International Pinto Arabian Registry, Inc.
Thank you for visiting our website. As you know, R.C. Ellerd established this company in 1994. Before R.C. died, he turned IPAR over to his son Michael Ellerd, in 2005. Michael, and his wife, Linda, are working hard to continue making "IPAR" a company that horse lovers can be proud to register Pinto- Arabian and Pintabian Horses. "Happy Customers" is the number one goal IPAR strives for.
Come be a part of IPAR and we will work together in a congenial atmosphere with warm support for
each other. Let's expand this registry to accommodate breeders & horse-lovers everywhere.
After registering your horse, you will receive a certificate that includes having a colored picture of your horse and all the details of his/her bloodline.
We invite you to come and join IPAR. You are all important and appreciated. We love seeing all of the pictures of your horses. It is also enjoyable to watch them as they grow up.
You are welcome to sign our Guest Book or email us anytime. Let us know if we can help you in any way. NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: email@example.com (You can still use: Lmpintoarabian@aol.com)
Looking forward to hearing from you.
May God bless you all.
Copyright (c) IPAR. All rights reserved.
Certificates are an official document recognized by Federal & State Law.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT
♦ STATE: TENNESSEE
♦ COUNTY: DAVIDSON
ROZANNE RECTOR ♦ CASE NO. ____________ Defendant JURY DEMAND ____________________________________________________________________________________________
NOW INTO COURT, come the Plaintiff, International Pinto-Arabian Registry, Inc. (IPAR) herein and hereafter shall be referred to as the Plaintiff. Whereas the Plaintiff, does hereby file suit against the Pintabian Horse Registry, Inc. (PHRI) and hereby include Rozanne Rector, individually and jointly as acting CEO of the Pintabian Horse Registry, Inc. Plaintiff, hereby allege the following:
Whereas, the Plaintiff, International Pinto-Arabian Registry, Inc. is a Tennessee based corporation. The Defendant, Pintabian Horse Registry, Inc. is a Minnesota based corporation. Whereas the Defendant, Rozanne Rector is the corporate acting CEO and Defendant resides in the state of Minnesota. Whereas the unlawful allegations, stated herein was by means of conducting business using the interstate computer, telecommunication and the U.S. Federal mail. The Defendant was using unlawful procedures whereby said means of actions gives the U.S. Federal Court Jurisdiction and the lawful authority to issue Judgment and ruling in all matters contained herein this complaint. Whereby Tennessee state law will be cited, and the Uniform Commercial Code, Tennessee law cited will be recipical with the state laws of Minnesota.
Whereas, Plaintiff, International Pinto Arabian Registry, Inc. is a business which issues certificates of registration to qualified horses. Said business began in 1994.
Plaintiff and Defendants has taken all necessary State and Federal examinations
Therefore meeting the requirements needed to operate said business under corporate law. Whereas, damages occurred in the State of Tennessee which is the state the Plaintiffs Corporation is based. Therefore, the Federal Court has judicial authority and power to issue judgment which shall be lawfully binding to both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Tennessee law will be cited whereby is recipicle with the State of Minnesota and binding herein this suit. Whereby, it is expected the Plaintiff will file an amendment being a Memorandum of Law in support of complaint. Whereby, shall be Federal Law and Minnesota Civil law upon any dispute made by Defendants, whereas said actions are claimed to be actions as being legal, by Minnesota status. Whereas, Defendants exercise unlawful abuse to customers, making unlawful demands by PHRI, claimed as powers granted by the state, which is used as a monopoly.
CAUSE OF ACTION
AND DEFENDANTS CHARACTER
1. Whereas, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful acts by the formation of a business monopoly whereas, Defendants succeeded in the elimination of all competitors with exception of the Plaintiff. Whereas, the Defendants exerts abusive and unlawful demands over customers by claiming to be the one and only authority to be granted said monopoly. The Defendants used acts of misrepresentation, fraud, libel, slander, impersonation as a legal authority, extortion, by coercion and threats, including other unlawful acts that are reasonable in consideration of Defendants success, in elimination of competition and extensive unlawful control of Defendants customers.
2. Whereas, the use of the computer (internet) is a world-wide tool used in advertisement and communication for business transactions. Whereby reaching such a large number of individuals which is uncountable. Whereas, Defendants used computer technology as a primary source for International communications, and telecommunications, and the United States Postal Service in unlawful acts.
3. Whereas, upon knowledge that fraudulent acts have increased to such an extensive degree, the financial loss to individuals have become incomprehensible. Said acts are pursued aggressively by legal authorities in an attempt to pursue offenders but the overwhelming numbers has rose to such a great degree that only a minor number of offenders are brought to justice in criminal acts of computer fraud.
4. Whereas, the use of federal communication systems have been the instrument extensively used in fraudulent scams. Whereby, millions of dollars are swindled from U. S. citizens every year. Whereas, the perpetrators are successful by relying on past results and the knowledge thereof. The financial loss of individual citizens, are found to be less than attorney fees and the total cost of Civil Action by due process of law whereas the end does not justify the means financially. Therefore the Defendants have enjoyed unlawful financial gain. Whereby, having knowledge and affirmation of the public response, Defendants have failed to suffer justice by lawsuit, whereby would be great in number in reference to abuse, said power the Defendant claimed to have, but does not.
5. Whereas, let it be known by these presents of this law suit. Plaintiff intercedes on the behalf of justice, whereby will be beneficial to many others.
6. Whereas, the Defendants states that their registry is the one and only in existence that has a lawful right to register a Pintabian, a gross misrepresentation.
7. Whereas, the Defendants advertisements was by use of the world-wide web accessibility to the entire public. Whereby reaching an astronomical amoun of potential customers. Whereby stating the Plaintiffs business is issuing counterfeit documents of registration.
8. Whereas, Defendant called the Plaintiff in 2009, voicing strong objections to IPAR registering the Pintabian breed. Whereby doing so is an unlawful act. Defendant claimed to have the single authority to register said Pintabian breed. Whereby, the Defendant stated that the Government Protection was granted only to her (Defendant, Rozanne Rector). Therefore, let it be known as a matter of record of truth, Defendant has never notified the Plaintiff to cease or desist from any further actions relating to infringement upon any government agency of protection.
9. Whereas, Plaintiff requested the defendant to send verification of any type of protection, be sent to the Plaintiff. Whereas upon receipt, all registration of the Pintabian breed would cease immediately. But the Defendant said, “I just bet you would”, and she hung the phone up. (Hasn’t spoken to Plaintiff since.)
10. Whereas, the Defendants never sent any type of information at all, and was fully aware that the Plaintiff was and intended to register the stated breed, known as the Pintabian breed.
11. Whereas, the Plaintiff, International Pinto-Arabian Registry, Inc. (IPAR) is in the business of registering horses. Therefore, any horses being descendants of Pinto Arabian with a minimum of 50% or above Arabian Blood to meet the requirements of eligibility for registration. Whereas, Plaintiff has not set a maximum percentage of Arabian blood. The said Defendant has made unlawful statements by misrepresentation and continuously states that the Plaintiff does not have lawful right to register Pintabians (which is Pinto and an Arabian mix). When a horse acquires 99% or more Arabian blood, whereby the stated forgoing horse becomes a “Pintabian” breed. (When meeting a few other factors)
12. Whereas, Defendant states to the customers and potential customers by international advertisement (internet), whereby a horse having all the requirements set forth necessary for Pintabian registration, that if IPAR registers the horse it is not a lawful Pintabian. Defendant (PHRI) declares, by internet, that there is only one horse registry that can legally register Pintabians in the country. Customers are informed that they can only register their Pintabian with Defendants registry ONLY, to be legally recognized as a Pintabian.
13. Whereas, any horse, meeting the requirements to be a Pintabian, is not a Pintabian until they are registered with Defendants horse registry. A gross misrepresentation and abuse of authority by said Defendants.
14. Whereas, Plaintiff has registered Pintabians which met the criteria, since 1994 including high profile Pintabians proclaimed and have achieved National Championship.
15. Whereas, Defendant has been on an internet campaign and states that the Plaintiff’s Registry is issuing counterfeit certificates for Pintabians. Whereby defendants used multiple dangerous and fraudulent claims method used to eliminate Plaintiffs business, and in the process, enhance Defendants registry.
16. Whereas, Defendants claimed, no business can lawfully use the word Pintabian, claiming the breed Pintabian is protected by Trademark and any use of the word “Pintabian” is an act of infringement upon recent notice.
17. Whereas, Defendant used the internet for advertising Pintabian claiming trademark protection.
18. Whereas, the laws protecting a Trademark are specific, but limited, and do not apply if the Trademark Office have declared it abandoned. Whereas the defendant attempted to obtain a Trademark protection in 1995 whereby stating a Pinto horse having only 90%, a lower amount of Arabian blood (achieved by breeding), qualified as a Pintabian. Trademark application, was abandoned by agency.
19. Whereas the Plaintiff will prove in court the Defendants, Pintabian Horse Registry, Inc. including all of the Board of Directors, also the independent unlawful acts of Rozanne Rector, being individually and immediately, upon the dissolution of the foregoing corporation, whereas may include an amendment of Defendants added to complaint and being filed in the U.S. Federal Court upon information and belief that others, participated in the unlawful actions whereby being the same stated herein this action. Whereby said right is hereby reserved.
COMPLAINT AND LIBEL OF DEFENDANTS
1. Whereas, action taken by the State of Minnesota, office of the Secretary of State, did dissolve the corporation, being the Pintabian Horse Registry for Failure to comply with Minnesota State Law on or about February 15, 2013. Whereby said action by the Minnesota Office of Secretary of State did dissolve all of PHRI’s lawful actions and privileges of engaging in interstate business transactions upon temporary dissolution.
2. Whereas, after the state of Minnesota duly notified the Pintabian Horse Registry that it had been dissolved of its Corporate Status, and were denied the lawful right to continue any business transactions or methods thereafter as a corporation, that it would be unlawful. The notification was disregarded by Rozanne Rector, the former C.E.O. of Pintabian Horse Registry, whereby knowingly and willingly continued to unlawfully operate the business and did issue documents of horse registration. These are documents presented to clients as legal documents, when in truth the corporation had been dissolved and PHRI represented them as legal documents. Whereby, PHRI was dissolved at the time (by the State of Minnesota) but continued issuing printed certificates to their customers. A gross misrepresentation and unlawful act, especially knowing the document must be factual and accurate in all aspects, as to the origin of the document itself, and cannot proclaim corporate origin until reinstated.
3. Whereas, the Plaintiff recognizes and seeks judgment against the Defendant, Rozanne Rector, individually and separately and without corporate protection on all unlawful acts stated herein upon dissolution of the Corporate Status on February 15, 2013 through August 29, 2013. Upon information and belief that others participated and encouraged acts contained here in the suit. Plaintiff reserves the rights to include said Defendant herein this complaint.
4. Whereas, the Plaintiff will address the unlawful acts the Defendant’s engaging in. By the implication of a Hardship Fee, whereby a gross misrepresentation has and fraud. (Fraudulent act, Plaintiff can easily
be proven in court.
5. Whereas, the Plaintiff will address the unlawful acts of fee’s collected, under rules and regulations after falsely convincing customers therein, no other registry is in existence to register their Pintabians. (False Statement!)
6. Whereas, the dissolution of Defendant’s corporate status for about half of the year and the omission of the date on certificates will cause a degree of difficulty in filing Federal Income Tax.
7. Whereas, any legal document whereby the effective date is willfully omitted and not placed on said document, invalidates the same.
8. Whereas, the Defendant states having protection using this scenario: “Pintabian” is the same as “Ford”, no one can use the name of Ford except them.
PROCUREMENT TO BREACH
1. Whereas, Plaintiff will prove to the Honorable Court, the Defendant knowingly and willingly engaged in the act of practicing deception by advising individuals to their lawful rights. Whereby caused a third party not to enter into a prospective contractual relationship which is Defendant’s competitor said Plaintiff will establish with clear and concise evidence, inducement and procurement of Breach of Contract. Whereby any person procuring or inducing the same shall be libel in treble the amount of damages. The Defendants have been consistent in the elimination of civil rights by extensive legal advice in order to direct actions of individuals by what is lawful and unlawful, by advising individuals, by advertisements through internet and letters, that they must abide by trademark laws, whereby eliminating customers right to choose which registry to use. 887F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1989) Plaintiff will show reckless intentional, fraudulent behavior, said fraud is in accordance with the coexistence of common law tort and statutory action herein this complaint whereby constitutes inducement for procurement of breach of contract 13.5.W. 3d 343 (Ten. CT App. 1989) T.C.A. 47-50-109
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS ACTIONS
Whereas, Plaintiff, the only competitor to the Defendants, to the best of their knowledge, was not aware of the unlawful advice that the Defendants were spreading through the internet and letters which caused the Plaintiff’s business to fall to the point it was almost inactive until on or about July 2013. At that time the Plaintiff was flooded with e-mails sent by the CEO, Rozanne Rector, to many customers whereby contained conversations with the Defendant’s customers containing situation of money sent to the Defendants for Certificates of Registration and the Defendants were keeping the payments without responding and they were not sending those customers their certificates. The Defendants had convinced all customers, by legal advice, that the only lawful business that was capable of registering their horses was PHRI and if they used any other company, they would be committing unlawful acts. The number of people, persuaded by the unlawful legal advice, was astronomical. Said advice subjected customers to financial abuse by extortion. Plaintiff will prove in court the said abuse and will show and explain the extensive nature. Whereby, includes unlawful penalties placed upon the customers and rules and regulations, large sums of money acquired by Defendants by unlawful means of Hardship registration cost. Plaintiff will prove in court the methods of unlawful demanded acts of further registration requirements by act of unlawful coercion.
BY UNLAWFUL LEGAL ADVICE
Whereas from the year 1992 through 2009 (Eighteen years) based upon the information printed by the Defendant, three hundred Pintabians were registered in stated 18 years, whereby upon the representation of legal advice being given as standard legal avenues, for horse registration with the Defendant, citing law pertaining to any person attempting to use any other horse registry other than hers, (PHRI) being the one and only official registry authorized by the U.S. as the govern authority, granted rights to operate as the only single entity to register a Pintabian horse. Whereby, excluding all other U.S. horse registries to lawfully register the Pintabian breed, and any customer whereby using any other registry, (or stating another exist) to register the breed, is guilty of an unlawful act and will face an infringement law suit filed against them for said act. Whereas any registry issuing a Certificate of Registration of said breed, whereby responded to customers request and issues said certificate, will be an act of counterfeiting. Therefore, upon Defendant’s advice being placed in print and by verbal conformation, the Defendants registration of the breed went from 300 registered in 18 years to 700 in 3 years. (From 2000 – 2013) The enormous increase was from the unlawful legal advice, whereby eliminated the people’s right to choose which is unlawful and illegal. Plaintiff will show proof in court whereby will validate all allegations contained herein this complaint.
FALSE PRETENSES AND MISREPERSENTATION
Whereas, trademark and patent laws have a limited number of attorneys choosing this field of practice to specialize in, nor to devote their practice. Whereby, public knowledge is also very limited in this area of law. Defendant, Rozanne Rector chose to set up her field of practice and incorporated it into said business of Defendants. Whereby advising customers as to what are legal and illegal avenues customers are allowed or prohibited. Said trademark laws do not apply to any actions Plaintiff has been engaged in and are totally irrelevant in the registration of the breed of horse, namely Pintabian, in the suit. The Defendants have issued verbal and written statements, that a trademark was issued to the defendants (Pintabian) in the year 1995, and have used this declaration for the purpose of eliminating the Plaintiff as a competitor in the horse registration business and convincing customers it is illegal to register with Plaintiff declaring the Plaintiffs have been issuing documents of registration by counterfeiting. Whereas it is illegal to falsely represent as a fact, you have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office the approved registration of a trademark that all rights whereby registration with U.S. Trademark Office entitles you to protection. Whereas, if it can be verified that the Defendants were never issued a legal registration as defendants claims, in 1995. It will be considered an illegal act being used to commit fraud in a computer scam. Whereby, to obtain money by misrepresentation and false pretenses across state lines, a federal offence. Plaintiff is expected to verify facts as issued by the Defendants.
1. Whereas, upon review by the U.S. Federal Court and finding by preponderance of the evidence allegations are subject to judicial intervention by judgment and order by the Honorable Court. Whereby being incorporated into suit as follows. It is hereby ordered.
2. Whereas it is hereby ordered the Defendant shall recall all documents of registration issued without an effective date. Said document was issued as a legal instrument. Defendant shall be further ordered to reissue said documents to all owners corrected with the proper date and Defendants shall bear all expenses required by law, and as a legal format with an effective date.
3. Whereas it is hereby ordered, the Defendant shall cease immediately from issuing any type of legal advice, whereas being false and misrepresented to the public, whereby Defendants purpose construed to be financially self-serving legal advice. Said advice was premeditated and calculated for the purpose to outlaw and prohibit individuals’ right to choose, and to eliminate business action falsely summarizing Trademark laws and falsely stating its application was to present mandatory legal avenues being prescribed by law. Defendant is hereby ordered to cease all and any advice related thereto.
4. Whereas, it is hereby ordered the Defendants shall not engage in type of reprisal to any customers whereby, provided evidence to the Plaintiff and revealed upon court proceedings, including acts of coercion, previously demonstrated.
5. Whereas in accordance with the forgoing the Honorable Court shall set forth judgment by order of corporate dissolution upon evidence that the said Defendants have operated business with financial gain, beginning on or about 2010 and thereafter, to present, by misrepresentation and false pretenses, advising all customers, that by law said Defendants were the only registry granted exclusive legal rights to register Pintabian Horses whereby was issued by the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
TORTS AND ACTS OF LIBEL
Whereas the Plaintiffs suit proclaim by allegations to all contained herein. Whereby the Defendants are guilty of torturous acts of slander and libel, being defamatory, resulting in injury and damages whereby, are suffered personally by Plaintiffs as to loss of credibility and especially financially to Plaintiffs business. Whereby, IPAR’s financial losses cannot be determined. Whereas Defendants business, a corporation doing business directed solely by the C.E.O. operating the lawful power and authority is granted by law, namely a one Rozanne Rector, being condoned by silence and non-interference of the members of the board.
Whereas said stated C.E.O. is professionally incompetent and guilty of professional gross misconduct. Said C.E.O. has been issuing written statements by means of internet, being false, misleading and summarizing U.S. laws. Whereby applied and issuing statements against the Plaintiff. Defendant claimed Plaintiffs were involved with acts said to be criminal in nature to anyone involved. Said act of libel is considered more serious and of a permanent nature, knowledge common to the public being recognized as the written word. Whereas, the common law has traditionally, allowed the Plaintiff to recover without proof of special damages. (Actual reputation injury and other actual harm) PRESUMING DAMAGES are allowed by common law in libel cases. Whereas the U. S. Supreme Court has described libel cases as “oddity of tort law” presumed damages “compensate”. For reputational harm being presumed to have occurred, but does not have to be proven by said Plaintiff. Whereas, damage requires no proof, the Plaintiff must show the defamatory statements that are likely to harm reputation of Plaintiff by deterring others from associating or doing any business with said Plaintiff. Defendants have not only used statements whereby, are used as detouring business with Plaintiff but advised individuals as to the legalities of doing business with counterfeits is common public knowledge as being and illegal act.
Whereas, the law is clear and concise, that when any business or individuals engage in unlawful acts, whereby could be detrimental to your business. You should proceed in a timely fashion with remedies prescribed by law. Whereby, said requirement of law was totally disregarded and without any knowledge by the Plaintiffs, on or about June of 2013, found the Defendants had been on a campaign by internet to completely destroy Plaintiff’s business by false statements, misrepresentation, slander, libel and using unlawful and illegal advice, issued as a summary to individuals pertaining to what actions they could take to what actions they could not take according to their legal advice.
1. Whereas, the Defendants’ actions in its self, to threaten someone with a law suit is not unlawful, being in good faith. Whereas upon threats made in bad faith, being improper and demands all contractual agreements be made only with the Defendants and leaves no alternative. Whereby, business compulsions places individuals under types of economic pressure resulting in a contract entered into and from being truly voluntary, making legal threats acts of tort, coercion and under duress. Link v/s link 179S.E.2d 697
2. Whereas, statements made by the Defendants, in order to gain their confidence and fails to follow-up with their duties in a timely manner has acted by fraud and breach and fiduciary duty 19 F.3d 666
3. Whereas, Plaintiffs’ suit does hereby make issue of Defendants character being immoral, unethical, unlawful and upon conclusion of Judgment may be declaratory of illegal. Plaintiff prays the Honorable Court give substantial consideration thereto.
4. Whereas acts stated herein complaint and the nature thereof by common law and statues are unconscionable being without regret or consideration thereof. Whereby, acts of said Defendants resulted in being inspirational and reference unnatural motivation by perception and the continuance thereof, and additional modification as proper, having expectation dully subject to Judgment as being fraudulent in uncompromising and inordinate.
WHEREFORE CONSIDERING THE PRIMISES
PLAINTIFF PRAYS the Honorable Court enter a Judgment against the Defendants for acts of libel, resulting in defamation of character causing a near collapse of the Plaintiffs business, being financially, a past loss and future loss, whereby is due to computer distribution of damaging written documentation, a reasonable expectation of a continued loss, resulting from content whereby defendant stating, “the plaintiffs were involved in illegal acts of registering horses”. Said loss is undeterminable. Therefore, Plaintiff prays a Judgment be entered for actual and punitive in the amount of $50,000.00 (Fifty-thousand dollars) including the Defendant be ordered to cease in all acts of issuing legal advice, including fraudulent acts of price increased incorporated into business under Hardship Fees, and cease from privileges granted to a business with a lawful corporate status, as Defendants failed to honor. Whereby, to set forth Judgment and all other orders stated herein this civil action
(An amendment to judgment is expected to be filed in a reasonable amount of time, along with a memorandum of law.)
Attorney Pro-Se _____________________________ Michael Ellerd, Michael Ellerd 3105 Joe Dowlen Rd. Attorney Pro-Se
Pleasant View, TN 37146
615-559-2246 Date _________________