- 1. In 1989, The Coca-Cola Company failed and neglected
to renew their copyright of their "contour bottle" with the U.S.
Copyright Office.
-
- 2. At about the same time, Robert E. Kolody, an innovative
designer, wasworking on storyboards and designs as to Coca-Cola. He at
the time did not know that The Coca-Cola Company and/or their subsidiaries
had not renewed their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.
-
- 3. Kolody submitted his storyboards and designs to The
Coca-Cola Companyand by and through their marketing adjunct, Simon Marketing.
-
- 4. In 1994, Kolody obtained the U.S. Copyright on the
"contour bottle".
-
- 5. THEREAFTER, The Coca-Cola Company committed perjury
and fraud upon the U.S. Copyright Office by also obtaining the fraudulent
copyright, asa cover-up of their failure to renew. [See attached letter
from Copyright Office warning Coca-Cola.]
-
- 6. In 1997, Kolody started a federal suit against Simon
Marketing and The Coca-Cola Company, in the U.S. District Court in Chicago,
No. 97 C 190.
-
- 7. The Coca-Cola Company committed apparent securities
fraud by not informing of this situation to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Stockholders of The Coca-Cola Company, a publicly traded firm,
should have been informed.
-
- 8. In July, 2000, Kolody's ownership of the Coca-Cola
copyright of the "contour bottle" was placed on auction with
eBay and the reserve was notmet. Posted with it were documents of the U.S.
Copyright Office. A top official of The Coca-Cola Company, Ben Deutsch[bdeutsch@na.ko.com],
communicated with Kolody but did not protest or object to Kolody auctioning
the Coca-Cola copyright, nor did any other official of Coca-Cola.
-
- 9. On May 18, 2000, in the presence of Kolody and his
principal attorney, Dan Ivy, I as a TV Show moderator and producer and
electronic journalist, interviewed Kolody's local counsel, Daniel v. Hanley.
A excerpt from the federal court record follows
-
- "Skolnick Does Coca-Cola and their attorneys know
the legal strategy ofRobert Kolody and his attorney Dan Ivy here?
-
- Hanley Yes.
-
- Skolnick Really? How could they know?
-
- Hanley My sister is the media buyer for Coca-Cola."
[Declaration of Skolnick, filed 8/9/2000.]
-
- Thereafter, I found out that his sister, Mary Hanley,
has been listed asAssociate Media Director, of the advertising agency,
DDB Chicago, Inc. [Her direct number(312) 552-6368. FAX (312) 552-2394.
Internet address MaryHanley@chi.ddb.com ] I repeated the substance of that
interview in my sworn court testimony on August 22, 2000, in the presence,
among others, of Daniel V. Hanley.
-
- 10. Apparently contrary to U.S. Anti-Trust laws, DDB
represents both TheCoca-Cola Company and their purported competitor, Pepsico.
-
- 11. During a federal court hearing on August 22, 2000,
the alleged atorney for Simon Marketing, Jacqueline A. Criswell, of the
firm Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, claimed she did not know
of Cyrk, Inc., the firm that took over Simon Marketing. [As shown by Official
Court transcript.]
-
- 12. In Chicago, U.S. District Judge Blanche M. Manning
[(312) 435-7608. FAX (312) 435-7578], sought to hush up this matter by
committing a series of judicial perjuries in her Court. As shown by the
Court records, the Judge committed several frauds upon her own Court,
including blocking discovery. To deal with this, the Judge sat as a Judge
in her own case, forbidden by Anglo-Saxon fundamental Law.
-
- 13. The foregoing matters are adequately proven in the
federal district court record in No. 97 C 190, with voluminous documents.
-
- 14. By reasonable estimates, Coca-Cola bottlers and/or
distributors, from 1989 to date, have been over-charged and falsely charged
by The Coca-Cola Company and their subsidiaries, approximately 108 BILLION
Dollars.
-
- QUESTIONS
-
- 15. By what legal right, does The Coca-Cola Company and/or
their subsidiaries, since their copyright to the "contour bottle"
expired in 1989, continue to charge and collect license fees, royalties,
and other fees from those who are bottlers and/or distributors of Coca-Cola,
as a percentage of the cost for their secret syrup which includes marketing,
advertising, and packaging charges?
-
- 16. How have U.S. and foreign bottlers and/or distributors
been damaged by The Coca-Cola Company failing and neglecting to inform
them of the foregoing situation?
-
- 17. How have consumers and Coca-Cola stockholders been
damaged?
-
- 18. Most of the foregoing has already been on my popular
public access Cable TV Program "Broadsides", cablecast within
Chicago, such as on July31, 2000. [Since 1991,the program is on in Chicago
every Monday evening,9 p.m., Channel 21 Cable TV and reaches some 400,000
viewers.] Becauseof their own financial hang-ups, the mass media have failed
so far to report these matters.
-
- Visit Sherman's Site for first hand look at these documents:
- http://www.skolnicksreport.com/opencoke.html
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|