Preview
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 2/41
CAUSE NO. 2010-34795
SYED RASHID BUKHARI IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
VS- HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MANZOOR MEMON
AMBER MEMON, et al 133% JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI, and files his Response to the
Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Traditional Motion for Summary
Judgment, and would respectfully show as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1 Recognizing the Defendants are clearly liable for defaming the Plaintiff, the
Defendants’ counsel have now embarked on a strategy to “justify” some of the Defendant
Manzoor Memon’s malicious defamation as the exercise of a constitutional right of petition
This misguided effort should be thwarted by the Court, so the Plaintiff can have complete justice
for the wrongful misconduct of the Defendants, particularly Manzoor Memon.
2 The Defendants have combined, confused and interwined their “No Evidence”
arguments and their “Traciitional” arguments in a manner that makes a coherent response
dificult. As best as the Plaintiff can decipher their confusing diatribe, it appears the
Defendants contend there is no evidence:
A Amber Memon published any of the defamatory statements;
B Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant are
vicariously liable for the conduct of Manzoor Memon,
-l-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 3/41
Cc Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant acted
with negligence or actual malice regarding the truth of any of the
defamatory statements.
As is set forth below, the Defendants have misconstrued the plain language of the Plaintiff's
Sixth Amended Petition and there is sufficient evidence of those elements that are actually raised
by the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition Accordingly, the Defendants’ No Evidence Motion
for Summary Judgment should he denied.
3 As is set forth in the Plaintiffs Sixth Amended Petition, the defamatory per se
statements for which the Defendants are individually and /or vicariously liable are as follows
A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp;
B Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering,
Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud;
Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa
applications through a congressional office;
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit
products out of his garage in violation of the law, and
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or
contained tax stamps that violated federal and state law from his garage,
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA;
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal,
Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for
dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio;
Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in
the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment,
K Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States
under false pretenses and/or using fake documents, and.
—2-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 4/41
L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender.
4 There is more than sufficient evidence that Manzoor Memon published each of
the defamatory per se statements, they are false, Manzoor Memon was negligent with regard to
the truth of the defamatory per se statements when he published them; and the Plaintiff suffered
mental anguish and harm to his reputation as a result of those defamatory
per se statements
<
5 The Defendants have failed to prove any of the defamatory statements are opinion
or true, and they bear the burden to prove those defenses in connection with their Motion. The
Defendants have also failed to prove the Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, as a matter of
law In fact, the Court should determine, as a matter of law, the statements described in the
Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition are defamatory per se, as matter of law, and the Plaintiff is not
a limited-purpose public figure, as a matter of law
6 The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 14 (A), (B) and (C) of the Plaintiff's Sixth
Amended Petition are not barred by the statute of limitations because they were encompassed by
the liberal view of the allegations of the Original Petition, First Amended, Second Amended
Petitions, especially since the Defendants failed to file any special exceptions regarding the
defamatory statements identified in those pleadings Of course, it is also clear that those
defamatory statements were also published on later dates as well, so the Defendants are also
liable for them in any event. The Detendants have failed to carry their burden to prove the
Plaintiff's cause of action for the statements in Paragraphs 14 (A), (B) and (C) of the Plaintiff's
Sixth Amended Petition are barred by limitations.
a There is also sufficient evidence that Amber Memon was an editor of IHTBP? and.
she has ratified and/or endorsed the defamatory per se statements Manzoor Memon has published
34
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 5/41
about the Plaintiff, There is also sufficient evidence that raises a fact issue about the personal
use of the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendants, who are all owned and controlled by
Manzoor Memon, and the funds of those entities that were used to print IHTBP?. Thus, there is
at least a fact issue about their vicarious liability for the wrongful conduct of their vice-principal,
Manzoor Memon. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment
should also be denied.
THE APPLICABLE PLEADINGS AND FACTS
The Pleadings the Court Must Consider
8 Although it is apparent the Defendants would prefer the Court ignore the
Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition, it is obvious the Sixth Amended Petition is the Plaintiff's
active pleading, and it must be considered by this Court is ruling on the Defendant’s Motion. In
the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition, the defamatory per se statements and the dates they were
published are as follows:
A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA (March 2010,
April 2010, October 2010, November 2010, March 2011);
Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering (March
2010, April 2010, October 2010, February 20H, March 201, July-September
2012);
Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud (March 2010, April
2010, October 2010, November 2010, January 201], February 201, March
2011, July September 2012);
Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa
applications through a congressional office (March 2010, April 2010);
Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States
under false pretenses and/or using fake documents (March 2010,
July-September 2012);
m4
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 6/41
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit
products out of his garage in violation of the law (April 2010, May 2010,
October 2010, November 2010, July-September 2012);
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or
contained tax stamps that violated federal and state law from his garage
(April 2010, October 2010, July-September 2012);
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp (April 2010);
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal (October 2010, November 2010, January
2011, March 2011);
Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for
dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio (February 2011
July-September 2012);
Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in
the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment (February 201],
July -September 2012); and
L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender (July-September 2012)
9 This suit was filed June 4, 2010 by the Plaintiff against Defendants Manzoor
Memon and Amber Memon. The Plaintiff sued the Memons for making defamatory statements
that the Plaintiff
A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia,
B committed mortgage fraud, and
Cc a pimp
The Plaintiff asserted the Memons made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements
about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's Original
Petition at 99 11-12. The Defendants filed no Special Exceptions to this Petition
10 The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Petition on October 4, 2010 In this
amended Petition the Plaintiff added Akib Construction, Inc. as a Defendant, and asserted this
5-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 7/41
corporation was also liable for defamation. The Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for making
defamatory statements that the Plaintiff:
A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia,
B committed mortgage fraud, and
Cc apimp.
The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements
about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's First Amended
Petition at 9913-14. Defendants filed no Special Exceptions to this Amended Petition
IL The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Petition on July 15, 2011 In this pleading
the Plaintiff added Rakib Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor
Enterprises, Inc. as Defendants who were jointly and severally liable and/or vicariously liable for
the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff, The Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for
making defamatory statements that the Plaintiff:
A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia,
B committed mortgage fraud,
Cc apimp and
D sells stolen cigarettes
The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements
about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiffs Second
Amended Petition at #9 3-14 The Defendants filed no Special Exceptions regarding the
defamatory statements described in this Amended Petition or the allegations the Defendants
these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements.
—6—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 8/41
12 The Court granted Special Exceptions to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition
on December 20, 2011 pertaining to certain allegations made against Akib Construction, Inc.,
Rakib Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor Enterprises, Inc
On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Petition In his Third Amended
Petition, the Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the
Plaintiff:
is a part of the Pakistani Mafia,
committed mortgage fraud,
Cc a pimp and
D sells stolen cigarettes
The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory
statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's
Third Amended Petition at 99 14-15
Bb Defendants Manzoor Memon, Amber Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib
Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor Enterprises, Inc. filed Special Exceptions to the Plaintiff's Third
Amended Petition on July 25,2012. On Septemher 17, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting
Special Exceptions and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his petition to include: (a) the precise
statements the Plaintiff claims to be defamatory; (b) which of the Defendants made each
statement, (c) when each statement was made, and (d) how each statement is “of and
concerning” the Plaintiff.
4 The Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Petition on October 1, 2012 In his Fourth
Amended Petition, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the
~7-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 9/41
Plaintiff:
A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia,
B committed mortgage fraud,
Cc a pimp and
D sells stolen cigarettes.
The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory
statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's
Fourth Amended Petition at 99 B-14
5 In his Fourth Amended Petition, in an effort to comply with the Court’s Order,
the Plaintiff also identified where and when the defamatory statements were published in
Paragraph 15 (a)-(1). The Plaintiff asserted the March 2010 issue of Is Honesty the Best Policy?
CIHTBP?) contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff
A the Plaintiff and his son were in a mortgage fraud scheme;
Cc the Plaintiff was involved in selling counterfeit designer items and stolen
or illegal cigarettes,
the Plaintiff is a member of the Pakistani Mafia and he is being
investigated for financial traud, mortgage traud and money laundering;
the Plaintiff has made many frauds and obtained loans with forged
documentation;
photos in the issue showed counterteit designer items and cigarettes in
the Plaintiffs garage; and.
the Plaintiff committed money laundering by using a fictitious foundation
Re
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 10/41
to collect money from members of the community in the name of a
charitable organization, and he transferred funds from PAGH to schools in
Pakistan to defraud the IRS.
See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 7 15. The Plaintiff identified that the October 2010
issue of IHTBP? contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff:
A the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items and committing mortgage
fraud; and
B the Plaintiff is part of the Galaxy of Crime Dirty Seven; See, Plaintiff's
Fourth Amended Petition at 9 15(g)-(h)
The November 2010 issue of IHBTP? contained the following defamatory statements in the about
the Plaintiff
A the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items; and
B the Plaintiff is part of the Galaxy of Crime Dirty Nine
See, Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Petition at 915. The January 201] issue of IHBTP? contained the
defamatory statement that: the Plaintiff's motel mortgage was being reviewed by investigators.
See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 9 15(j). The February 2011 issue of IHTBP? contained
the defamatory statement that the Plaintiff obtained visas for Dancing Girls at a Club Rio. See,
Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Petition at 915. The July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP?
contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff:
A the Plaintiff was indicted for indecency with a 17 year old female child;
B the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items and stolen or illegal
cigarettes from his garage
-9-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 11/41
See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 915. All of the specific facts asserted in Paragraph 15
of the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition were also encompassed by the previous defamatory
statements and allegations made in the Plaintiffs Original, First Amended, Second Amended and
Third. Amended Petitions
16. The Plaintiff filed his Fifth Amended Petition on December ll, 2012. This
Amended Petition further specified the specific defamatory statements that had previously been
identified as follows
A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp;
B Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering,
Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud;
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit
products out of his garage in violation of the law;
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA;
Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal,
Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were illegally sold from his
gurage, cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or contained tax stamps
that violated federal and state law;
Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa
applications through a congressional office;
Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States
under false pretenses and/or using fake documents;
Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for
dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio;
K Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in
the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment; and
Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender
-10-—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 12/41
See, Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Petition at 914. Each of these defamatory statements was also
clearly identified in the Fourth Amended Petition, and they were also encompassed by the
pleadings in the Original, First Amended, Second Amended and Third Amended Petitions.
The Applicable Facts
Iv. Defendant Manzoor Memon admits he published the March 2010, April 2010,
May 2010,October 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and July-September 2012 issues of IHTBP
See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp 55, 74; Vol.2 at pp. 45-46, 75, 88-89,
101-102, and. 118-119 attached as Exhibit “A-1” and Exhibits 2, 4, 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 29 attached
to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon.
18 It is also evident that Amber Memon was the “Editor” on the masthead of the
March 2010, April 2010 and May 2010 issues of IHTBP? See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor
Memon, Vol. 2 at pp. 91-93, attached as Ex. “A-l”, and the attached Exhibits 2, 4, 8 to the
Deposition of Manzoor Memon.
19. The Plaintiff has never been charged with or convicted of the crimes of money
laundering or mortgage fraud, selling counterfeit designer items, selling illegal cigarettes, taking
“kickbacks” to illegally process visa applications, prostitution, promotion of prostitution, or
illegally obtaining visas by any law enforcement authority, and he is not a member of the
Pakistani Mafia. The Plaintiff does not own any interest in any establishment known as Club
Rio. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” and Deposition of Syed Bukhari at
pp. 39, 107-108, 112-115, 158 and 168-170, attached as Ex. “D”
20. Manzoor Memon first alleged the Plaintiff was committing mortgage fraud in
April 2010, and he repeated that defamatory per se statement in October 2010, November 2010,
-1ll-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 13/41
January 201, February 201] and July-September 2011 See, Deposition Testimony of Man=oor
Memon, Vol. at pp. 77-80, 86, 89, 96, 108-113, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 75-77, 88, 93-101, N16-I17, 123-128,
attached as Ex. “A-I", and Exhibits 4, 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 29 attached to the Deposition of
Manzoor Memon.
21 The only evidence Manzoor Memon had regarding his allegations of mortgage
fraud are: (a) the Harris County tax appraisal value for the property where the Plaintiff operates
a convenience store/gas station, (b) a copy of the deed of trust showing the amount of money
that was originally borrowed for the purchase of the property, (c) the Victoria County tax
appraisal for a motel the Plaintiff operates in Victoria, Texas, (d) the deed of trust showing the
amount of money that was originally borrowed for the purchase of the motel, and (e) a vague
allegation that a bank officer was bribed that was allegedly based on information from Sana
Memon, the daughter of Manzoor Memon. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1
at pp. 77-80, 86, 89, 96, 108-113, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 75-77, 88, 93-101, 16-117, 123-128, attached as Ex
“ap
22. Sana Memon has testified under oath she has no knowledge of any of the business
dealings of Mr. Bukhari and his family. See, Deposition Testimony of Sana Memon at pp. 72-75,
attached as Exhibit “4-2”
23 Manzoor Memon has never seen the appraisals performed in connection with the
loans for either the motel or the convenience store/gas station; he has never seen any of the loan
documents; and he admits that banks usually loan only a percentage of the value stated in an
appraisal of a property that is security for the loan. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor
Memon, Vol. | at pp. 77-79, Vol. 2 at pp. 84, 96-99, attached as Exhibit “A-1”.
-12-—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 14/41
24 The banks ordered their own appraisals on the hotel and convenience store/gas
station when they made the loans to the Plaintiff's companies on those properties; and the
Plaintiff did not bribe any bank officer or real estate appraiser. The Plaintiff has never
committed mortgage fraud. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached
as Exhibit “B”
25. Manzoor Memon first alleged the Plaintiff was committing money laundering in
March 2010, and he repeated that defamatory per se statement in April 2010, October 2010,
November 2010, January 201], February 201 and July-September 2011. See, Deposition Testimony
of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp. 64, 93 and Vol 2 at pp. 20, 75-77, 101, 109, 118, attached as Ex
“A-T’, and Exhibits 2, 4, 14, 22 and 29, attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon.
26. Muanzoor Memon based his false allegations of money laundering on funds that
were donated to the Pakistani Association of Greater Houston (PAGH) that were then
contributed by PAGH to rundown public schools in Pakistan. Manzoor Memon alleges the
funds contributed to PAGH came from the Aisha Foundation an organization that the Plaintiff
set up in his deceased daughter's memory; however, he has no evidence the funds came from that
foundation, he acknowledges the funds came from members of the community, and he
acknowledges the funds were sent by PAGH to Pakistan. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor
Memon, Vol. 1 at pp. 65-72, Vol. 2 at pp. 37-45, 61-66, 75-77, 85-86,118, attached
as Exhibit “A-1”
27 The funds contributed to PAGH that were sent to the schools in Pakistan did not
come from the Aisha Foundation. As a trustee of PAGH, the Plaintiff did physically deliver the
check from PAGH to the entity that assisted the public schools in Pakistan. He did not deposit
PAGH's check in any bank account he controlled and he did not receive any of the funds. The
Plaintiff did not launder any funds or violate any laws in connection with the charitable
-13-—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 15/41
donations to PAGH or PAGH’s charitable donation to the schools in Pakistan. See, Affidavit of
Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B”
28 Manzoor Memon admits all of his allegations of money laundering and mortgage
fraud accuse the Plaintiff of committing crimes and being dishonest in his business dealings. He
had no evidence that Mr. Bukhari had ever been charged with money laundering or mortgage
fraud at any time when he made those allegations. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor
Memon, Vol 1 at pp 72, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 38-39, 75-77, 116-117, attached as Exhibit “A-1”
29 Manzoor Memon’s defamatory per se statements that the Plaintiff is selling
counterfeit designer items from his garage, and illegally selling cigarettes that do not have Texas
tax stamps on them were first made in April 2010 and he repeated them in May 2010, October
2010, November 2010, and July-September 2012. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon,
Vol. Lat pp. 74, 90, 115-117,120-121, Vol 2 at pp. 9-1, 46-47, 75-76, 86, 88, 112, 117-118, attached as
Ex. “A-), and Exhibits 4, 8,14, 19 and 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon.
30 Manzoor Memon has no first-hand knowledge of any of these facts He bases
these false allegations on photos taken by his daughter, Sana Memon and alleged hearsay
statements from Sana Memon that he claims support his false allegations. He has no other
evidence that supports these false allegations. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon,
Vol. Lat pp. 116-117, Vol. 2 at pp. 9-11, 46-47, 75-76, 86, 88, 112, 117-118, attached as Exhibit “A-1”
31 Sana Memon has testified that she provided the photos to her father to prave his
allegations were false. She did not tell him the items were counterfeit designer items or the
cigarettes were illegal. She was trying to stop his campaign of false allegations and accusations
when she provided the photos to her father. Her father was upset with her decision to marry
=14-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 16/41
Umar Bukhari, her father made a number of negative allegations about Mr. Bukhari and his
family to persuade her not to marry, and her father ultimately threatened to harm her after she
was married. See, Deposition Testimony of Sana Memon at pp. 18-25, 33-36, 39-44, 64-67, 81-82,
84, attached as Exhibit “A-2”.
32. The Plaintiff sells the sunglasses, cigarettes and other items in the convenience
stores he owns and operates. All of these items are purchased from legitimate suppliers,
including Sam’s Warehouse. The Plaintiff has never been charged with selling counterfeit
designer items or selling illegal cigarettes by any law enforcement authority. See, Affidavit of Syed
R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B”
33 Manzoor Memon admits all of these allegations of selling counterfeit designer
items and illegal cigarettes from his garage, accuse the Plaintiff of committing crimes and being
dishonest in his business dealings. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, at Vol. 1 pp
90-92, Vol.2 at pp. 46-47, 129-136, attached
as Exhibit “A-1’.
34. The Plaintiff resides in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision, a gated community
in League City, Texas He has resided there since 2007. He resides there with his wife, his two
adult sons, Usman and Umar, and Umar's wife, Sana Memon. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari,
attached as Exhibit “B”
35. Manzoor Memon adinits he made the defamatory statement that the Plaintiff was
indicted as an alleged sexual offender in the July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? See,
Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol.? at pp. at 18, 121 122, attached as Exhibit “A-1”
and Exhibit 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon
36. The July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? was distributed in
-14-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 17/41
Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision in August 2012 attached to a memo to the residents of that
subdivision. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B". Manzoor Memon admits
that he delivered 200-300 copies of the July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? to the
swimming pool in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision. He claims someone with the WLR
HOA requested the issues, but he does not recall the person’s complete name. The only name he
recalls is” Robert”. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. ? at pp. 129-136, attached
as Exhibit “A-1”
37 There is no one on the board of the HOA named “Robert”. Mr. Bukhari spoke to
members of the HOA board, and none of them requested any issues of IHTBP?, requested the
meeting described in the memo attached to the issues of IHTBP? that were distributed in
Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision, or prepared the memo. There was a meeting that did
result from the memo; but the members of the HOA board stated they did not call the meeting
Mr. Bukhari was forced to explain the allegations in memo and the attached the July-September
2012 issue of IHTBP to his neighbors at the meeting See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as
Exhibit “B”
38 The charges against the Plaintiff that were filed in Galveston County, Texas in
1990 were dropped in October 1990 when the complainant provided a sworn Affidavit that the
alleged sexual offense “never occurred”. See, Afficlavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit
“B”, Certified Copy of Affidavit of Marla Tucker from Cause No. 1990-CR 0727 in Galveston
County, Texas, attached as Exhibit “A-3”
39. Manzoor Memon admits he had seen the Affidavit of Marla Tucker hefore he
wrote his allegations that Mr. Bukhari was indicted for indecency with a 17 year old female in the
-16—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 18/41
July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon,
Vol. 2 at pp. 123-135, attached as Exhibit “A-1”.
40 Prior to the publication of the July-September 2012 quarterly issue [HTBP?,
Manzoor Memon threatened to publish the indictment but none of the facts related to its
dismissal unless the Plaintiff dropped this suit. See, Affidavit of Tasleem Siddiqui, attached as
Exhibit “C”.
41 Manzoor Memon admits he accused the Plaintiff of being a member of the
Pakistani Mafia and/or the Galaxy of Crime, a term he equates with the Pakistani Mafia, in
March 2010, October 2010, and November 2010. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon,
Vol. Lat pp. 35-56, 92, attached as Ex. “A-1’, and Exhibits 2, 14, and 19, attached to the Deposition
of Manzoor Memon. Manzoor Memon also admits he published the defamatory statement that
the Plaintiff is a criminal in October 2010, November 2010, and January 201. See, Deposition
Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at p. 92, Vol 2 at p. 59, attached as Ex. “A-I’, and Exhibits
14, 19, and 22, attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. Manzoor Memon had no
evidence that the Plaintiff had ever been charged with a crime when he mace these defamatory
per se statements. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. ] at p. 53-54, attached as
Ex. “AT
42 Mr. Bukhari has suffered damages including lost sleep, headaches, high blood
pressure, and difficulty concentrating on his businesses. He avoids many social activities such
as weddings, parties, and PAGH activities that he participated in before Manzoor Memon’s
campaign of defamation commenced He avoids people, so he doesn’t have to answer their
questions about the various defamatory statements made about him by Manzoor Memon, or
1k
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 19/41
experience the questioning looks those people give him. Many of his neighbors in WLR who did
not know him well, give him unusual looks and give him the feeling they are talking about him.
He has been teased by many people he knows in the Pakistani community, because he has
become a target for Memon’s campaign of defamation. He feels embarrassed and humiliated
He is also concerned about how his family will be treated by persons who have read. the
defamatory statements of Manzoor Memon. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit
B
43. Manzoor Memon has previously been found liable for defaming other citizens
with malice. See, Jury Verdict from Cause No. 2010-28636 in the 35” District Court of Harris
County, Texas, Haroon Shaikh v. Manzoor Memon, attached as Exhibit “A-4°
44 Manzoor Meton has no formal training as a journalist; he has never written any
articles subject to independent editorial review; IHTBP? is written, edited and published by
Manzoor Memon with no editorial policies or guidelines, IHTBP has no subscribers and no
advertisers. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, at Vol. 1 pp. 18-37, attached as
Exhibit “A-1”
THE DEFENDANTS’ NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE DENIED
45. It appears the Defendants contend there is no evidence:
A Amber Memon published any of the defamatory statements;
B Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant are
vicariously liable for the conduct of Manzoor Memon;
Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant acted
with negligence or actual malice regarding the truth of any of the
defamatory statements
—-18-—
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 20 / 41
46 The primary focus of the Plaintiff's claims against Amber Memon, the Corporate
Defendants and the Trust Defendant is vicarious liability for the wrongful conduct of Manzoor
Memon. See, Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition at 99 21-23. This vicarious liability does not
require proof of any negligence or actual malice on the part of these Defendants. They are
vicariously liable for the negligence and malice of Manzoor Memon. As is set forth below there
is considerable evidence Manzoor Memon was negligent and motivated by malice and “actual
malice”, even though the Defendants have clearly failed to prove Manzoor Memon is a media
defendant and the Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure.
47 It is clear that Amber Memon was an “Editor” of IHTBP? when the March 2010,
April 2010 and May 2010 issues were published. See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at
pp. 36, 37, 45-46, attached as Exhibit “E” and Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon Vol. 2 at
pp. 91-93, attached as Ex “A1” It is also clear that she has endorsed and ratified the
defamatory statements published by Manzoor Memon about the Plaintiff, and she is unwilling to
take any action to stop his wrongful conduct. See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at pp
24-34, attached as Exhibit “E” and Ex. 40, Affidavit of Amber Memon, attached to the Deposition
of Amber Memon.
48. There is also sufficient evidence that Amber Memon and Manzoor Memon are the
officers, directors and shareholders of the Corporate Defendants, Manzoor Enterprises, Inc.,
Rakib Enterprises, Inc., Akib Management, Inc., and Akib Construction, Inc. Manzoor Memon
and Amber Memon are the trustees of the Defendant Memon Trust. Amber Memon and
Manzoor Memon do not have personal bank accounts, and it appeats funds were withdrawn
from the bank accounts of the Corporate Defendants to pay for the printing expenses of IHTBP?.
-19-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 21/41
See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at pp. 7, 9, 12-13, 17-21, 70-72, 78-81, attached as
Exhibit “E” and Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon Vol. 1 at pp. 34-41, Vol. 2 at pp. 139,
142-144, 149-159, attached as Ex. “A-l” and Exs. 52-55 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor
Memon
49 The foregoing evidence raises fact issues about: (a) the control and indiscriminate
disregard Manzoor Memon and Amber Memon have for the entities of the Corporate
Defendants, (b) the unquestioned fact that Manzoor Memon clearly controls each of those
entities and does whatever he wants and uses their funds however he wants, (c) Amber Memon
has ratified and endorsed the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff, (d) and Amber
Memon has not taken any action to curtail his wrongful action or vendetta against the Plaintiff.
Indeed, it appears that Amber Memon even endorse Manzoor Memon’s unbelievable position
that his daughter, sana Memon, is a liar. The foregoing evidence raises fact issues concerning
the vicarious liability of Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant
Accordingly, The Defendants No Fvidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied
THE DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE DENIED
THE APPLICABLE LAW
<
50 The elements of defamation that the Plaintiff must prove against a defendant are
@ the defendant published a statement;
Q) the statement was defamatory concerning the Plaintiff;
G) the statement was false; and.
@) the defendant was negligent regarcling the truth of the statement
—20-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 22 / 41
WEAACTY, Inc. v. McLemore,978 §.W 2d. 568, 371 (Tex.1998), cert. denied, 5326 U.S. 105] (1999);
Klentzman v. Brady, 312 $.W 3d 886, 897 (Tex. App.—Houston [Ist Dist.] 2009, no pet.).
Defamation Per Se
Sl A statement is defamatory per se, if it accuses the plaintiff of a crime or criminal
conduct, or it accuses the plaintiff of being dishonest, unethical or immoral in his office,
business, profession, occupation or calling, Pitts & Collard, LLP. v. Schechter, 369 §. W 3d 301, 329
(Tex. App. -Houston [I Dist], 201], no pet); Downingv. Burns, 348 $ W 3d 415, 424 (Tex. App~
Houston [14" Dist] 2011, no pet); Hancock v. Variyam, 345 5. W_157, 165 (Tex. App Amarillo 2011,
pet. filed); Tranumy. Broadway, 283 SW 3d.403, 420 (Tex. App.-Waco 2008, pet. denied); Morrill v.
Cisek , 226 SW 3d 545, 555 (Tex. App-Houston[I* Dist] 2006, no pet); Knox v. Taylor, 992
§.W 2d 40, 50-51 (Tex. App-Houston 1999, no pet.), Bollingv. Baker, 6718 W.2d 359, 569-71 (Tex
App-~ San Antonio 1984, no writ). The determination of whether a statement is defamatory per se
is usually a question of law for a court. Downing, 348 5.W 3d at 425; Hancock, 345 §.W. at 165;
Tranum, 283 SW 3d at 419, 422; Knox, 992 § W.2d at 51; Bolling, 671 §.W 2d at 571.
52. When the defendant’s statements are defamatory per se, the plaintiff's general
damages for mental anguish and harm to reputation are presumed. These general damages flow
from the defamatory statements and require no independent proof as to their extent or
connection to the defamatory statements. Pitts, 369 $.W 3d at 329; Downing, 348 § W 3d at
424-25, Hancock, 345 SW. at 168-69; Tranum, 283 § W 3d at 422. The award of these general
damages, whether substantial or insignificant, is leit to the wide discretion of the jury. Id
33 As is reflected in the following chart, each of the defamatory statements is
—21-
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 23 / 41
defamatory per se, because each statements accused the Plaintiff of com
Preview
04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 2/41 CAUSE NO. 2010-34795 SYED RASHID BUKHARI IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS- HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MANZOOR MEMON AMBER MEMON, et al 133% JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI, and files his Response to the Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show as follows: INTRODUCTION 1 Recognizing the Defendants are clearly liable for defaming the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ counsel have now embarked on a strategy to “justify” some of the Defendant Manzoor Memon’s malicious defamation as the exercise of a constitutional right of petition This misguided effort should be thwarted by the Court, so the Plaintiff can have complete justice for the wrongful misconduct of the Defendants, particularly Manzoor Memon. 2 The Defendants have combined, confused and interwined their “No Evidence” arguments and their “Traciitional” arguments in a manner that makes a coherent response dificult. As best as the Plaintiff can decipher their confusing diatribe, it appears the Defendants contend there is no evidence: A Amber Memon published any of the defamatory statements; B Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant are vicariously liable for the conduct of Manzoor Memon, -l- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 3/41 Cc Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant acted with negligence or actual malice regarding the truth of any of the defamatory statements. As is set forth below, the Defendants have misconstrued the plain language of the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition and there is sufficient evidence of those elements that are actually raised by the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition Accordingly, the Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should he denied. 3 As is set forth in the Plaintiffs Sixth Amended Petition, the defamatory per se statements for which the Defendants are individually and /or vicariously liable are as follows A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp; B Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering, Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud; Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa applications through a congressional office; Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit products out of his garage in violation of the law, and Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or contained tax stamps that violated federal and state law from his garage, Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA; Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal, Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio; Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment, K Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States under false pretenses and/or using fake documents, and. —2- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 4/41 L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender. 4 There is more than sufficient evidence that Manzoor Memon published each of the defamatory per se statements, they are false, Manzoor Memon was negligent with regard to the truth of the defamatory per se statements when he published them; and the Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and harm to his reputation as a result of those defamatory per se statements < 5 The Defendants have failed to prove any of the defamatory statements are opinion or true, and they bear the burden to prove those defenses in connection with their Motion. The Defendants have also failed to prove the Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, as a matter of law In fact, the Court should determine, as a matter of law, the statements described in the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition are defamatory per se, as matter of law, and the Plaintiff is not a limited-purpose public figure, as a matter of law 6 The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 14 (A), (B) and (C) of the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition are not barred by the statute of limitations because they were encompassed by the liberal view of the allegations of the Original Petition, First Amended, Second Amended Petitions, especially since the Defendants failed to file any special exceptions regarding the defamatory statements identified in those pleadings Of course, it is also clear that those defamatory statements were also published on later dates as well, so the Defendants are also liable for them in any event. The Detendants have failed to carry their burden to prove the Plaintiff's cause of action for the statements in Paragraphs 14 (A), (B) and (C) of the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition are barred by limitations. a There is also sufficient evidence that Amber Memon was an editor of IHTBP? and. she has ratified and/or endorsed the defamatory per se statements Manzoor Memon has published 34 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 5/41 about the Plaintiff, There is also sufficient evidence that raises a fact issue about the personal use of the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendants, who are all owned and controlled by Manzoor Memon, and the funds of those entities that were used to print IHTBP?. Thus, there is at least a fact issue about their vicarious liability for the wrongful conduct of their vice-principal, Manzoor Memon. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment should also be denied. THE APPLICABLE PLEADINGS AND FACTS The Pleadings the Court Must Consider 8 Although it is apparent the Defendants would prefer the Court ignore the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition, it is obvious the Sixth Amended Petition is the Plaintiff's active pleading, and it must be considered by this Court is ruling on the Defendant’s Motion. In the Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition, the defamatory per se statements and the dates they were published are as follows: A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA (March 2010, April 2010, October 2010, November 2010, March 2011); Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering (March 2010, April 2010, October 2010, February 20H, March 201, July-September 2012); Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud (March 2010, April 2010, October 2010, November 2010, January 201], February 201, March 2011, July September 2012); Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa applications through a congressional office (March 2010, April 2010); Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States under false pretenses and/or using fake documents (March 2010, July-September 2012); m4 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 6/41 Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit products out of his garage in violation of the law (April 2010, May 2010, October 2010, November 2010, July-September 2012); Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or contained tax stamps that violated federal and state law from his garage (April 2010, October 2010, July-September 2012); Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp (April 2010); Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal (October 2010, November 2010, January 2011, March 2011); Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio (February 2011 July-September 2012); Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment (February 201], July -September 2012); and L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender (July-September 2012) 9 This suit was filed June 4, 2010 by the Plaintiff against Defendants Manzoor Memon and Amber Memon. The Plaintiff sued the Memons for making defamatory statements that the Plaintiff A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia, B committed mortgage fraud, and Cc a pimp The Plaintiff asserted the Memons made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's Original Petition at 99 11-12. The Defendants filed no Special Exceptions to this Petition 10 The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Petition on October 4, 2010 In this amended Petition the Plaintiff added Akib Construction, Inc. as a Defendant, and asserted this 5- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 7/41 corporation was also liable for defamation. The Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the Plaintiff: A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia, B committed mortgage fraud, and Cc apimp. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's First Amended Petition at 9913-14. Defendants filed no Special Exceptions to this Amended Petition IL The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Petition on July 15, 2011 In this pleading the Plaintiff added Rakib Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor Enterprises, Inc. as Defendants who were jointly and severally liable and/or vicariously liable for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff, The Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the Plaintiff: A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia, B committed mortgage fraud, Cc apimp and D sells stolen cigarettes The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition at #9 3-14 The Defendants filed no Special Exceptions regarding the defamatory statements described in this Amended Petition or the allegations the Defendants these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements. —6— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 8/41 12 The Court granted Special Exceptions to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition on December 20, 2011 pertaining to certain allegations made against Akib Construction, Inc., Rakib Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor Enterprises, Inc On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Petition In his Third Amended Petition, the Plaintiff sued all the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the Plaintiff: is a part of the Pakistani Mafia, committed mortgage fraud, Cc a pimp and D sells stolen cigarettes The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition at 99 14-15 Bb Defendants Manzoor Memon, Amber Memon, Memon’s Living Trust, Rakib Enterprises, Inc. and Manzoor Enterprises, Inc. filed Special Exceptions to the Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition on July 25,2012. On Septemher 17, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting Special Exceptions and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his petition to include: (a) the precise statements the Plaintiff claims to be defamatory; (b) which of the Defendants made each statement, (c) when each statement was made, and (d) how each statement is “of and concerning” the Plaintiff. 4 The Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Petition on October 1, 2012 In his Fourth Amended Petition, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for making defamatory statements that the ~7- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 9/41 Plaintiff: A is a part of the Pakistani Mafia, B committed mortgage fraud, Cc a pimp and D sells stolen cigarettes. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants made these defamatory statements and other defamatory statements about the Plaintiff that they published to a number of third parties. See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 99 B-14 5 In his Fourth Amended Petition, in an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff also identified where and when the defamatory statements were published in Paragraph 15 (a)-(1). The Plaintiff asserted the March 2010 issue of Is Honesty the Best Policy? CIHTBP?) contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff A the Plaintiff and his son were in a mortgage fraud scheme; Cc the Plaintiff was involved in selling counterfeit designer items and stolen or illegal cigarettes, the Plaintiff is a member of the Pakistani Mafia and he is being investigated for financial traud, mortgage traud and money laundering; the Plaintiff has made many frauds and obtained loans with forged documentation; photos in the issue showed counterteit designer items and cigarettes in the Plaintiffs garage; and. the Plaintiff committed money laundering by using a fictitious foundation Re 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 10/41 to collect money from members of the community in the name of a charitable organization, and he transferred funds from PAGH to schools in Pakistan to defraud the IRS. See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 7 15. The Plaintiff identified that the October 2010 issue of IHTBP? contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff: A the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items and committing mortgage fraud; and B the Plaintiff is part of the Galaxy of Crime Dirty Seven; See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 9 15(g)-(h) The November 2010 issue of IHBTP? contained the following defamatory statements in the about the Plaintiff A the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items; and B the Plaintiff is part of the Galaxy of Crime Dirty Nine See, Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Petition at 915. The January 201] issue of IHBTP? contained the defamatory statement that: the Plaintiff's motel mortgage was being reviewed by investigators. See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 9 15(j). The February 2011 issue of IHTBP? contained the defamatory statement that the Plaintiff obtained visas for Dancing Girls at a Club Rio. See, Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Petition at 915. The July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? contained the following defamatory statements about the Plaintiff: A the Plaintiff was indicted for indecency with a 17 year old female child; B the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items and stolen or illegal cigarettes from his garage -9- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 11/41 See, Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition at 915. All of the specific facts asserted in Paragraph 15 of the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition were also encompassed by the previous defamatory statements and allegations made in the Plaintiffs Original, First Amended, Second Amended and Third. Amended Petitions 16. The Plaintiff filed his Fifth Amended Petition on December ll, 2012. This Amended Petition further specified the specific defamatory statements that had previously been identified as follows A Syed Rashid Bukhari is a pimp; B Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed the crime of money laundering, Syed Rashid Bukhari has committed mortgage fraud; Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold counterfeit sunglasses and other counterfeit products out of his garage in violation of the law; Syed Rashid Bukhari is a member of the Pakistani MAFIA; Syed Rashid Bukhari is a criminal, Syed Rashid Bukhari has sold cigarettes that were illegally sold from his gurage, cigarettes that were stolen goods, and/or contained tax stamps that violated federal and state law; Syed Rashid Bukhari has taken “kickbacks” to illegally process visa applications through a congressional office; Syed Rashid Bukhari obtained his visa and residency in the United States under false pretenses and/or using fake documents; Syed Rashid Bukhari fraudulently and/or improperly obtained visas for dancing girls at an establishment called Club Rio; K Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment; and Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender -10-— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 12/41 See, Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Petition at 914. Each of these defamatory statements was also clearly identified in the Fourth Amended Petition, and they were also encompassed by the pleadings in the Original, First Amended, Second Amended and Third Amended Petitions. The Applicable Facts Iv. Defendant Manzoor Memon admits he published the March 2010, April 2010, May 2010,October 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and July-September 2012 issues of IHTBP See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp 55, 74; Vol.2 at pp. 45-46, 75, 88-89, 101-102, and. 118-119 attached as Exhibit “A-1” and Exhibits 2, 4, 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. 18 It is also evident that Amber Memon was the “Editor” on the masthead of the March 2010, April 2010 and May 2010 issues of IHTBP? See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 2 at pp. 91-93, attached as Ex. “A-l”, and the attached Exhibits 2, 4, 8 to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. 19. The Plaintiff has never been charged with or convicted of the crimes of money laundering or mortgage fraud, selling counterfeit designer items, selling illegal cigarettes, taking “kickbacks” to illegally process visa applications, prostitution, promotion of prostitution, or illegally obtaining visas by any law enforcement authority, and he is not a member of the Pakistani Mafia. The Plaintiff does not own any interest in any establishment known as Club Rio. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” and Deposition of Syed Bukhari at pp. 39, 107-108, 112-115, 158 and 168-170, attached as Ex. “D” 20. Manzoor Memon first alleged the Plaintiff was committing mortgage fraud in April 2010, and he repeated that defamatory per se statement in October 2010, November 2010, -1ll- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 13/41 January 201, February 201] and July-September 2011 See, Deposition Testimony of Man=oor Memon, Vol. at pp. 77-80, 86, 89, 96, 108-113, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 75-77, 88, 93-101, N16-I17, 123-128, attached as Ex. “A-I", and Exhibits 4, 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. 21 The only evidence Manzoor Memon had regarding his allegations of mortgage fraud are: (a) the Harris County tax appraisal value for the property where the Plaintiff operates a convenience store/gas station, (b) a copy of the deed of trust showing the amount of money that was originally borrowed for the purchase of the property, (c) the Victoria County tax appraisal for a motel the Plaintiff operates in Victoria, Texas, (d) the deed of trust showing the amount of money that was originally borrowed for the purchase of the motel, and (e) a vague allegation that a bank officer was bribed that was allegedly based on information from Sana Memon, the daughter of Manzoor Memon. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp. 77-80, 86, 89, 96, 108-113, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 75-77, 88, 93-101, 16-117, 123-128, attached as Ex “ap 22. Sana Memon has testified under oath she has no knowledge of any of the business dealings of Mr. Bukhari and his family. See, Deposition Testimony of Sana Memon at pp. 72-75, attached as Exhibit “4-2” 23 Manzoor Memon has never seen the appraisals performed in connection with the loans for either the motel or the convenience store/gas station; he has never seen any of the loan documents; and he admits that banks usually loan only a percentage of the value stated in an appraisal of a property that is security for the loan. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. | at pp. 77-79, Vol. 2 at pp. 84, 96-99, attached as Exhibit “A-1”. -12-— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 14/41 24 The banks ordered their own appraisals on the hotel and convenience store/gas station when they made the loans to the Plaintiff's companies on those properties; and the Plaintiff did not bribe any bank officer or real estate appraiser. The Plaintiff has never committed mortgage fraud. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” 25. Manzoor Memon first alleged the Plaintiff was committing money laundering in March 2010, and he repeated that defamatory per se statement in April 2010, October 2010, November 2010, January 201], February 201 and July-September 2011. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp. 64, 93 and Vol 2 at pp. 20, 75-77, 101, 109, 118, attached as Ex “A-T’, and Exhibits 2, 4, 14, 22 and 29, attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. 26. Muanzoor Memon based his false allegations of money laundering on funds that were donated to the Pakistani Association of Greater Houston (PAGH) that were then contributed by PAGH to rundown public schools in Pakistan. Manzoor Memon alleges the funds contributed to PAGH came from the Aisha Foundation an organization that the Plaintiff set up in his deceased daughter's memory; however, he has no evidence the funds came from that foundation, he acknowledges the funds came from members of the community, and he acknowledges the funds were sent by PAGH to Pakistan. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at pp. 65-72, Vol. 2 at pp. 37-45, 61-66, 75-77, 85-86,118, attached as Exhibit “A-1” 27 The funds contributed to PAGH that were sent to the schools in Pakistan did not come from the Aisha Foundation. As a trustee of PAGH, the Plaintiff did physically deliver the check from PAGH to the entity that assisted the public schools in Pakistan. He did not deposit PAGH's check in any bank account he controlled and he did not receive any of the funds. The Plaintiff did not launder any funds or violate any laws in connection with the charitable -13-— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 15/41 donations to PAGH or PAGH’s charitable donation to the schools in Pakistan. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” 28 Manzoor Memon admits all of his allegations of money laundering and mortgage fraud accuse the Plaintiff of committing crimes and being dishonest in his business dealings. He had no evidence that Mr. Bukhari had ever been charged with money laundering or mortgage fraud at any time when he made those allegations. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol 1 at pp 72, Vol. 2 at pp. 7-9, 38-39, 75-77, 116-117, attached as Exhibit “A-1” 29 Manzoor Memon’s defamatory per se statements that the Plaintiff is selling counterfeit designer items from his garage, and illegally selling cigarettes that do not have Texas tax stamps on them were first made in April 2010 and he repeated them in May 2010, October 2010, November 2010, and July-September 2012. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. Lat pp. 74, 90, 115-117,120-121, Vol 2 at pp. 9-1, 46-47, 75-76, 86, 88, 112, 117-118, attached as Ex. “A-), and Exhibits 4, 8,14, 19 and 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. 30 Manzoor Memon has no first-hand knowledge of any of these facts He bases these false allegations on photos taken by his daughter, Sana Memon and alleged hearsay statements from Sana Memon that he claims support his false allegations. He has no other evidence that supports these false allegations. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. Lat pp. 116-117, Vol. 2 at pp. 9-11, 46-47, 75-76, 86, 88, 112, 117-118, attached as Exhibit “A-1” 31 Sana Memon has testified that she provided the photos to her father to prave his allegations were false. She did not tell him the items were counterfeit designer items or the cigarettes were illegal. She was trying to stop his campaign of false allegations and accusations when she provided the photos to her father. Her father was upset with her decision to marry =14- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 16/41 Umar Bukhari, her father made a number of negative allegations about Mr. Bukhari and his family to persuade her not to marry, and her father ultimately threatened to harm her after she was married. See, Deposition Testimony of Sana Memon at pp. 18-25, 33-36, 39-44, 64-67, 81-82, 84, attached as Exhibit “A-2”. 32. The Plaintiff sells the sunglasses, cigarettes and other items in the convenience stores he owns and operates. All of these items are purchased from legitimate suppliers, including Sam’s Warehouse. The Plaintiff has never been charged with selling counterfeit designer items or selling illegal cigarettes by any law enforcement authority. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” 33 Manzoor Memon admits all of these allegations of selling counterfeit designer items and illegal cigarettes from his garage, accuse the Plaintiff of committing crimes and being dishonest in his business dealings. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, at Vol. 1 pp 90-92, Vol.2 at pp. 46-47, 129-136, attached as Exhibit “A-1’. 34. The Plaintiff resides in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision, a gated community in League City, Texas He has resided there since 2007. He resides there with his wife, his two adult sons, Usman and Umar, and Umar's wife, Sana Memon. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” 35. Manzoor Memon adinits he made the defamatory statement that the Plaintiff was indicted as an alleged sexual offender in the July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol.? at pp. at 18, 121 122, attached as Exhibit “A-1” and Exhibit 29 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon 36. The July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? was distributed in -14- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 17/41 Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision in August 2012 attached to a memo to the residents of that subdivision. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B". Manzoor Memon admits that he delivered 200-300 copies of the July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? to the swimming pool in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision. He claims someone with the WLR HOA requested the issues, but he does not recall the person’s complete name. The only name he recalls is” Robert”. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. ? at pp. 129-136, attached as Exhibit “A-1” 37 There is no one on the board of the HOA named “Robert”. Mr. Bukhari spoke to members of the HOA board, and none of them requested any issues of IHTBP?, requested the meeting described in the memo attached to the issues of IHTBP? that were distributed in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision, or prepared the memo. There was a meeting that did result from the memo; but the members of the HOA board stated they did not call the meeting Mr. Bukhari was forced to explain the allegations in memo and the attached the July-September 2012 issue of IHTBP to his neighbors at the meeting See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B” 38 The charges against the Plaintiff that were filed in Galveston County, Texas in 1990 were dropped in October 1990 when the complainant provided a sworn Affidavit that the alleged sexual offense “never occurred”. See, Afficlavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit “B”, Certified Copy of Affidavit of Marla Tucker from Cause No. 1990-CR 0727 in Galveston County, Texas, attached as Exhibit “A-3” 39. Manzoor Memon admits he had seen the Affidavit of Marla Tucker hefore he wrote his allegations that Mr. Bukhari was indicted for indecency with a 17 year old female in the -16— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 18/41 July-September 2012 quarterly issue of IHTBP? See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 2 at pp. 123-135, attached as Exhibit “A-1”. 40 Prior to the publication of the July-September 2012 quarterly issue [HTBP?, Manzoor Memon threatened to publish the indictment but none of the facts related to its dismissal unless the Plaintiff dropped this suit. See, Affidavit of Tasleem Siddiqui, attached as Exhibit “C”. 41 Manzoor Memon admits he accused the Plaintiff of being a member of the Pakistani Mafia and/or the Galaxy of Crime, a term he equates with the Pakistani Mafia, in March 2010, October 2010, and November 2010. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. Lat pp. 35-56, 92, attached as Ex. “A-1’, and Exhibits 2, 14, and 19, attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. Manzoor Memon also admits he published the defamatory statement that the Plaintiff is a criminal in October 2010, November 2010, and January 201. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. 1 at p. 92, Vol 2 at p. 59, attached as Ex. “A-I’, and Exhibits 14, 19, and 22, attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon. Manzoor Memon had no evidence that the Plaintiff had ever been charged with a crime when he mace these defamatory per se statements. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, Vol. ] at p. 53-54, attached as Ex. “AT 42 Mr. Bukhari has suffered damages including lost sleep, headaches, high blood pressure, and difficulty concentrating on his businesses. He avoids many social activities such as weddings, parties, and PAGH activities that he participated in before Manzoor Memon’s campaign of defamation commenced He avoids people, so he doesn’t have to answer their questions about the various defamatory statements made about him by Manzoor Memon, or 1k 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 19/41 experience the questioning looks those people give him. Many of his neighbors in WLR who did not know him well, give him unusual looks and give him the feeling they are talking about him. He has been teased by many people he knows in the Pakistani community, because he has become a target for Memon’s campaign of defamation. He feels embarrassed and humiliated He is also concerned about how his family will be treated by persons who have read. the defamatory statements of Manzoor Memon. See, Affidavit of Syed R. Bukhari, attached as Exhibit B 43. Manzoor Memon has previously been found liable for defaming other citizens with malice. See, Jury Verdict from Cause No. 2010-28636 in the 35” District Court of Harris County, Texas, Haroon Shaikh v. Manzoor Memon, attached as Exhibit “A-4° 44 Manzoor Meton has no formal training as a journalist; he has never written any articles subject to independent editorial review; IHTBP? is written, edited and published by Manzoor Memon with no editorial policies or guidelines, IHTBP has no subscribers and no advertisers. See, Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon, at Vol. 1 pp. 18-37, attached as Exhibit “A-1” THE DEFENDANTS’ NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED 45. It appears the Defendants contend there is no evidence: A Amber Memon published any of the defamatory statements; B Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant are vicariously liable for the conduct of Manzoor Memon; Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant acted with negligence or actual malice regarding the truth of any of the defamatory statements —-18-— 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 20 / 41 46 The primary focus of the Plaintiff's claims against Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant is vicarious liability for the wrongful conduct of Manzoor Memon. See, Plaintiff's Sixth Amended Petition at 99 21-23. This vicarious liability does not require proof of any negligence or actual malice on the part of these Defendants. They are vicariously liable for the negligence and malice of Manzoor Memon. As is set forth below there is considerable evidence Manzoor Memon was negligent and motivated by malice and “actual malice”, even though the Defendants have clearly failed to prove Manzoor Memon is a media defendant and the Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure. 47 It is clear that Amber Memon was an “Editor” of IHTBP? when the March 2010, April 2010 and May 2010 issues were published. See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at pp. 36, 37, 45-46, attached as Exhibit “E” and Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon Vol. 2 at pp. 91-93, attached as Ex “A1” It is also clear that she has endorsed and ratified the defamatory statements published by Manzoor Memon about the Plaintiff, and she is unwilling to take any action to stop his wrongful conduct. See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at pp 24-34, attached as Exhibit “E” and Ex. 40, Affidavit of Amber Memon, attached to the Deposition of Amber Memon. 48. There is also sufficient evidence that Amber Memon and Manzoor Memon are the officers, directors and shareholders of the Corporate Defendants, Manzoor Enterprises, Inc., Rakib Enterprises, Inc., Akib Management, Inc., and Akib Construction, Inc. Manzoor Memon and Amber Memon are the trustees of the Defendant Memon Trust. Amber Memon and Manzoor Memon do not have personal bank accounts, and it appeats funds were withdrawn from the bank accounts of the Corporate Defendants to pay for the printing expenses of IHTBP?. -19- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 21/41 See, Deposition Testimony of Amber Memon at pp. 7, 9, 12-13, 17-21, 70-72, 78-81, attached as Exhibit “E” and Deposition Testimony of Manzoor Memon Vol. 1 at pp. 34-41, Vol. 2 at pp. 139, 142-144, 149-159, attached as Ex. “A-l” and Exs. 52-55 attached to the Deposition of Manzoor Memon 49 The foregoing evidence raises fact issues about: (a) the control and indiscriminate disregard Manzoor Memon and Amber Memon have for the entities of the Corporate Defendants, (b) the unquestioned fact that Manzoor Memon clearly controls each of those entities and does whatever he wants and uses their funds however he wants, (c) Amber Memon has ratified and endorsed the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff, (d) and Amber Memon has not taken any action to curtail his wrongful action or vendetta against the Plaintiff. Indeed, it appears that Amber Memon even endorse Manzoor Memon’s unbelievable position that his daughter, sana Memon, is a liar. The foregoing evidence raises fact issues concerning the vicarious liability of Amber Memon, the Corporate Defendants and the Trust Defendant Accordingly, The Defendants No Fvidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied THE DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED THE APPLICABLE LAW < 50 The elements of defamation that the Plaintiff must prove against a defendant are @ the defendant published a statement; Q) the statement was defamatory concerning the Plaintiff; G) the statement was false; and. @) the defendant was negligent regarcling the truth of the statement —20- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 22 / 41 WEAACTY, Inc. v. McLemore,978 §.W 2d. 568, 371 (Tex.1998), cert. denied, 5326 U.S. 105] (1999); Klentzman v. Brady, 312 $.W 3d 886, 897 (Tex. App.—Houston [Ist Dist.] 2009, no pet.). Defamation Per Se Sl A statement is defamatory per se, if it accuses the plaintiff of a crime or criminal conduct, or it accuses the plaintiff of being dishonest, unethical or immoral in his office, business, profession, occupation or calling, Pitts & Collard, LLP. v. Schechter, 369 §. W 3d 301, 329 (Tex. App. -Houston [I Dist], 201], no pet); Downingv. Burns, 348 $ W 3d 415, 424 (Tex. App~ Houston [14" Dist] 2011, no pet); Hancock v. Variyam, 345 5. W_157, 165 (Tex. App Amarillo 2011, pet. filed); Tranumy. Broadway, 283 SW 3d.403, 420 (Tex. App.-Waco 2008, pet. denied); Morrill v. Cisek , 226 SW 3d 545, 555 (Tex. App-Houston[I* Dist] 2006, no pet); Knox v. Taylor, 992 §.W 2d 40, 50-51 (Tex. App-Houston 1999, no pet.), Bollingv. Baker, 6718 W.2d 359, 569-71 (Tex App-~ San Antonio 1984, no writ). The determination of whether a statement is defamatory per se is usually a question of law for a court. Downing, 348 5.W 3d at 425; Hancock, 345 §.W. at 165; Tranum, 283 SW 3d at 419, 422; Knox, 992 § W.2d at 51; Bolling, 671 §.W 2d at 571. 52. When the defendant’s statements are defamatory per se, the plaintiff's general damages for mental anguish and harm to reputation are presumed. These general damages flow from the defamatory statements and require no independent proof as to their extent or connection to the defamatory statements. Pitts, 369 $.W 3d at 329; Downing, 348 § W 3d at 424-25, Hancock, 345 SW. at 168-69; Tranum, 283 § W 3d at 422. The award of these general damages, whether substantial or insignificant, is leit to the wide discretion of the jury. Id 33 As is reflected in the following chart, each of the defamatory statements is —21- 04/15/2013 10:06:36 AM 713-755-1451 Page 23 / 41 defamatory per se, because each statements accused the Plaintiff of com