TRACY H. FOWLER (USB #1106)
WILLIAM H. CHRISTENSEN (USB #4810)
SEAN N. EGAN (USB #7191)
CAMPBELL MAACK & SESSIONS
One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 537-5555 telephone
THOMAS S. CALDER
JOHN E. JEVICKY
DINSMORE & SHOHL
1900 Chemed Center
255 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 977-8200 telephone
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
the Procter & Gamble Company and
The Procter & Gamble Distributing company
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY :
and THE PROCTER & GAMBLE :
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, :
: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs, :
: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
VS. :
: AND ACTUAL DAMAGES
RANDY L. HAUGEN, individually; :
FREEDOM ASSOCIATES, INC., a :
Utah corporation; FREEDOM :
TOOLS INCORPORATED, a Utah :
corporation; ROGER D. PATTON, :
individually; JEFFERY G. :
MUSGROVE, individually; :
MUSGROVE ENTERPRISES, a Texas : (Jury Trial Demanded)
Partnership; STEVEN E. BRADY, :
individually; STEPHEN L. :
BYBEE, individually; EAGLE :
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, INC., a :
Utah corporation; TED RANDAL :
WALKER, individually; WALKER :
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, a Texas :
Partnership; JOHN DOES 1-5; : Civil No. 1:95-CV-0094W
and AMWAY CORPORATION, a :
Michigan corporation, : Honorable David K. Winder
Defendants. :
The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company
(collectively "Plaintiffs") for their amended complaint in-this action,
state as follows:
I. THE PARTIES
1. The Procter & Gamble Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "P&G")
is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati,
Ohio, and P&G is therefore a citizen of Ohio. P&G and its subsidiary and
affiliated companies manufacture consumer products and sell them in Utah and
throughout the United States. These products include TIDE laundry detergent,
dish washing detergent, FOLGER coffee, MR. CLEAN household cleaning
products, and many other food, laundry, cleaning and personal care products.
2. The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as "P&G Distributing") is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Cincinnati, Ohio, and P&G Distributing is therefore a citizen of
Ohio. P&G Distributing sells P&G products including those identified in
Paragraph 1 to retailers and distributors throughout the United States,
including the State of Utah. P&G Distributing is a subsidiary of P&G.
3. Defendant Randy L. Haugen is a citizen of the State of Utah and an
"Executive Diamond" level distributor of Amway consumer products and
developer of Amway business in the distribution chain of Amway Corporation.
At all relevant times, Haugen was directly involved in the wrongful conduct
alleged herein. Haugen engaged in this wrongful conduct in his individual
capacity and in his capacity as a representative and agent of defendant
Freedom Associates, Inc. and defendant Freedom Tools Incorporated. Freedom
Associates, Inc. and Freedom Tools Incorporated are Utah corporations
through which Haugen conducts his Amway business activities. Randy L.
Haugen, Freedom Associates, Inc. and Freedom Tools Incorporated are
hereinafter referred to collectively as "Haugen."
4. Haugen has established a network and chain of distributors of Amway
products throughout Utah, Nevada, Texas, Mexico and Canada, among other
places, totaling upon information and belief over 100,000 distributors. The
Haugen distributor network grossed sales of approximately $50 million of
Amway products last year. This network is based or headquartered in Ogden,
Utah.
5.Defendant Randy L. Haugen owns stock in subsidiaries or affiliates of the
Amway Corporation.
6. Haugen receives compensation directly from Amway Corporation based on the
sales performance and business development of distributors in his
distributor network.
7. At all relevant times, Haugen has been actively engaged in the
recruitment of additional Amway distributors to join his network and in the
development of Amway business through these distributors.
8. Defendant Randy L. Haugen is a past co-chairman of the Business
Operations Committee of the Amway Distributors Association Council
(hereinafter "ADAC"). Thirty Amway distributors serve on the ADAC. Fifteen
of the thirty distributors on the ADAC are appointed directly by Amway
Corporation. Defendant Randy L. Haugen was appointed to the ADAC by Amway.
The "mission" of the ADAC is to "advise and consult" with Amway Corporation
"on all aspects of the business and to take an active role in shaping
Amway's future." (See Exhibit A.) As announced in the Amway Corporation's
May 1995 AMAGRAM publication, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, and
made a part of this Complaint, Defendant Randy L. Haugen at the time of the
actions giving rise to this Complaint was a member of the Executive
committee of the ADAC. The Executive Committee establishes goals and
objectives for the Business Operations and the Legal and Ethics Committees
of the ADAC.
9. Defendant Roger D. Patton is a citizen of the State of Texas, residing in
The Woodlands, Texas. At all relevant times Patton was an Amway distributor
in Haugen's distribution network which is based or headquartered in Ogden,
Utah. Patton communicates and transacts business regularly with Haugen's
distributor network based or headquartered in Ogden, Utah, and was directly
involved in the wrongful conduct alleged herein.
10. Defendant Jeffery G. Musgrove is a citizen of the State of Texas,
residing in Katy, Texas. At all relevant times, Musgrove was an Amway
distributor in Haugen's distribution network which is based or headquartered
in Ogden, Utah. Musgrove communicates and transacts business with Haugen and
others in the Haugen distributor network, and was directly involved in the
wrongful conduct alleged herein. Musgrove engaged in this wrongful conduct
in his individual capacity and in his capacity as a representative and agent
of defendant Musgrove Enterprises. Upon information and belief, Musgrove
Enterprises is a Texas partnership entity through which Musgrove conducts
his Amway business activities. Musgrove and Musgrove Enterprises are
hereinafter referred to collectively as "Musgrove."
11. Defendant Steven E. Brady is a citizen of the State of Nevada, residing
in Las Vegas, Nevada. At all relevant times, Brady was an Amway distributor
in Haugen's distribution network which is based or headquartered in Ogden,
Utah. Brady communicates and transacts business with Haugen and others in
the Haugen distributor network, and was directly involved in the wrongful
conduct alleged herein.
12. Defendant Stephen L. Bybee is a citizen of the State of Utah, residing
in Logan, Utah. At all relevant times, Bybee was an Amway distributor in
Haugen's distribution network which is based or headquartered in Ogden,
Utah. Bybee communicates and transacts business with Haugen and others in
the Haugen distributor network, and was directly involved in the wrongful
conduct alleged herein. Upon information and belief, defendant Eagle
Business Development, Inc., is a Utah business entity through which Bybee
conducts and has conducted his Amway business activities since December,
1995. Bybee and Eagle Business Development, Inc. are hereinafter referred
to collectively as "Bybee."
13. Defendant Ted Randal Walker is a citizen of the State of Texas, residing
in Houston, Texas. At all relevant times, Walker was a "Diamond" level Amway
distributor in Haugen's distribution network which is based or headquartered
in Ogden, Utah. Walker communicates and transacts business with Haugen and
others in the Haugen distributor network, and was directly involved in the
wrongful conduct alleged herein. Walker engaged in this wrongful conduct in
his individual capacity and in his capacity as a partner of defendant Walker
International Network, a Texas partnership with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas. Upon information and belief, Walker
International Network is a Texas business entity through which Walker
conducts his Amway business activities. Walker and Walker International
Network are hereinafter referred to collectively as "Walker."
14. Defendants John Does 1-5, whose complete identities and addresses are
unknown at this time, upon information and belief, are individual
distributors and/or businesses who are members of Haugen's distribution
network centered in Ogden, Utah, and are involved in the sale and
distribution of Amway consumer products and the development of Amway
business. Haugen, Patton, Musgrove, Brady, Bybee, Walker and John Does 1-5
shall be known as "Distributor Defendants" unless expressly stated
otherwise.
15. Defendant Amway Corporation ("Amway") is a Michigan corporation with its
principal place of business in Ada, Michigan. Amway, through its chain of
distributors, including the Defendants, develops its business,including the
recruitment of new distributors, and sells and distributes nationwide
consumer products such as SA8 PLUS PREMIUM laundry detergent, CRYSTAL BRIGHT
dish washing detergent, EXQUISITE and NINE TO FIVE coffee products,
DURISHINE household cleaning product and many other food, laundry, cleaning
and personal care products. These Amway products distributed by Defendants
compete with P&G's products in the consumer market nationwide. Furthermore,
Amway specifically advertises against P&G's products in its publications,
such as AMAGRAM and the Amway Product Demonstrations Guide. Copies of such I
advertisements are attached as Exhibit C and made a part of this Complaint.
16. Amway exercises supervision and control over its distributors through,
among other things, ADAC and similar agencies, the terms of its contracts
with individual distributors including Distributor Defendants, as well as
publications such as the Business Reference Manual, which set forth in
detail the rules and standards of conduct required of Amway distributors;
violations of those rules and standards can result in termination of the
distributorship. For example, included in the Business Reference manual are
the following Rules of Conduct:
a. RULE 10. Do not engage in any deception or unlawful trade practices.
b. RULE 11. Do not operate or engage in illegal or unlawful business
enterprises or be convicted of an illegal or unlawful activity.
17. In addition to the aforementioned methods and manners of control and
authority Amway exercises over its distributors, Amway also sets forth very
strict requirements about what Amway distributors can and cannot say to
customers and potential distributors in the areas of religion and politics,
among other things, and in connection with the presentation of the Amway
Sales and Marketing Plan.
18. Amway also exercises control and supervision over its distributors by
requiring material produced and distributed to develop the sales and
distribution of Amway products and the solicitation of new Amway
distributors to be pre-approved by Amway corporate headquarters.
19. Amway Corporation sells to its distributors communication systems known
as "Amvox Network Voice Messaging" and "Amvox by Voice-Tel" which use the
telephone lines of interstate commerce. Specifically, Amway advertises and
provides for cash and other valuable consideration subscriptions to Amway's
Amvox communication systems for its distributors. Copies of Amway's Amvox
advertisement and Amway's Amvox subscription order form are attached as
Exhibit D and made a part of this Complaint.
20. Amway offers the Amvox system to its distributors in order to promote
the Amway business and to recruit new Amway distributors. Amway possesses
business records which contain the telephone numbers of all Amway
distributors who utilize the Amvox system.
21. Amway has the capability to receive messages on the Amvox system from
distributors and to send messages to all distributors who subscribe to
Amvox.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the
sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars.
23. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon a federal question and
diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.In addition,
this court has general and specific jurisdiction over each and every
defendant in this action.
24. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the Defendants reside in the State of
Utah and/or committed a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the
claims in this action within this district.
III. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
25. P&G was formed in 1837. In 1882 P&G registered in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office a trademark called the "Moon and Stars" design.
Successive minor variations of this design were also federally registered. A
copy of one such registration for P&G's "Moon and Stars" trademark, United
States Registration No. 298059, is attached as Exhibit E and made a part
of this Complaint.
26. The "Moon and Stars" trademark is a corporate symbol under which P&G has
conducted business throughout the United States for over a hundred years.
This business has been based upon the principle of providing products of
superior quality and value that best meet the needs of consumers.
27. In or about April and May 1995, Distributor Defendants, with actual
knowledge of their falsity or with malicious and reckless disregard as to
their truth or falsity, circulated and published or allowed to be circulated
and published in the States of Utah, Texas and Nevada, and elsewhere through
the Amvox communication systems and through other media, completely false
and defamatory written and oral statements. Both forms of defamatory
expression disparaged Plaintiffs' products, trademark, business interests,
reputation and goodwill. A transcript of certain such false and defamatory
oral statements that were published through the Amvox communication system
is attached as Exhibit F and made a part of this Complaint. The statements
falsely and maliciously associate P&G and P&G Distributing with satanism and
falsely and maliciously describe the "Moon and Stars" trademark as a satanic
symbol. The statements also falsely and maliciously assert that the
President of P&G appeared on a nationally televised talk show and discussed
P&G's relationship to satanism and P&G's support for the church of satan.
The statements further promote a boycott of P&G products and the purchase of
competing Amway products, which Defendants promote and distribute for
profit.
28. P&G Distributing and P&G and its subsidiaries and affiliates do not have
and never have had any connection, relationship, or association whatsoever
with satanism, devil worship or any church of satan. P&G representatives,
executives and employees have never appeared on any television program or
show asserting any connection with satanism, devil worship or the church
of satan.
29. Distributor Defendants, individually and in concert, have made the
false, defamatory and product disparaging statements contained in Exhibit F,
and were allowed to make such statements by Amway, to increase their
economic gain, to enhance their Amway distributorships, and to sell Amway
products, all to the benefit of defendants and to the detriment of
Plaintiffs.
30. The statements published and circulated by Distributor Defendants as set
forth in Exhibit F contain vicious misrepresentations of fact and false
statements which were known by Defendants to be false or were made, or were
allowed to be made, maliciously and with reckless disregard as to their
truth or falsity and which have caused harm and damage to Plaintiffs and
their business.
31. The instant action is not the first time that Amway distributors have
been involved in propagating and circulating false statements of the sort
alleged herein. In 1991, Procter & Gamble obtained a judgment for $75,000
against two Amway distributors for spreading rumors linking Plaintiffs'
trademark with Satanism.
32. Moreover, Amway was directly informed by Plaintiffs at various times in
the 1980's and 1990's about the rumors of satanism linked to Plaintiffs,
their products and trademarks being circulated by Amway distributors.
Despite this information, Amway has done little or nothing to educate its
distributors about such rumors or prevent such rumors from being spread to
the marketplace, all to Plaintiffs' substantial disadvantage. For example,
despite the fact that Randy L. Haugen has been an Amway distributor since
the early 1980s, has achieved "Executive Diamond" status, and has served on
the ADAC and its Executive Committee, he claims that prior to April or May
1995, he never received notice from Amway informing him that the rumors
regarding Plaintiffs' connection with satanism or the church of satan in
this case were false.
33. Amway was and is in a position of control and authority over Distributor
Defendants such that it knew, or should have known, of Distributor
Defendants' conduct as alleged herein. Moreover, Amway had the ability and
the obligation to prevent its distributors, including Distributor
Defendants, from engaging in the conduct alleged herein. For example, even
though Amway has the telephone numbers of all its distributors who subscribe
to Amvox service, Amway made no effort to inform all such distributors that
the rumors described herein are false.
34. Defendants' conduct and acts as alleged above have caused P&G and P&G
Distributing irreparable injury and such conduct will continue to the
irreparable harm of Plaintiffs unless enjoined by this Court.
COUNT ONE
DEFAMATION PER SE
35. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 34 of the Amended Complaint.
36. Defendants knowingly and intentionally slandered, libeled and defamed
Plaintiffs or have allowed Plaintiffs to be slandered, libeled and defamed
by publishing or allowing to be published the false, malicious and non-
privileged statements concerning Plaintiffs, their executives and employees,
and products, which proximately caused harm and damages to Plaintiffs'
reputation, prestige and standing as well as Plaintiffs' business and
products.
37. As a result of Defendants" conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.
38. With the implied approval of Amway, Distributor Defendants' conduct was
undertaken in bad faith, was malicious and manifested a wanton disregard of
and reckless indifference towards the rights of Plaintiffs thereby entitling
Plaintiffs to punitive or exemplary damages.
COUNT TWO
COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION
39. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their "prior
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Amended Complaint.
40. Defendants committed unfair competition and deceptive trade practices in
violation of Utah common law which proximately caused harm and damage to
Plaintiffs' business and products.
41. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
42. With the implied approval of Amway,Distributor Defendants' conduct was
undertaken in bad faith, was malicious and manifested a wanton disregard of
and reckless indifference toward the rights of Plaintiffs thereby entitling
Plaintiffs to punitive or exemplary damages.
COUNT THREE
UTAH TRUTH IN ADVERTISING ACT
43. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Amended complaint.
44. Defendants violated the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, Utah Code Ann. §§
13-lla-1 through 13-lla-5 (1989 & Cum.Supp. 1992) which proximately caused
harm and damage to Plaintiffs' business and products.
45. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT FOUR
SECTION 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT
46. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 45 of the Amended Complaint.
47. With the implied approval of Amway, Distributor Defendants published the
false and deceptive statements concerning Plaintiffs and their products in
commerce, thereby committing false and deceptive trade practices in
violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), which
proximately caused harm and damage to Plaintiffs' business and products.
48. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT FIVE
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
49. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the Amended Complaint.
50. Plaintiffs have advantageous business relationships with existing
customers and expectancies of developing advantageous relationships with
prospective customers.
51. Defendants were aware of these advantageous business relationships but,
despite this knowledge, engaged in the conduct alleged herein.
52. Defendants undertook the alleged conduct for improper purposes,
including but not limited to, inflicting an economic and competitive injury
on Plaintiffs.
53. Defendants have utilized improper means in their competitions with
Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to libeling, slandering and defaming
Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' products.
54. As a result of the conduct alleged herein; Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
55. The conduct of Defendants as alleged herein was undertaken in bad faith,
was malicious and manifested wanton disregard of and reckless indifference
towards the rights of Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
or exemplary damages.
COUNT SIX
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
56. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 55 of the Amended Complaint.
57. Through distributorship agreements, agencies, organizations and entities
such as ADAC, and through publications such as the Business Reference
Manual, Amway was and is in a position of authority, control and supervision
over its distributors such as Distributor Defendants and profited from their
efforts.
58. As such, Amway has a duty to Plaintiffs as well as to the general public
to ensure that its distributors, including Distributor Defendants, engage in
lawful and fair competition with their competitors in the sale and marketing
of Amway products and the development of Amway business.
59. Amway has failed to properly control and supervise the Distributor
Defendants thereby enabling the Distributor Defendants to engage in the
conduct described herein. As such, Amway has breached its duty to
Plaintiffs.
60. As a result of Amway's negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
61. Amway has known for years that its distributors have engaged in the
unlawful practices of spreading false and defamatory rumors about Plaintiffs
and their products and trademarks. Amway has the capacity and authority to
proscribe and prevent such unlawful practices. Amway's failure to so act was
motivated by bad faith and malice and manifested a wanton disregard of and
reckless indifference towards Plaintiffs' rights, thereby entitling
Plaintiffs to punitive or exemplary damages.
COUNT SEVEN
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
62. Plaintiffs incorporate as if fully restated herein their prior
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 61 of the Amended complaint.
63. Through distributor agreements, agencies, organizations and entities
such as ADAC and through publications, guidelines and manuals such as the
Business Reference Manual, Amway was in a position of authority, control and
supervision over its distributors such as defendants and has profited from
their efforts.
64. Distributor Defendants were and continue to be partners, agents and
representatives of Amway and as such stand in partnership, agency/principal
and/or master/servant relationships with Amway.
65. Amway cloaked the Distributor Defendants with actual and apparent
authority to represent Amway.
66. The conduct alleged herein against Distributor Defendants took place
within the scope of their partnership/agency relationships with Amway.
67. As such, Amway is vicariously liable for the conduct of agents and
servants as alleged herein.
68. As a result of this conduct of defendants alleged herein, Plaintiffs
have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
69. Defendants' conduct as alleged herein was undertaken in bad faith and
manifested a wanton disregard of and reckless indifference towards the
rights of Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive
or exemplary damages.
IV. RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
a. judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for compensatory
damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00);
b. judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for punitive damages in
an appropriate amount to deter Defendants and others from the conduct
complained of;
c. judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for attorneys' fees;
d. for an order (i) permanently restraining Defendants and their partners,
agents, and corporate subsidiaries and affiliates, individually and jointly,
from publishing or in any manner causing to be published or circulated the
statements in Exhibit F or any similar false statements purporting to
connect Plaintiffs or any of their subsidiaries or affiliated corporations
or their products or trademarks to satanism or devil worship or the church
of satan; and (ii) requiring Amway to affirmatively communicate to all of
its distributors through such means as its written distributorship
applications, agreements, Business Reference Manual, Amvox system and other
publications, guidelines and manuals, that statements purporting to
associate Plaintiffs or any of their subsidiaries or affiliated corporations
or their products or trademarks to satanism or devil worship or the church
of satan are false and must not under any circumstances or for any
purposes be published or circulated; and
e. for such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
V. JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand
trial by jury.
DATED this 29th day of April, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
CAMPBELL MAACK & SESSIONS
TRACY H. FOWLER
WILLIAM H. CHRISTENSEN
SEAN N. EGAN
One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2215
(801) 537-5555 telephone
and
THOMAS S. CALDER
JOHN E. JEVICKY
DINSMORE & SHOHL
1900 Chemed Center
255 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 977-8200 telephone
OF COUNSEL:
Joseph P. Suarez, Esq.
The Procter & Gamble Company
Legal Division
One Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 983-4194 telephone
Attorneys for Plaintiffs The
Procter & Gamble Company and The
Procter & Gamble Distributing
Company
Plaintiffs' Addresses:
The Procter & Gamble Company
One Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
The Procter & Gamble
Distributing Company
One Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Defendants Addresses:
Mr. Randy L. Haugen Ted Randal Walker
2488 Bonneville Terrace 5227 Nodaway Lane
Ogden, Utah 84403 Houston, Texas 77379
Freedom Associates, Inc. Walker International Network
12488 Bonneville Terrace 5227 Nodaway Lane
Ogden, Utah 84403 Houston, Texas 77379
Freedom Tools Incorporated Amway Corporation
2488 Bonneville Terrace 7575 Fulton Street East
Ogden, Utah 84403 Ada, Michigan 49355-0001
Roger D. Patton
34 Coralberry Road
The Woodlands, Texas 77381
Jeffery G. Musgrove
16110 Plantation Bay Drive
Katy, Texas 77449
Musgrove Enterprises
16110 Plantation Bay Drive
Katy, Texas 77449
Steven E. Brady
3802 Meadows
Las Vegas, Nevada 89107
Stephen L. Bybee
1142 Eastridge Drive
Logan, Utah 84321
Eagle Business
Development, Inc.
11142 Eastridge Drive
Logan, Utah 84321
-------------------------------------
Exhibit F, transcript from Amvox communication system: Thursday, 1:24 P.M. Remote Message from Randy and Valorie Haugen "This is a great message, listen to it." Thursday, 12:17 A.M. Remote Message from "This is Randy [Walker] double Your numbers." "Hello Randy, attached is a very interesting message. Love you. Bye, bye." Wednesday, 11:38 P.M. Remote Message from Jeff Musgrove "Randy, this is Jeff -- hey you may have already received a message like this, uh, before but, um, figured I'd send it to you just in case you haven't. It's, uh, pretty interesting. Anyway talk to you later. Love you man. Bye, bye." Wednesday, 10:25 P.M. Remote Message from Roger and Susan Patton "Hey Jeff, it's Roger Patton. "I wanna run something by you real quick that I think you will find pretty interesting. Just talking to a guy the other night about this very subject and it just so happens that a guy brings information in and lays it on my desk this morning, so here it goes. "It says the president of Procter & Gamble appeared on the Phil Donahue Show on March 1, '95. He announced that due to the openness of our society, he was coming out of the closet about his association with the church of satan. He stated that a large portion of the profits from the Procter &m Gamble products go to support his satanic church. When asked by Donahue if stating this on television would hurt his business, his reply was 'there are not enough Christians in the United States to make a difference.' And below it has a list of the Procter & Gamble products which I'll read: "Duncan Hines, Folgers, Gleem, Bold, Crisco, Jif, Bounce, Puritan, Always, Cascade, Secret, Attends Under Garments, Cheer, Sure, Oil of Olay, Joy, Head N Shoulders, Wondra, Comet, Pert, Camay, Dawn, Prell, Coast, Downy, Vidal Sassoon, Ivory, Gain, Luvs, Lava, Mr. Clean, Pampers, Safeguard, Oxydol, Pepto Bismol, Charmin, Spic N Span, Scope, Puffs, Tide, Crest, Zest, Top Job "It says if you are not sure about a product, look for the symbol of the ram's horn that will appear on each product beginning in April. The ram's horn will form the 666 which is known as satan's number. I'll tell you it really makes you count your blessings to have available to all of us a business that allows us to buy all the products that we want from our own shelf and I guess my real question is, if people aren't being loyal to themselves and buying from their own business, then whose business are they supporting and who are they buying from. Love you. Talk to you later. Bye."
