IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINA

Richmond Division

ORDER

Upon motion by plaintiff CPC International Inc., now Bestfoods by reason

of change of name, this court on August 12, 1999 ordered Skippy, Inc. and Joan Crosby Tibbets

("defendants") to appear and to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt or be

sanctioned for violating this Court's Final Order dated September 4, 1986 in the above-entitled action.

Upon notice and hearing on August 27, 1999, upon the parties' appearance in person and

by counsel, and upon consideration of the submission of all parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Order of this Court dated September 4, 1986 (the "1986 Order", remains in full force and effect.

2. Defendants shall permanently remove the passages and titles shown

on the attached Schedule A from anywhere in the Skippy.com Internet website, including their

use of metatags, no later than September 1, 1999, five days from the hearing on plaintiff's

Motion to Show Cause, and shall not republish that deleted material or have that deleted material

republished by others.

3. Defendents are enjoined from providing others with any of the deleted material on

the Skippy.com website or any material that violates the Court's Order of September 4, 1986.

4. Defendants shall notify third parties who have republished the copyrighted

material ordered to be deleted by this Order that Skipp, Inc. and/or Joan Crosby Tibbetts do not

authorize the continued republication of that material and shall demand deletion of that material

from third-party source.

5. Defendents shall with Bestfoods in any legal proceeding that Bestfoods

may bring against third parties who fail to delete the material ordered to be deleted pursuant to

this Order from they material copied from the Skippy.com website.

6. Defendants shall pay to Bestfoods its attorney's fees incured in preparing, filing, and proscuting this motion.

7. This Order and the 1986 Order shall apply to Defendants and all persons acting on

their behalf or in concert with them who have or are given actual notice of the 1986 Order and/or this Order.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

8. This matter is to be continued for 30 days, at which time, if the hightlighted text

has been deleted from the website, and the defendents have not otherwise violated the Order, the

paragraph No. 6 shall be stricken.

ENTERED THIS 7th of September, 1999.

WE ask for this:

CPC International, Inc. (now Bestfoods)

Signed here___________________
By: W.Mack Webner, VSB 16455
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Wsahington, DC 20037
202-663-7495
Attorneys for Plaintiff CPC International, Inc.

Seen and objected to:

Skippy, Inc.
Joan Crosby Tibbetts

Declined to sign_______________
By: Rodney R. Sweetland, III
1655 North Fort Meyer Drive
Suite 700
Arlington, Virginia 22209
703-351-5288

3

This is a reproduction, the original is available.

Schedule A

The following passages have appeared in the Skippy.com website and are to be

permanently removed from the website.

In the cascade of page names appearing at the top of each page and in the
metatags of the website, delete "CPC'S FRAUD ON THE COURTS" and
"CPC'S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION."

Page 2

During this time, Crosby's famous Skippy trademark and its valuable goodwill
was pirated by a bankrupt peanut company, which later merged with a
Fortune 500 company, making a fortune in illicit sales under the Skippy brand name.

* * *

Thanks to the advent of the Internet, the lawful Skippy heirs can reveal what the
food pirates (Bestfoods) and their army of attorneys concealed from the courts
and the public for decades . . . . Bestfoods' legal department, apprehensive of
being exposed on the Internet as the naked Emperor, has recently changed its
website about its Skippy history, and compounded its conduct by engaging in
willful wire fraud, a federal crime.

Page 11

Percy Crosby referred to the NRA as Roosevelt's "New Russian Administration",
unaware that it was by means of the NRA peanut butter code that a bankrupt
California food packer (Rosefield) would steal Skippy and make a fortune.

Page 12

In 1933, Rosefield Packing Co., Ltd., attempted to register Skippy as a federal
trademark for peanut butter, using the same fence theme with Skippy's bucket of
red paint and artist's brush, and Crosby's distinctive Skippy lettering on the fence.
Skippy, Inc. immediately filed suit in the U.S. Patent Office through Skippy's

1

counsel, Lord, Day & Lord, and prevailed. Rosefield's Chicago lawyer, then
under investigation by the Justice Department for a racketeering case in Chicago,
advised his client that an appeal would be futile, and wrote that a better method
was to inform the "criminal division" of Justice (the IRS) should Skippy, Inc.
discover Rosefields' Skippy scheme.

Page 15-16

In June, 1944, he discovered that, despite the 1934 final decision for Skippy, Inc.,
Rosefield had continued to sell its peanut butter under the counterfeit Skippy
label. A cease and desist letter from Crosby's new attorney resulted in
Rosefield's renewed request to its Chicago attorney to report Crosby and Skippy,
Inc. to the "criminal division" of the Justice Department.

* * *

Crosby, unable to pay an attorney, was forced to sue Rosefield pro se in New
York (these document remain concealed by Bestfoods to date), which action was
allegedly dismissed for failure to prosecute. It was during this period that
Crosby's licensing agent said that the artists was "hounded and harassed", and
was like "a hunted man" . . ." His phone was tapped, his mail intercepted, and he
trusted noone.

Page 17-18

Five days later, on December 21, 1948, Rosefield was issued a federal trademark
for Skippy the U.S. Patent Office after Rosefield's fraudulent application swore
that no other person, firm or corporation had a right to the mark. Rosefield and its
Chicago counsel had not appealed the 1934 decision for Skippy, Inc., and knew
this federal registration was at their own peril as long as Percy Crosby was alive
to make a protest.

* * *

Stein became president of Skippy, Inc., which now was under the virtual control
of the peanut butter racket and its ruthless drive to destroy Crosby's reputation
and convert the meaning of the famous Skippy trademark to a brand name peanut
butter. Because of Percy Crosby's distinctive, stylized Skippy name on the label,
millions of consumer associated the brand name with the comic character . . . .

* * *

2

Rosefield and its attorneys lost no time in filing a prospectus of its Skippy
criminal enterprise with the SEC in 1950, claiming there had been no material
litigation. By 1954, Rosefield's business had made over $22 million in Skippy
sales.

Page 19

In 1954, Rosefield sold its Skippy business to Best Foods, Inc. for $7.5 million,
Jerome Rosefield became a Best Foods officer, director and head of the Skippy
division, which bought corn syrup (dextrose) from Corn Products Refining Co.
(CPC), a major client of Lord, Day & Lord. In 1958, Brownell rejoined the firm,
after resigning as Attorney General. Several months later CPC merged with Best
Foods and Lord Day & Lord served as CPC's primary counsel. Clearly, it was
not in Brownell's or the firm's interest to advise the New York Supreme Court
that their former client had outstanding legal claims for the theft of the valuable
Skippy name and business. Crosby was never aware of these transactions and the
conspiracy by his lawyers and court-appointed "committee" to sell Skippy on the
New York Stock Exchange as a legitimate business.

Page 21

Little did I know when I was appointed by the New York Surrogate Court as his
administratrix in March, 1965 that he was a political prisoner of the powerful
Corn Products Corporation ("CPC"), which had stolen his Skippy business,
destroyed his reputation and career, and looted his estate of valuable assets. I was
then age 32, with four infant children, unaware that I was now "under surveillance"
and that it was the intent of CPC and its allies (including my father's and Skippy,
Inc. former counsel, Lord, Day & Lord) to steal our inheritance, and to subject
Skippy, Inc. and me to years of prolonged, vexatious lawsuits.

Years later, I learned that CPC was the infamous "Glucose Trust" the government
had broken up for antitrust violations.

* * *

In that case, which became the Rosetta Stone for the lawful Skippy heirs, the
government gave incriminating evidence of internal memos re CPC's illegal
schemes, including the president's boast, "We have built a Chinese Wall around
our competitors and have them in chains." My father was held hostage by this
evil combination, and died in virtual poverty, while CPC made hundreds and

3

millions of dollars from the Skippy criminal enterprise. Ironically, my father died
on the date that CPC, aided and abetted by Percy Crosby's court-appointed
committee, intended to buy the priceless Skippy assets for a mere $4,000, without
court approval, using a Chicago syndicate as a front. His death aborted the illegal
scheme and the assets of Skippy, Inc. became a major portion of the Crosby
estate, which attorney Rose Lehman Stein, then Skippy's president, claimed to
own over ninety percent.

* * *

Stein, an accomplice of Rosefield and CPC, lied to my attorney that Percy Crosby
"gave permission" for the brand name Skippy in 1935, and that she investigated,
telling him the estate had no legal claims.

Page 22

It was not until after Stein's death in 1985 that I learned of her ties to Rosefield
and the Skippy peanut butter racket.

I became Skippy president in 1968, and reported to the Court that the assets of
Percy Crosby estate were under $60,000, unaware that CPC had been a silent
partner in the litigation and was concealing a fortune in stolen Skippy assets.

It was not until April 23,1987 that a top level CPC officer admitted to a new
reporter after CPC's annual meeting that "CPC has been in court with the Crosby
heirs for the past 20 years." (Bergen County NJ Record, 4/24/87, page B-1). This
confession came after my four children (then adult) and I appeared at the annual
meeting, distributed press releases, and made a public protest about CPC's theft of
Skippy.

Page 23

CPC'S FRAUD ON THE COURTS (1980-87)

* * *

I asked Heller if he had a copy of the action with him, and he said it was in his
briefcase, but would not show it to me. He falsely told me that he had no
knowledge of trademark law, and stated falsely that the statute of limitations had
expired. Although he admitted that Rosefield's conduct in taking Skippy was
"unconscionable", he denied that Best Foods/CPC had any liability. But he did

4

not disclose that Jerome Rosefield became Best Foods officer, director and head
of the "Skippy division" in 1955. He denied any knowledge Lord, Day & Lord
represented CPC, and had refused to give me legal files of Skippy, Inc. and Percy
Crosby I demanded. He offered me $10,000 to file a dissolution as a Delaware
corporation, which I refused. He asked me what I would do if I had "a lot of
money", and I said I would use it to sue CPC if, as I believed, CPC had no legal
right to the Skippy trademark. Heller claimed he was "sympathetic" to what
happened to my father and wanted to "help". His "help" came in the use of fraud,
trickery and threats to induce me to sign an option agreement to CPC for the
Skippy property, with a payment of $25,000, which required me to release CPC
before I could receive the legal files from Lord, Day & Lord.

* *

When I got the files in 1978, I was angry and phoned Heller to protest that they
were highly material and deliberately concealed from my father's estate. His
comment: "I was afraid you'd find them helpful." I was unaware then he had
written a memo of our first meeting, admitting that the Skippy peanut butter label
was "plagiarized" from my father's work, and stated his concern about "adverse
publicity" to CPC if I pursued Skippy's legal claims. Heller refused to settle out
of court, and warned me that if Skippy Inc. sued to cancel CPC's Skippy
trademark, "We'll fight you to the death...CPC has considerable influence in
Washington corridors and can see to it that certain doors remain forever closed to
you and Skippy." As my family and I were to learn, CPC had no qualms about
using its corrupt influence to compromise Skippy, Inc. counsel, to obstruct justice
and to use its political influence with law firms and government agencies to
suppress a criminal investigation of its Skippy enterprise.

Page 24

Trattner not only lost our jury trial demand for damages, and request for an
injunction, but he concealed incriminating evidence in CPC's legal files from his
client and the Court, and never revealed that the New York Supreme Court had
original jurisdiction over Rosefield's fraudulent conveyance of Skippy to Best
Foods in 1955. Skippy, Inc. v. CPC International, Inc., 210 U.S.P.Q. 589, E.D.
Va.,1980.

* * *

CPC refused to heed the district judge's request for a certified order .... Little did
we know then that CPC had fraudulently concealed "smoking gun" evidence of its
infamous battle with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) re peanut butter

5

standards, and the FDA decision in 1966 that "Skippy is adulterated and
outlawed." CPC lost its appeal of the FDA decision in 1970 (U.S. Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit).

Page 25

It was dismissed in 1985, the Court finding that Lord, Day & Lord should have
been named defendant with CPC in 1980. There were major omissions in the
case pleadings as well, notably the fact that it was Lord, Day & Lord who drafted
and filed the original 1933 Skippy Inc. action v. Rosefield in the Patent Office,
and had destroyed the evidence before sending the legal files to me in 1978. No
conspiracy count was included in the complaint. Trattner received a letter from
Chester Vincent dated June 30,1981 that he told me proved his belief of CPC's
"fraud", but he would not give me a copy of letter. I typed a copy of the letter
while he was absent from his office, and phoned Vincent after I fired Trattner.
Vincent confirmed that Trattner lied to me he contacted Vincent, who alleged that
the Rosefield family put millions of dollars in off-shore banked to keep it "out of
the reach of the Crosby heirs."

CPC'S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (1982-87)

One month before the Fourth Circuit decision in 1982, CPC filed oppositions to
Skippy, Inc. service mark applications in the Patent Office, accusing Skippy of
fraud, but acknowledging the confusion of consumers, which CPC had denied in
1980 and as appellee. This was blatant harassment and intent to restrain Skippy's
trade, but CPC refused to dismiss case. The decision for CPC was viewed by
many attorneys as being incontrovertible evidence of CPC's political influence
with certain Patent Office officials, and CPC's continuing, reckless fraud on the
Patent Office. CPC v. Skippy, Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1457, PTO/TTAB, 1987

Page 26

I discovered why CPC had fraudulently concealed this incriminating evidence
from the 1980 Court. Not only had Jerome Rosefield given knowingly false
testimony to the FDA Examiner at the 1966 peanut butter hearings, denying the
Examiner's question, "Are you sure there isn't some patent abuse here (with
Skippy)?", but CPC officer John Volkhardt had given testimony to the FDA :
"Skippy was originally named after the cartoon character who was painting his
name on a fence." This blatant admission of trade forgery of Percy Crosby's
Skippy signature and comic symbols was the basis of our 1980 lawsuit, yet
Volkhardt 's 1980 sworn testimony denied any connection. Rosefield also

6

admitted that the FDA complained about Rosefield's 1933 Skippy label, but he
did not reveal to the FDA Examiner in 1966 that the Patent Office had prohibited
Rosefield's Skippy application as a matter of statutory law in 1934.

I sent a demand letter to CPC counsel Hanes Heller, warning him Skippy would
re-enter the food market with an authentic Skippy product, but I got no reply. My
husband and I found a licensee interested in selling Skippy caramel corn with
peanuts in a child's sand pail that my sister (a commercial artist) and I designed
with Percy Crosby's Skippy character to parody Volkhardt's admissions of trade
forgery. Skippy counsel James L. Kurtz advised us to recapture the market "CPC
stole from your father", assuring us CPC would "commit legal suicide" if they
dared to sue. Annual minimum sales of the product were estimated at $1.5
million dollars, and the artistic pail was an instant success. Then our attorney
suddenly refused to represent Skippy, denying that CPC had influenced him.
CPC then made a major change on its Skippy label to conceal its imitation of
Crosby's distinctive lettering. Our licensee told us they were having problems
getting the product on store shelves via jobbers and distributors who were afraid
of CPC's reprisal, but did not tell us that CPC had sent a cease and desist letter to
our licensee, Pineland Peanut Processors. My husband and I became alarmed
when attorney Kurtz warned us CPC intended to sue until we were "both dead."
We met with the assistant U.S. Attorney. He told us there was "strong evidence of
CPC's fraud on the court in 1980", and assured us he would take action if CPC
sued. Both Kurtz and CPC were fully aware my husband had been hospitalized
and diagnosed with congestive heart disease, and that further litigation could be
dangerous.

Pages 27-28

CPC made a secret with our licensee to cut off our royalty income and got a
preliminary injunction. My pro se protests were futile. I was unaware then that
Congress in 1984 made trademark counterfeiting a federal crime, but could not
believe that the government would turn a deaf ear and blind eye to CPC's
predatory conduct.

* * *

We returned to Virginia, unaware that CPC had filed a bogus default motion in
our absence.

* * *

7

I phones the attorney the next morning, who told me CPC would not let him
defend us because of a "conflict", which he denied. He promised to find us
counsel, but never revealed that his new partner had defended CPC in the 1980
case.

I hired the attorney he referred to me, unaware of the serious conflict, who
assured me he could convince CPC to dismiss the case and pay Skippy, Inc., in
view of Waldo's critical condition. CPC refused to dismiss the case, and it went
to trial (a half day), after which our attorney suddenly withdrew.

* * *

Scores of consumers boycotted Skippy peanut butter in protest, and I filed a
complaint with the Justice Department at the assistant U.S. Attorney's request.
Notably, CPC never advised its stockholders or the Securities & Exchange
Commission of its alleged victories in the Skippy litigation, knowing full well that
title to stolen property can not be conveyed.

Page 29

. . . remained convinced CPC and its lawyers would eventually pay a high price
for their "utter cowardice and greed."

* * *

His greatest anguish was at the rank betrayal of the attorneys we hired and paid to
expose fraud and CPC's Skippy criminal enterprise, who remained silent in the
face of a clear duty to speak and inform federal authorities of fraud on the
government.

8

New Matter on Website since July 16, 1999¹

At pages 3, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, delete the following text:

Due to a pending lawsuit from Best Foods, this portion of the story has
been temporarily deleted.

At page 28, delete the following text:

Immediately after the release of this web site, CPC filed a motion in court
to silence Joan Crosby Tibbetts from publishing the true story of Skippy.
Ms. Tibbetts is in need of your support to help protect the property rights
of Skippy that her father lived and died to preserve. For more information
on how you can help, please email Joan Crosby Tibbetts. Your support of
Skippy is very much appreciated!

Also delete the cartoon at page 28 and its caption, "Why is Bestfoods bullying the
little Skippy once again?"

______________________

¹The page numbering of the July 16 and the August 13 printouts differs slightly because of the addition of an "introductory" page just before the "Prologue" page and because the deletion of some text has shortened some pages from two pages of printout to one.

9

Immediately after the release of this web site, CPC filed a motion in court to silence Joan Crosby Tibbetts from publishing the true story of Skippy. Mrs. Tibbetts is in need of your support to help protect the property rights of Skippy that her father lived and died to preserve. Your support of Skippy is very much appreciated!	©1924, 1999 "Why is Bestfoods bullying the little Skippy once again?"

WARNING: LEGAL NOTICE!
SKIPPY and the image of the character SKIPPY are trademarks and copyrights of SKIPPY, INC. Neither these marks nor the copyrighted works of Percy Crosby may be used without the permission of SKIPPY, INC. For information about licensing these images and trademarks, please contact Joan Crosby Tibbetts at SKIPPY, INC. joan@skippy.com Joan Crosby Tibbetts, President, Skippy Incorporated

Site Index