMMED on October 11, 2005. [Exhibit D] (h) Defendant Omaha obtained Trademark, Steak of the month on February 14, 2006 and filed lawsuit against Plaintiff to take away his domain name wwwsteakofthemonthclub.com. [Exhibit Q] (i) Defendant Omaha obtained Trademark for Omaha Steaks for online retail store on April 13, 2010. [Exhibit J] (j) Defendant Omaha Steaks International Inc. would not have obtained Trademark for the word TRIPLE-TRIMMED, Steak of the month and Omaha Steaks from
Page | 2

United States Patent and Trademark Office for their on-line retail store without
1

wiping out the web presence of Plaintiffs on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

in 2003. On February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark for Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products to file a Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). [Exhibits B, I and J] B APPLICABLE LAW F.R.C.P. 60 (d) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (d) does not limit a court's power to: (1) Entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. C

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Anshu Pathak is an individual, (hereinafter "ANSHU") is operating his on-line retail stores from City of Perris, County of Riverside, State of California. 2. Defendant Omaha Steaks International Inc; (hereinafter "OMAHA") is a privately held Nebraska Corporation. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that OMAHA and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the wrongs alleged herein, and that at all times referenced each was the agent and servant of the other Defendants, whom obtained financial benefit from the Defendants acts and omissions, and each was acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that OMAHAand DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, had a non-delegable duty to prevent or cure such acts and the behavior described herein, which duty OMAHA and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, failed and/or refused to perform. 5. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to add cause of actions against Defendant Omaha Steaks and others after proper discovery is done and DOES 1 through 10 after their true names and capacities are ascertained.
Page | 3

D
1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

6. This court has jurisdiction in this matter as Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx) was filed in the State of California. FRAUD ON THE COURT BY ATTORNEYS Fraud 1 2 3 4 5 Exhibit D E F G H Serial # 76459986 78207792 78207757 75634292 73616747 False Evidence filed by Attorneys to proceed with Trademark Infringement Lawsuit against Plaintiff Defendant did not own Trademark on 2/27/2003 Defendant did not own Trademark on 2/27/2003 Defendant did not own Trademark on 2/27/2003 Defendant was not protected by Trademark on 2/27/2003 Defendant was not protected by Trademark on 2/27/2003

Fraud

Exhibit # U K L M N O

Date of Mailing 2/27/2003 4/28/2003 4/30/2003 5/16/2003 6/3/2003 6/17/2003

6
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Mailing Address as per Proof of Service filed by Attorneys to obtain Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. 331 Navajo Spring Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765

7 8 9 10 11

Fraud

Exhibit

Date Of Mailing

Date Of Filing with the Court

Documents as per Proof of Service To obtainPreliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. Cease and Desist letter y Defendant filed the lawsuit against Plaintiff also on 2/27/2003. y By First Class U.S. Mail y Mailed to 331 Navajo Spring Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig Huber and Todd Simon in support
Page | 4

6
21 22 23 24 25

2/27/2003

4/28/2003

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

4/30/2003

5/16/2003

10

6/3/2003

By First Class U.S. Mail Mailed to - 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction y By First Class U.S. Mail y Mailed to - 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 6/6/2003* Proof of Service for Summons, Complaint, Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig Huber and Todd Simon in support and Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction y By Certified Mail* y Tracking Number Not Provided* y Signature Not Provided* y Mailed to - 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123 y Notice of Non Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction y By First Class U.S. Mail y Mailed to - 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 y y

11

6/17/2003

Fraud Exhibit # Date of Mailing

Documents as per Proof of Service To obtain Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. y y

10

5/16/2003* Summons, Complaint, Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig Huber and Todd Simon in support and Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction y Proof of Service - Summons and Complaint filed on June 3, 2003 y By Certified Mail y Tracking Number Not Provided y Signature Not Provided 6/3/2003* Notice of Non Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion for
Page | 5

1 2 3

11

6/17/2003

Preliminary Injunction y By First Class U.S. Mail y By First Class U.S. Mail

FRAUD ON THE COURT #1


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

7. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file False evidence with the court to influence the Court to take a wrong decision and proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for the wordTRIPLE-TRIMMED, Serial Number 76459986, Trademark Registration Number 3005347. [Exhibit D] 8. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth that their client Defendant Omaha had filed a Trademark application on October 21, 2002 for the word, TRIPLETRIMMED.[Exhibit D] 9. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that United States Patent and Trademark Office has not issued Trademark Registration Number for the word, TRIPLE-TRIMMED on or before February 27, 2003. [Exhibit D] 10. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 76459986 is not the Trademark Registration Number for the word, TRIPLE-TRIMMED. [Exhibit D] 11. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 76459986 is the serial number for the pending Trademark Application for the word, TRIPLE-TRIMMED. [Exhibit D] 12. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that there is a difference between Trademark serial number and Trademark Registration Number. 13. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha

Page | 6

cannot file Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for their pending Trademark
1

application for, TRIPLE-TRIMMED. Serial Number. 76459986. [Exhibit D]


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14. On April 9, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116. [Exhibit C] 15. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated Serial Number 76459986 as Trademark Registration number 76459986 for TRIPLE-TRIMMED to influence the District Court to believe that their client in fact owned the Trademark registration number before filing the lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 16. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha had filed Trademark application for, TRIPLE-TRIMMEDon October 21, 2002. [Exhibit D] 17. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha was not issued Trademark for the word, TRIPLE-TRIMMEDon October 21, 2002. [Exhibit D] 18. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated October 21, 2002 as Date of Trademark in the document filed by them with the District Court to influence the District Court to believe thatTrademark was issued to their client on October 21, 2002. [Exhibit C, Item # 1] 19. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the fact when they filed False Evidence on April 9, 2003 with the District Court that their client, Defendant Omaha did not own the Trademark for TRIPLE-TRIMMED, on April 9, 2003. [Exhibit C - Serial Number76459986] 20. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 21. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit C] 22. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False
Page | 7

Documents. [Exhibit C]
1

23. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit C] 24. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. 25. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation.[Exhibit C]

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

26. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit C] 27. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 28. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 29. The truth is, on July 19, 2005 Defendant Omaha was issued Trademark for word mark, TRIPLE-TRIMMED [Exhibit D] 30. United States Patent and Trademark Office issues Trademarks under International Class 29 for Meat and Processed Foods 31. United States Patent and Trademark Office issues Trademarks under International Class 35 for on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products.

24 25

Page | 8

32. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the
1

fact that their Defendant Omaha applied Trademark, TRIPLE-TRIMMED under


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

International Class 029 for meats and processed foods. [Exhibit D] 33. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the fact that their client Defendant Omaha did not apply Trademark, TRIPLETRIMMED under International Class 035 for on-line retail store services food and food related products. 34. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Anshu was operating on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products. [www.omahabeef.com] 35. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that on February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark for Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store services to file a

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). 36. As per their scheme to induce the court to take wrong decision, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mention Trademark Registration Numbers infringed by Plaintiff in their complaint.[Exhibit B] 37. The truth is, after 6 years on May 7, 2009 Defendant Omaha filed the Trademark application for the word mark Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products. [Exhibit I] 38. The truth is, after 7 years on April 13, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark office issued Trademark for Omaha Steaks to Defendant Omaha for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit J] FRAUD ON THE COURT #2

21 22 23 24 25

39. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file False evidence with the court to influence the Court to take a wrong decision and proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for the wordPREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917, Serial Number 78207792,Trademark Registration Number 2840193. [Exhibit E] 40. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A
Page | 9

Brackey II, were aware of the truth that their client Defendant Omaha had filed a
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

Trademark application on January 28, 2003 for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917.[Exhibit E] 41. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that United States Patent and Trademark Office has not issued Trademark Registration Number for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917on or before February 27, 2003. [Exhibit E] 42. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 78207792 is not the Trademark Registration Number for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917. [Exhibit E] 43. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 78207792 is the serial number for the pending Trademark Application for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917. [Exhibit E] 44. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that there is a difference between Trademark serial number and Trademark Registration Number. 45. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha cannot file Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for their pending Trademark application for, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917. Serial Number. 78207792. [Exhibit E] 46. On April 9, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116. [Exhibit C] 47. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated Serial Number 78207792 as Trademark Registration number 78207792for PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917 to influence the District Court to believe that
Page | 10

their client in fact owned the Trademark registration number before filing the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 48. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha had filed Trademark application for, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917 on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit E] 49. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha was not issued Trademark for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917 on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit E] 50. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated October 21, 2002 as Date of Trademark in the document filed by them with the District Court to influence the District Court to believe that Trademark was issued to their client on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit C, Item # 2] 51. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the fact when they filed False Evidence on April 9, 2003 with the District Court that their client, Defendant Omaha did not own the Trademark for PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917, on April 9, 2003. [Exhibit C - Serial Number 78207792] 52. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 53. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit C] 54. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit C] 55. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly

22 23 24 25

participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit C] 56. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make
Page | 11

known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the
1

United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

years of prison. 57. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation.[Exhibit C] 58. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit C] 59. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 60. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 61. The truth is, on May 11, 2004 Defendant Omaha was issued Trademark for word mark, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS SINCE 1917 [Exhibit E] 62. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Anshu was operating on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products. [www.omahabeef.com] 63. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that on February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark for Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store services to file a Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). 64. As per their scheme to induce the court to take wrong decision, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mention Trademark Registration

24 25

Numbers infringed by Plaintiff in their complaint.[Exhibit B]

Page | 12

65. The truth is, after 6 years on May 7, 2009 Defendant Omaha filed the Trademark
1

application for the word mark Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store featuring food and
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

food related products. [Exhibit I] 66. The truth is, after 7 years on April 13, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark office issued Trademark for Omaha Steaks to Defendant Omaha for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit J] FRAUD ON THE COURT #3 67. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file False evidence with the court to influence the Court to take a wrong decision and proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for the wordPREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES, Serial Number 78207757, Trademark Registration Number 2893159. [Exhibit F] 68. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth that their client Defendant Omaha had filed a Trademark application on January 28, 2003 for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES.[Exhibit F] 69. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that United States Patent and Trademark Office has not issued Trademark Registration Number for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORESon or before February 27, 2003. [Exhibit F] 70. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 78207757 is not the Trademark Registration Number for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES. [Exhibit F] 71. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that # 78207757 is the serial number for the pending Trademark Application for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES. [Exhibit F] 72. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A
Page | 13

Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and
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

combined experience that there is a difference between Trademark serial number and Trademark Registration Number. 73. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha cannot file Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for their pending Trademark application for, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES. Serial Number. 78207757. [Exhibit F] 74. On April 9, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116. [Exhibit C] 75. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated Serial Number 78207757 as Trademark Registration number 78207757for PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES to influence the District Court to believe that their client in fact owned the Trademark registration number before filing the lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 76. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha had filed Trademark application for, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit F] 77. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha was not issued Trademark for the word, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit F] 78. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally stated October 21, 2002 as Date of Trademark in the document filed by them with the District Court to influence the District Court to believe that Trademark was issued to their client on January 28, 2003. [Exhibit C, Item # 3] 79. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the fact when they filed False Evidence on April 9, 2003 with the District Court that their client, Defendant Omaha did not own the Trademark for PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES,
Page | 14

on April 9, 2003. [Exhibit C - Serial Number 78207757]


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

80. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 81. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit C] 82. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit C] 83. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit C] 84. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. 85. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the attorneys who signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation.[Exhibit C] 86. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit C] 87. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store,

21 22 23 24 25

www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 88. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C]

Page | 15

89. The truth is, on October 12, 2004 Defendant Omaha was issued Trademark for word
1

mark, PREMIUM HEARTLAND QUALITY OMAHA STEAKS STORES


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[Exhibit E] 90. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Anshu was operating on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products. [www.omahabeef.com] 91. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that on February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark for Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store services to file a Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). 92. As per their scheme to induce the court to take wrong decision, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mention Trademark Registration

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Numbers infringed by Plaintiff in their complaint.[Exhibit B] 93. The truth is, after 6 years on May 7, 2009 Defendant Omaha filed the Trademark application for the word mark Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products. [Exhibit I] 94. The truth is, after 7 years on April 13, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark office issued Trademark for Omaha Steaks to Defendant Omaha for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit J] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 4 95. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file False evidence with the court to influence the Court to take a wrong decision and proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for the Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM, Serial Number 75634292, Trademark Registration Number 2414603. [Exhibit G] 96. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth that their client Defendant Omaha had filed a Trademark application on February 8, 1999 for the word, OMAHASTEAKS.COMin International Class 41 to provide information in the field of food and food preparation by means of a global computer network. [Exhibit G]
Page | 16

97. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware
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

of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that United States Patent and Trademark Office has not issued Trademark Registration Number for the word, OMAHASTEAKS.COM for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit G] 98. On February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that Plaintiff was not using the word, OMAHASTEAKS.COMas meta tags on his web site or was not placing bids on pay per clicks for the key word OMAHASTEAKS.COM on any search engines. [Exhibit B] 99. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, has not filed any documents or any evidences in their complaint to prove that Plaintiff was using the word,OMAHASTEAKS.COM as meta tags on his web site and was placing bids on pay per clicks for the key word OMAHASTEAKS.COM on search engines.[Exhibit B] 100. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Plaintiff did not infringe Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM. [Exhibit G] 101. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were aware of

the truth with their professional knowledge of law and experience that Defendant Omaha cannot file Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM. [Exhibit G] 102. On April 9, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116. [Exhibit C] 103. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas

A Brackey II, intentionally included Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM in the document filed by them with the District Court to influence the District Court to believe that Trademark Serial Number 75634292 was issued for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products. [Exhibit C, Item # 4] 104. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, intentionally included Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM in
Page | 17

the document filed by them with the District Court to influence the District Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

to believe that Plaintiff infringed Trademark Serial Number 75634292.[Exhibit C, Item # 4 - Serial Number 75634292] 105. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 106. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit C, Item # 4 - Serial Number 75634292] 107. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit C, Item # 4 - Serial Number 75634292] 108. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit C, Item # 4 - Serial Number 75634292] 109. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. [Exhibit C, Item # 4 - Serial Number 75634292] 110. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the

attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation. [Exhibit C] 111. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber,

Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit C] 112. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store,
25

www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B]
Page | 18

113.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 114. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and

Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Anshu was operating on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products. [www.omahabeef.com] 115. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and

Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that on February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark OMAHASTEAKS.COM for on-line retail store services to file a Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). 116. As per their scheme, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Brackey II did not mention Trademark Registration Numbers infringed by Plaintiff in their complaint.[Exhibit B] 117. The truth is, after 6 years on May 7, 2009 Defendant Omaha filed the Trademark

application for the word mark Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products. [Exhibit I] 118. The truth is, after 7 years on April 13, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark

office issued Trademark for Omaha Steaks to Defendant Omaha for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit J] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 5 119. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made a scheme to file False evidence with the court to influence the Court to take a wrong decision and proceed with Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for the word OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802. [Exhibit H] 120. On February 27, 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that their client Defendant Omaha had applied Trademark for the word OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802 under International Class 42 for retail
Page | 19

mail order and retail food store services on August 25, 1986. [Exhibit H]
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

121.

On February 27, 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that their client Defendant Omaha had not applied Trademark for the word OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802 under International Class 42 for on-line retail store services on August 25, 1986. [Exhibit H] 122. On February 27, 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that their client Defendant Omaha did not own on-line retail store on August 25, 1986. [Exhibit H] 123. On February 27, 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that their client Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark protection for the word OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802 under International Class 35 for on-line retail store services featuring food and food related items. [Exhibit H] 124. The truth is, on May 7, 2009 Defendant Omaha filed the Trademark application for the word mark Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products. [Exhibit I] 125. The truth is, on April 13, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark office issued

Trademark for Omaha Steaks to Defendant Omaha for on-line retail store featuring food and food related products.[Exhibit J] 126. On February 27, 2003 attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey II, were aware of the truth with their professional knowledge of law and combined experience that their client Defendant Omaha cannot file law suit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com based on Trademark OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802 under International Class 35 for on-line retail store services featuring food and food related items for his on-line . [Exhibit H] 127. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that Plaintiff Anshu was operating on-line retail store services featuring food and food related products. [www.omahabeef.com]
Page | 20

128.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II and

Defendant Omaha were aware of the fact that on February 27, 2003 Defendant Omaha was not having Trademark for Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store services to file a Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs on-line retail store www.omahabeef.com in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx). 129. As per their scheme to induce the court to take wrong decision, Attorneys Craig

Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mention Trademark Registration Numbers infringed by Plaintiff in their complaint.[Exhibit B] 130. On April 9, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II filed a document in compliance with 35 290 and or 15 U.S.C. 1116. [Exhibit C] 131. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, filed False Evidence with the District Court stating Serial Number 73616747 was infringed by Plaintiff to influence the District Court to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] 132. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II filed False Evidence with the District Court stating Serial Number 73616747 was infringed by Plaintiff to influence the District Court to believe that Trademark OMAHA STEAKS, Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802 was issued under International Class 35 for on-line retail store services featuring food and food related items. [Exhibit C] 133. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 134. 135. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit C] also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit C] 136. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge

25

that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit C]


Page | 21

137.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in

violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. 138. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the

attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation.[Exhibit C] 139. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber,

Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit C]
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

140.

District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 141. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Trademark Infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit C] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 6 142. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with their combined legal experience of many years, made a plan and a scheme to file False Evidence to obtain preliminary injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit U] 143. As per their scheme, Attorney Craig Huber filedFalse Document with

the District Court to influence the District Court to believe that Cease and Desist letter was mailed to Plaintiff on February 27, 2003 at 331 Navajo Spring Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765to proceed with preliminary injunction against Plaintiff.[Exhibit U]

Page | 22

144.
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

Attorney Craig Huber had no good faith intention to mail the letter to

Plaintiff [Exhibit U] as the lawsuit was filed against the Plaintiff also on the same day of February 27, 2003. [Exhibit B] 145. Plaintiff did not reside on February 27, 2003 at 331 Navajo Spring Road,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 146. In 2003, Plaintiff was residing at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV

89123. Plaintiff had filed Trademark applications in 2003 from Las Vegas NV.[Exhibits W and X] 147. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II,

officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 148. 149. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit U] also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit U] 150. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit U] 151. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in

violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. 152. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the

attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation.[Exhibit U]

Page | 23

153.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber,

Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit U] 154. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 155. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit U] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 7 156. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with their combined legal experience of many years, made a plan and a scheme to file False Evidence to obtain preliminary injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit K] 157. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, filed

False Evidence with the District court on April 30, 2003to influence the District Court to believe that Plaintiff was served with Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A. Huber and Todd Simon in Support to proceed with preliminary

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit K] 158. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, with their combined legal experience of many years, filed a proof of service and claimed that, Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A. Huber and Todd Simon in Support was mailed to Plaintiff by First Class US Mail to Plaintiff on April 29, 2003 at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. [Exhibit K] 159. On April 29, 2003 Plaintiff did not reside at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond

Bar, CA 91765. On April 29, 2003.

Page | 24

160.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

In 2003, Plaintiff was residing at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV

89123. Plaintiff had filed Trademark applications in 2003 from Las Vegas NV.[Exhibits W and X] 161. As per thescheme ofAttorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, with their combined legal experience of many years,Plaintiff was not served with Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A. Huber and Todd Simon in Support by U.S. Mail. [Exhibit K] 162. As per the scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, Defendant Omaha obtained Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff on June 9, 2003. [Exhibit K] 163. As per the scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, Plaintiffs on-line store was closed down on or around July 2003. [Exhibit K] 164.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II,

officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 165. 166. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit K] also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit K] 167. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit K] 168. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in

violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison.

Page | 25

169.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the

attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation. [Exhibit K] 170. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber,

Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit K] 171. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 172. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with
11 12 13 14 15

Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit K] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 8 173. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, officers of the court, with their combined legal experience of many years, made a plan and a scheme to file False Evidence to obtain preliminary injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit L]

16

174.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, filed

False Evidence with the District court on April 30, 2003 to influence the District Court to believe that Plaintiff was served with Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction to proceed with preliminary injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit L] 175. As per their scheme Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, with their combined legal experience of many years, filed a proof of service and claimed that, Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction was mailed to Plaintiff by First Class US Mail to Plaintiff on April 30, 2003 at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. [Exhibit L] 176. On April 29, 2003 Plaintiff did not reside at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond

Bar, CA 91765. On April 29, 2003.


Page | 26

177.
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

In 2003, Plaintiff was residing at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV

89123. Plaintiff had filed Trademark applications in 2003 from Las Vegas NV.[Exhibits W and X] 178. As per the scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, with their combined legal experience of many years, Plaintiff was not served with Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction by U.S. Mail. [Exhibit L] 179. As per the scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, Defendant Omaha obtained Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff on June 9, 2003. [Exhibit L] 180. As per the scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

Brackey II, Plaintiffs on-line store was closed down on or around July 2003. [Exhibit L] 181. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II,

officers of the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lied to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 182. 183. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 for filing False evidence with the Federal Court. [Exhibit L] also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 Uttering Forged Documents; False Documents. [Exhibit L] 184. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly participated in committing a felony under 831.02, as they were having full knowledge that the documents filed by them are confirmed falsified. [Exhibit L] 185. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are also in

violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 Misprision. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison.

Page | 27

186.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are the

attorneyswho signed off on the fraudulent documents in the Federal Court and took affirmative steps to conceal the truth from the Court by way of misrepresentation. [Exhibit L] 187. At the time these False Evidences were filed by Attorneys Craig Huber,

Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, District court was ignorant of the Falsity of Documents and believed them to be true. [Exhibit L] 188. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 189. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey IIs secret intention. In reliance on these False Evidence District Court was induced to proceed with
11 12 13 14 15

Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit L] FRAUD ON THE COURT # 9 190. On June 6, 2003 Law Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP filed, Proof of Service for Summons and Complaint served to Plaintiff by Certified Mail. [Exhibit M] 191. Law Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP claimed that Summons,

Complaint, Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum


16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A Huber and Todd Simon in Support; Notice of Date Change for Omahas Motion for Preliminary Injunction were mailed to Plaintiff on May 16, 2003 by Certified Mail at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123. [Exhibit M] 192. On May 16, 2003 Anshu Pathak was residing at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas,

NV 89123. [Exhibits W and X] 193. Plaintiff had filed a Trademark application from Las Vegas on May 17, 2003.

[Exhibit W] 194. Law Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP did not provide documents

required as per Proof of Service to District Court, paragraph 4 (g) (a) Signed Return Receipt (b) Other Evidence of Actual Receipt of Person Served
Page | 28

(c) Tracking Number of Certified Mail


1

[Exhibit M, Page 2 of 3]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

195.

Law Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP did not mailCertified Mail to

Plaintiff as per the Proof of Service filed with the Federal Court. [Exhibit M] 196. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made

a scheme to file False evidence [Exhibit M] with the court to influence the Court to take awrong decision and proceed with Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff on June 9, 2003. 197. Plaintiff had filed Trademark application on May 17, 2003 with United States Patent and Trademark Office with his Las Vegas address which is a public record. [Exhibit W] 198. 199. 200. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 10 201. On June 3, 2003 Law Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP filed Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction with the District Court. [Exhibit N] 202. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, filed proof of

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

service and claimed that on June 3, 2003 Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction was mailed to Anshu Pathak at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.[Exhibit N] 203. On June 3, 2003 Plaintiff was not residing at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond

Bar, CA 91765. On June 3, 2003 Plaintiff was residing at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123. [Exhibits W and X] 204. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made

a scheme to file False evidence [Exhibit N] with the court to influence the Court to take awrong decision and proceed with Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff on June 9, 2003. 205. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, did not servePlaintiff with Summons, Complaint and Motion for Preliminary
Page | 29

Injunction as per the "Proof of Services" filed by their office. [Exhibits K, L, M


1

and N]
2

206.
3

207.
4

208.
5

209.
6

210.
7

211.
8

212.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

FRAUD ON THE COURT # 11 As per the court records, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A

213.

Brackey II, claimed that [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PREMILINARY INJUNCTION was mailed to Plaintiff on June 17, 2003 by US Mail at 24453 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. [Exhibit O] 214. As per the malicious illegal scheme of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund

and Thomas A Brackey II, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PREMILINARY INJUNCTION was not mailed to Plaintiff on June 17, 2003 at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123. [Exhibit O] 215. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mail

Court Order related to Preliminary Injunction to Plaintiff at his Las Vegas address, so
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Plaintiff cannot file a motion to vacate the Preliminary injunction. [Exhibit O] 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 12

Page | 30

221.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Defendant Omaha did not file a lawsuit against Plaintiff to transfer ownership of

Plaintiffs domain name, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B] 222. District Court did not issue court order to transfer Plaintiffs domain name,

omahabeef.com to Defendant "Omaha" in 2004.[Exhibit A] 223. Defendant "Omaha" transferred Plaintiffs domain name, omahabeef.com to

their ownership without court order. [Exhibit R] 224. Defendant Omaha made false statements through their counsels Attorneys Craig

Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II to Plaintiffs domain managing company that Defendant has court order to transfer ownership of Plaintiffs domain name. [www.omahabeef.com.] 225. Defendant Omaha made false statements to material fact that Defendant has

court order to transfer ownership of Plaintiffs domain name. [www.omahabeef.com.] 226.


11 12 13 14 15

Defendant Omaha made false statements with intent to deceive Plaintiff by taking

away his domain name without court order. [www.omahabeef.com.] 227. Plaintiffs domain managing company relied on Defendants statement and

transferred ownership of Plaintiffs domain name to Defendant without court order. 228. Plaintiff was injured financially due to the fraud, misrepresentation and

misconduct of Defendant. 229.


16

230.
17

231.
18

232.
19

233.
20

234.
21

235.
22

236.
23 24 25

FRAUD ON THE COURT # 13

237. 238. 239.


Page | 31

240.
1

241.
2 3 4 5 6 7

242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 14

248.
9

249.
10

250.
11

251.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FRAUD ON THE COURT # 15

252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 17 FRAUD ON THE COURT # 16

Page | 32

266.
1

267.
2 3 4 5 6

268. 269. 270. 271. 272. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 18

273.
8

274.
9

275.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FRAUD ON THE COURT # 19

276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. FRAUD ON THE COURT # 21 FRAUD ON THE COURT # 20

Page | 33

292.
1 2 3 4

FRAUD ON THE COURT # 22

293. 294. 295. 296.

297.
6

298.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II,

officers of the court, with their combined legal experience of many years, made a plan and a scheme to file False Evidence to misguide the court to obtain the Preliminary Injunction against Plaintiff without mailing the documents serving to Plaintiff. [Exhibit U] 299. All the Proof of Serviceswere signed by Vanessa V. Brown, employeeof Law

Office of Freund Brackey & Blakely LLP. [Exhibits K, L, M and N] 300. Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction was scheduled to be

heard on June 9, 2003. [Exhibit K] 301. Plaintiff was not served with Summons and Complaint on or before June 9, 2003.

[Exhibit B] 302. Plaintiff was not served with Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary

Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A. Huber


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and Todd Simon in Support on or before June 9, 2003. . [Exhibit K] 303. Plaintiff was not served with Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for

Preliminary Injunction on or before June 9, 2003. [Exhibit L] 304. In Fact, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, made

a plan and a scheme to influence the District Court by filing series of False Evidences and made a FRAUD ON THE COURT. [Exhibit M] 305. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II knowingly

made misrepresentation to influence the court to believe that Anshu Pathak was served with (a) Summons, (b) Complaint, (c) Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (d) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (e) Declaration of Craig A Huber and Todd Simon in Support; (f) Notice of Date Change for Plaintiffs Motion for
Page | 34

Preliminary Injunction by Certified Mail at 7474 Puritan Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123 on
1

May 16, 2003. [Exhibit M]


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

306.

In Fact, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, did

not serve "summons and complaint" to Plaintiff before the hearing date of Preliminary injunction. [June 9, 2003] but influenced the Federal Court by filing a perjured proof of service and made a FRAUD ON THE COURT. [Exhibit M] 307. In Fact, Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, did

not serve "Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig A Huber and Todd Simon in Support; Notice of Date Change for Omahas Motion for Preliminary Injunction" to Plaintiff before the hearing date of Preliminary injunction. [June 9, 2003] but influenced the Federal Court by filing False Evidences and made a FRAUD ON THE COURT. [Exhibit M] 308. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, influenced

11 12 13 14

the Federal Court by filing a perjured proof of service and obtained "preliminary injunction against Plaintiff and made a FRAUD ON THE COURT. [Exhibit O] UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO 42 TRADEMARKS FILED BY DEFENDANT "OMAHA" IN JULY 1999 309. Plaintiff was having on-line retail store, [www.omahabeef.com] selling food and

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

food related products since February 13, 1999. 310. Defendant Omaha filed an application for 42 Trademarks for on-line retail store in

1999 for food and food related products under International Class 035. [Exhibit P] 311. Defendant Omaha Steaks claimed in their lawsuit against Plaintiff that the word,

Omaha Steaks and Omaha Beef are similar and can confuse the customers. [Exhibit B] 312. Defendant Omaha did not file Trademark application for the word mark, Omaha

Steaks in 1999 for on-line retail store for food and food related products. [Exhibit P] 313. Defendant Omaha did not file the Trademark application for the word mark

Omaha Steaks for on-line retail store for food and food related products due the existence of Plaintiffs on-line retail store named as Omaha Beef.
24 25

314.

Defendant Omaha claimed in their lawsuit against Plaintiff that they both offer

similar products to consumers through their on-line retail stores.[Exhibit B]


Page | 35

315.
1 2 3 4 5

Defendant Omaha and Plaintiff were offering similar food products in the same

channel of commerce [Internet] through their respective on-line retail stores. 316. United States Patent and Trademark Office do not issue Trademarks to similar

words to avoid confusion in the same industry and same channel of commerce. UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO "OMAHA BEEF COMPANY" SINCE 1881. 317. Defendant Omaha Steaks claimed in their lawsuit against Plaintiff that the word,

6 7 8 9 10

Omaha Steaks and Omaha Beef are similar and can confuse the customers. [ExhibitB] 318. 319. Defendant Omaha filed a lawsuit against Omaha Beef Company Inc. [Exhibit B] Defendant Omaha is aware of the fact that Omaha Beef Company is doing

business in State of CT since 1881. [www.omahabeefcompany.com] [EXHIBIT S] 320.


11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Omaha Beef Company offers steaks to public through their on-line retail store,

www.omahabeefcompany.com. [EXHIBIT T] 321. In fact, Defendant Omaha did not file the lawsuit against Omaha Beef Company

for Trademark Infringement for using the word, "Omaha Beef". [www.omahabeefcompany.com] [EXHIBITS S and T] 322. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were

misguiding the Federal Court by stating that they mailed documents to Omaha Beef Company in State of CT. [Exhibits L, N, O and other Proof of Services] 323. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were

misguiding the Federal Court by stating that they mailed "NOTICE OF DATE CHANGE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION" to Omaha Beef Company in State of CT. [Exhibit L] 324. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II were

misguiding the Federal Court by stating that they mailed "NOTICE OF NONOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION" to Omaha Beef Company in State of CT. [Exhibit N] UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO "STEAK OF THE MONTH"

24 25

325.

In 2003, Defendant Omaha was aware of the fact that Plaintiff was offering

Steak of the month to the public through his on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com.
Page | 36

326.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In 2003 Defendant Omaha filed the lawsuit against Plaintiff to close down his on-

line retail store, www.omahabeef.com which was offering Steak of the month club. [Exhibit B] 327. 328. Plaintiff owned the domain name, steak of the month club.com since 1999. Plaintiff had forwarded his domain name, steak of the month club.com on his

on-line retail store, omahabeef.com 329. In 2003, Todd Simon filed an affidavit to obtain preliminary injunction in Case

No. 03-1401 RSWL (RZx) 330. In 2003, Todd Simon stated in his affidavit in Case Number 03-1401 that Plaintiff

is offering Steak of the month club on his on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. 331. In 2002, Defendant Omaha concealed the truth to United States Patent and

Trademark Office that third parties are using the word, steak of the month on the internet.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

332.

In 2003, Fred Simon, concealed the truth to United States Patent and Trademark

Office that third parties are using the word, steak of the month on the internet. 333. On December 11, 2002, at the time Frederick J.Simon verified the application for

registration of Steak of the month as Defendants trademark knew that others had the right to use this word in commerce for steaks, meats and beef. His statement in the declaration is a misrepresentation of fact as distinguished from the mere expression of an opinion. Bart Schwartz Int'l Textiles Ltd. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 129 USPQ 258 (CCPA 1961). 334. Defendant applied Trademark for the word mark Steak of the Month with full

knowledge of the fact that third parties are also using the word, steak of the month and steak of the month club on the Internet. 335. Defendant Omaha filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff in 2009 for their Trademark

Steak of the Month. [Exhibit Q] 336. Defendant Omaha used attorney Craig Huber to file the lawsuit against Plaintiff in

2009. [Exhibit Q] 337.


24 25

In 2009, Defendant "Omaha" mentioned Trademark registration number in their

complaintagainst Plaintiff for Steak of the Month. [Exhibit Q, Paragraph 2]

Page | 37

338.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

In 2003, Defendant "Omaha" did not mention Trademark registration numbers in

their complaintagainst Plaintiff as they were aware of the fact Defendant Omahanever had a Trademark to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibit B] 339. Attorney Craig Huber also filed False Evidence in Case Number CV09-02854

RGK(FFMx) [Exhibit Q] related to proof of services. UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO "OMAHABEEF.COM" 340. "ANSHU" registered domain name "omahabeef.com" on February 13, 1999 to

open an on-line retail store services featuring food and food related items to serve public on the Internet. 341. "ANSHU" opened an on-line retail store services featuring food and food related

items to serve public with his domain name "omahabeef.com" on or after February 13, 1999 on the Internet. 342. On March 7, 2000, "ANSHU" filed the application for the trade mark for "Omaha

Beef" Serial Number: 75955335. [Exhibit U] 343. On or after March 7, 2000 Defendant "OMAHAs" owner Todd Simon threatened

"ANSHU'S" web hosting company [Success Makers] on telephone and shut down
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

"ANSHU'S" on line business, "www.omahabeef.com" without any court order or justification. 344. Anshu was not able to complete his Trademark application in 2000 as Defendant

Omahas owner Todd Simon closed down Plaintiffs on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com without court order. [Exhibit U] 345. On May 17, 2003, "ANSHU" filed the trade mark for "Omahabeef.Com" for

"ANSHU'S" electronic retail business.Serial Number: 78251253 [Exhibit W] 346. On June 4, 2003, "ANSHU" filed the Trade mark for "Omaha Beef" for

"ANSHU'S" electronic retail business. Serial Number: 78258051 [Exhibit X] 347. On or around July 2003 Defendant Omaha closed down Plaintiffs on-line retail

stores after obtaining the injunction from the district court. 348. On or around 2004 Defendant Omaha transferred Plaintiffs domain name,

omahabeef.com in their name without court order.

Page | 38

349.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Plaintiff was not able to obtain his Trademarks due to the illegal acts of Defendant

Omaha and their attorneys. [Exhibit B, W and X] UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO THE WORD, OMAHA STEAK 350. Attorney Craig Huber stated in his letter dated February 17, 2003 that Plaintiff is

using the word, Omaha Steak as meta tags on his web site, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit U] 351. Steak. 352. Defendant Omaha is aware of the fact that Third Parties are using the word Defendant Omaha does not have Trademarks for the word mark, Omaha

Omaha Steak on the Internet. 353. Defendant Omaha and others are bidding for the key word, Omaha Steak on

Google as of September 14, 2010. [Exhibit Y] 354.


11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Defendant Omaha and others are bidding for the key word, Omaha Beef on

Google as of September 14, 2010. [Exhibit Z] 355. Frederick J. Simon verified the application for registration of Omaha Steaks as

Defendants trademark knew that others had the right to use similar words like, Omaha Beef and Omaha Steak in commerce. Statement of Frederick J. Simon in the declaration is a misrepresentation of fact as distinguished from the mere expression of an opinion. Bart Schwartz Int'l Textiles Ltd. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 129 USPQ 258 (CCPA 1961). UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATED TO FRAUD ON THE COURT

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BY ATTORNEYS 356. 357. 358. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are in Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II are

also in violation of State Criminal Statute 831.02 by filing False Documents. violation of Bar Rule 4.3.3 by filing False evidence with the Federal Court. also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. 4 by filing False evidence with the Federal Court. 359. Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II did not mention Trademark registration numbers in their complaintagainst Plaintiff as they were
Page | 39

aware of the fact that their clientnever had a Trademark to file a lawsuit against
1

Plaintiff.[Exhibit B]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

360.

On or about February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey II " falsely and fraudulently represented to the District Court that their client owned 5 Trademarks to file a lawsuit against Plaintiff. [Exhibits B and C] 361. On or about February 27, 2003 Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey II falsely and fraudulently represented to the District Court that Plaintiff's on-line store, www.omahabeef.com was infringing their clients Trademark, "Omaha Steaks".[Exhibit C] 362. The representations made by Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey II were in fact false. The true fact was Defendant "Omaha never had the Trademark for the word mark, "Omaha Steaks" for on-line retail store in 2003. [Exhibit I and J]

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

363.

When Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II made

fraudulent representations to the District Court in Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx), they knew them to be false, and these representations were made by Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff and with the intent to induce District Court to close down the on-line retail store of Plaintiff, www.omahabeef.com. [Exhibit B and C] 364. District Court, at the time these representations were made by Attorneys Craig

Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II, was ignorant of the falsity and believed them to be true. [Exhibit B and C] 365. District Court was ignorant of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and

Thomas A Brackey IIsscheme and secret intention to close down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com so their client Omaha Steaks International Inc. can obtain Trademarks. [Exhibit B] 366. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

secret intentions of Attorneys Craig Huber, Jonathan Freund and Thomas A Brackey II. In reliance on these representations, District Court was induced and issued order for
24 25

injunction against Plaintiff. [Exhibit A]

Page | 40

367.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Defendant Omahas attorney Craig Huber approached Yahoo to close down

Plaintiffson-line retail store in July 2003. 368. Had District Court known the actual facts, District Court would not have taken

such action to order injunction against Plaintiff. DEFINATION OF FRAUD AS PER UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 369. Fraud in procurement, maintenance or litigation involving a trademark

registration. Lanham Act imposes duty to not to make knowingly inaccurate or knowingly misleading statements in verified declaration forming part of application. Bart Schwartz Int'l Textiles Ltd. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 129 USPQ 258 (CCPA 1961). 370. 37 CFR 1.56 (known as Rule 56) Duty to Disclose Information Material to

Patentability. Regrettably, this rule does not apply trademark application or post registration actions, presumably because a trademark registration is not a grant of rights. 371. The Trademark Office does not question sworn declarations of fact and does not

have the resources to police this, which is why fraud on the trademark side has to be
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

different, and if you get caught making a false statement of a material fact, it should be presumed applicant have committed a fraud. 372. The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, establishes to United States Patent

and Trademark Offices satisfaction that Schwartz on May 18, 1955, at the time he verified the application for registration of FIOCCO as appellants trademark knew that others had the right to use this word in commerce for textile fabrics. His statement in the declaration is a misrepresentation of fact as distinguished from the mere expression of an opinion. Bart Schwartz Int'l Textiles Ltd. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 129 USPQ 258 (CCPA 1961). UNDISPUTED DECISIONS RELATED TO "FRAUD ON THE COURT" BY ATTORNEY 373. Attorney lying under oath is considered fraud on the court.In the Second

Circuit, Kupferman v. Consolidated Research and Manufacturing Corp., 459 F.2d 1072(2nd Cir. C.I.R. 1972) stated: an attorneys loyalty to the court, as an officer
Page | 41

thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with the Court. And when he departs from
1

that standard in the conduct of a case he perpetrates a fraud upon the court.
2

374.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In the U.S. Supreme Court, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire

Company, 322 U.S. 238, (1944) an attorney may commit fraud on the court, not only through misrepresentation, but also through omission. Also in Hazel Atlas it is a wrong.which .cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society involving two victims: the individual litigant and the court itself, whose integrity is compromised by the fraudulent behavior of its officers. 375. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonyconceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States is guilty of misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison. 376. An attorney retained, or debtor in possession, must abide by the highest professional standards. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive is the standard of behavior. An attorneys duty goes beyond not merely putting false evidence before the court; the duty is greater the lawyer has a duty to not make misrepresentations to the court. 377. Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . . Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (alleged fraud on tax court). It has been found only in those instances where the fraud vitiates the courts ability to reach an impartial disposition of the case before it. Id. 378. This demonstrated an intentional scheme to perpetrate a fraud. Our law requires the demonstration of a plan or scheme . . . designed to improperly influence the court, which indicates that scienter is required. Moreover, to the extent that the movants contend that recklessness satisfies this requirement, 379. 380. That the attorneys did in fact intend at any point to mislead or defraud the That someone tampered with these documents, modified them, and/or court, which is supported by the evidence. altered them resulting in these documents not representing what they are presented to be. These documents have been falsified. 381. Fraud on the court requires the involvement of an attorney. Lying
Page | 42

under oath is lying under oath.


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

382.

The Eleventh Circuit in Travelers adopted the following definition of

fraud on the court from other circuits. Fraud on the court should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases There is no mention of scienter in this courts previous definition of fraud on the court adopted from other circuits where scienter is never mentioned. The majority of circuits require an attorneys involvement because attorneys are highly educated in the law and know when a deception to the court is occurring. That explains why scienter is not required for fraud on the court because attorneys, as officers of the court, know better. 383. 384. 385. The perjured Affidavits were filed for one reason - to influence the court The plan or scheme to influence the Court What could be more unconscionable than having the attorneys, officers of

the court, with combined legal experience of many years, knowingly lie to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees and games. 386. oath. 387. In the Second Circuit, Kupferman v. Consolidated Research and Manufacturing Corp., 459 F.2d 1072(2nd Cir. C.I.R. 1972) stated: an attorneys loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with the Court. And when he departs from that standard in the conduct of a case he perpetrates a fraud upon the court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TO RELEIVE PLAINTIFF FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER OR PROCEEDING UNDER F.R.C.P. 60 (d) (1) for Case # 03-1401 RSWL (RZx) [Against OMAHA] 388. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set Courts finding of fraud on the court, lying under oath is lying under

forth in above paragraphs, including the following. 389. In 2003, Defendant Omahafiled a trademark infringement lawsuit against

Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, www.omhabeef.com.

Page | 43

390.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In 2003, Defendant "Omaha" claimed in case number 03-1401 RSWL (RZx)that

Plaintiffs on-line retail store, www.omhabeef.com was infringing trademarks of Defendant OMAHA. 391. In 2003, Defendant "Omaha" did not mention Trademark registration numbers in

their complaint in case number 03-1401 RSWL (RZx)against Plaintiff. 392. In 2003, Defendant "Omaha" made false statements by stating that they own five

Trademarks to file a lawsuit against Plaintiffs online retail store, www.omahabeef.com. 393. In 2003, Defendant "Omaha" made false statements to material fact with intent

to deceive the Plaintiff by stating that they own Trademark to file a lawsuit against Plaintiffs online retail store, www.omahabeef.com. 394. In June 2003, District court relied on False Evidences filed by Defendants

counsel and issued injunction against Plaintiff. 395.


11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Attorneys of Defendant Omaha closed down Plaintiffs on-line retail store in July

2003. 396. 397. Plaintiff was injured by the fraud of Defendant Omaha by loss of his business. When Defendant "Omaha" made fraudulent representations to the District Court

in case number 03-1401 RSWL (RZx), Defendant knew them to be false, and these representations were made by defendant with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff and with the intent to induce District Court to close down the on-line retail store of Plaintiff, www.omahabeef.com. 398. District Court, at the time these representations were made by Defendant

"Omaha", was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant's representations and believed them to be true. 399. District Court was ignorant of Defendant "Omaha's" secret intention to close

down Plaintiff's on-line retail store, www.omahabeef.com. 400. District Court could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered

Defendant "Omaha's" secret intention. In reliance on these representations, District Court was induced and issued order for injunction against Plaintiff. 401. Defendant Omahas attorney Craig Huber closed down Plaintiffs on-line retail

24 25

stores in July 2003.

Page | 44

402.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Defendant Omahas attorney Craig Huber transferred ownership of Plaintiffs

domain name, www.omahabeef.com without court order in name of Defendant Omaha in 2004. 403. Had District Court known the actual facts, District Court would not have taken

such action to order injunction against Plaintiff. 404. On August 25, 1986 Defendant OMAHA made an application for word mark

"OMAHA STEAKS" under International Class 042 US 101for retail mail order and retail food store services in the field of gourmet food products, kitchen apparel and kitchen utensils for Trademark Serial Number 73616747, Trademark Registration Number 1458802. 405. In 1986 Defendant OMAHA was not having on-line retail store,

omahasteaks.com. 406.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Defendant "OMAHA" obtained their domain name, omahasteaks.com on May

3, 1995. 407. Trademark Registration Number 1458802 was not applied for on-line retail store

services by Defendant, Omaha. 408. Trademark Registration Number 1458802 does not allow Omaha to file

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, omahabeef.com. 409. On November 27, 1987 Defendant OMAHA made an application for word

mark "OMAHA STEAKS" under International Class 029 US 046 for meat sold to hotels, restaurants and institutions for Trademark Serial Number 73697700, Trademark Registration Number 1515602. [Exhibit E] 410. In 1987 Defendant OMAHA was not having on-line retail store,

omahasteaks.com. 411. Defendant "OMAHA" obtained their domain name, omahasteaks.com on May

3, 1995. 412. Trademark Registration Number 1515602 was not applied for on-line retail store

services by Defendant, Omaha. [Exhibit E]


24 25

Page | 45

413.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trademark Registration Number 1515602 does not allow Omaha to file

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, omahabeef.com 414. On April 19, 1991 Defendant OMAHA made an application for word mark

"OMAHA STEAKS" under International Class 042 US 101 for retail food store services for Trademark Serial Number 74158733, Trademark Registration Number 1674686. 415. In 1991 Defendant OMAHA was not having on-line retail store,

omahasteaks.com. 416. Defendant "OMAHA" obtained their domain name, omahasteaks.com on May

3, 1995. Trademark Registration Number 1674686 was not applied for on-line retail store services by Defendant, Omaha. 417. Trademark Registration Number 1674686 does not allow Omaha to file

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, omahabeef.com. 418. On November 21, 1996 Defendant OMAHA made an application for word

mark "OMAHA STEAKS" under International Class 030 US 046 for barbecue sauce, mustard, ketchup and meat, fish and poultry seasonings for Trademark Serial Number 75201990, Trademark Registration Number 2140390. 419. In 1996 Defendant OMAHA was having on-line retail store,

omahasteaks.com. 420. Defendant "OMAHA" obtained their domain name, omahasteaks.com on May

3, 1995. Trademark Registration Number 2140390 was not applied for on-line retail store services by Defendant, Omaha. 421. Trademark Registration Number 2140390 does not allow Omaha to file

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, omahabeef.com. 422. On February 8, 1999 Defendant OMAHA made an application for word mark

24 25

"OMAHASTEAKS.COM" under International Class 042 US 100 101 for providing information in the field of food and food preparation by means of global computer
Page | 46

network for Trademark Serial Number 75634292, Trademark Registration Number


1

2414603.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

423.

Defendant "OMAHA" obtained their domain name, omahasteaks.com on May

3, 1995. Trademark Registration Number 75634292 was not applied for on-line retail store services by Defendant, Omaha. 424. Trademark Registration Number 75634292 does not allow Omaha to file

Trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaintiff for his on-line retail store, omahabeef.com in 2003. 425. On May 7, 2009 Defendant "OMAHA" made an application for word mark

"OMAHA STEAKS" under IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: on-line retail store services featuring food and food related items because they never had the Trademark for on-line retail store. 426. On April 13, 2010 Defendant Omaha received Trademark for the word,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

OMAHA STEAKS for on-line retail store. 427. As a direct result of Defendants fraudulent actions, Plaintiff has suffered

substantial damage in an amount to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows for all causes of actions against named Defendants: 1. For cost of suit incurred herein;

18

2.For cost of any and all legal fees, and Attorney fees;
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

3. For interest at the proper legal rate on said principal; 4. Forexemplary and punitive damages for fraud; 5. For damages as proven at the time of trial; 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 7. To relieve Plaintiff from Judgment, Order or Proceeding under F.R.C.P. 60 (d) (1) for case # 03- 1401 RSWL (RZx).
Page | 47

8. To transfer ownership of domain name, www.omahabeef.comfrom Defendant to


1 2 3 4 5

Plaintiff. Executed on September 14, 2010 In the County of Riverside and State of California. Respectfully Submitted,

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

______________________________ Anshu Pathak, In Pro Per Plaintiff

Page | 48