Click here to break out of Frame
| I am still waiting to get
transcripts of the hearing which was held at 10:00 AM
Friday 8-27-99 but until I have them here is what was
reported to me by several people who were present. My understanding is that the first part of the hearing lasted five minutes, each side spoke briefly and then the judge ruled that Mrs. Tibbetts was in contempt of the 1986 ruling. He then said that Mrs. Tibbetts should pay attorney fees and damages to CPC/Bestfoods, and since she did not have the money that Skippy Inc. and she should go into bankruptcy, auctioning off the Skippy® assets to pay damages. He then called for a fifteen minute recess. After the recess the judge scheduled a hearing for September 17 10:00 AM.
|
|
| Editorial Commentary: If you look at the 1986 ruling, it stated that Mrs. Tibbitts could not represent that she had rights to sell the Skippy® trademark for food uses. Her web page clearly stated that she did not have such rights and gave the history of how CPC/Bestfoods had obtained those rights. Therefore it is my view that she did not violate the order. But CPC/Best foods have campaigned, and Judge Richard L. Williams agreed, to interpret Mrs. Tibbitts telling the history of the case as a violation of his order. Reasonable people can not help but wonder what CPC/Bestfoods did to get a judge to violate a citizen's first amendment rights. To be frank, the history of the peanut butter company's acquisition of the trademark is a story of a big company raping the Crosby Tibbitts family, not just once, but again and again. It is amazing that Judge Richard L. Williams would issue an order with such broad scope in 1986, and even more amazing that he would now suggest that the rest of the Skippy® property given the CPC/Bestfoods. Very strange behavior for an unbiased judge. Another troubling aspect of the Skippy® case has been the fact that in 1986 and now the case was originally in front of other judges. In 1986 the case was moved to this judge as a result of CPC/Bestfoods actions. Reasonable people may wonder about such coincidences. Long experience in dealing with large disreputable companies has taught me that they will go to almost any length to avoid the consequences of their conduct. When any party, but especially when the party is law enforcement or judicial, acts in an arbitrary and apparently illogical manner - contrary to what the evidence shows as has been the case with the Skippy® situation - I have found that the answer can often be found by following the money. |
Skippy is a registered trademark of Skippy Inc.
 |
Ronald J. Riley
|