Preview
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 2/13
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 FIFTH AMENDED PETITION
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI, complaining of Defendants.
MANZOOR MEMON, Individually and as Trustee of the Memon Living Trust, AMBER
MEMON, Individually and as Trustee of the Memon Living Trust, MANZOOR ENTERPRISES,
INC., RAKIB ENTERPRISES, INC., AKIB }=MANAGEMENT, INC., and AKIB
CONSTRUCTION, INC. and for cause of action would show as follows:
LEVEL OF DISCOVERY
The intended level of discovery in this cause is Level 2 under Rule 190 T.R.C.P.
PARTIES
2 The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Galveston County, Texas.
3 Defendant MANZOOR MEMON is an individual who resides in Harris County,
Texas. This Defendant and the Memon Living Trust have already answered and appeared in this
case and they are being served with this Amended Petition through their counsel of record.
4 Defendant AMBER MEMON is an individual who resides in Harris County,
Texas. This Defendant and the Memon Living Trust have already answered and appeared in this
case, and they arc being served with this Amended Petition through their counsel of record.
2. Defendant MANZOOR ENTERPRISES, INC. has already answered and appeared
in this case, and it is being served with this Amended Petition through its counsel of record.
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 3/13
6 Defendant RAKIB ENTERPRISES, INC. has already answered and appeared in
this case, and it is being served with this Amended Petition through its counsel of record.
7. Defendant AKIB MANAGMENT, INC. is corporation that has its principal place
of business in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citation by serving its
President, Manzoor Memon at 3810 Bogota Drive, Pasadena, Texas 77505.
8 Defendant AKIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. is corporation that has its principal
place of business in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citation by
serving its President, Manzoor Memon at 3810 Bogota Drive, Pasadena, Texas 77305.
VENUE
9. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas. Defendant is a resident of Harris
County, Texas; and the events that are the underlying hasis of this lawsuit occurred, in whole or
in part, in Harris County, Texas.
FACTS
10. The Plaintiff brings this suit related to malicious, defamatory comments the
Defendants made about him.
LIABILITY
n. Defendants MANZOOR MEMON and AMBER MEMON (the “Memons*) are
husband and wife. They are the trustees of the Memon Living Trust (the “Trust”), and the sole
officers, directors and sharcholders of Defendants MANZOOR ENTERPRISES, INC., RAKIB
ENTERPRISES, INC., AKIB MANAGEMENT, INC., and AKIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. (the
“Corporate Defendants”). The MEMONS have no personal bank accounts, but choose to use the
bank accounts and funds of the Trust and the Corporate Defendants for their personal purposes,
including but not limited to publishing “ls Honesty the Best Policy?” (IHTBP?), a gossip
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 4/13
flyer/publication distributed in the South Asian community in Houston and republished on the
internet at www.ishonestythebestpolicy.com, and purchasing time on the radio for a program
bearing the same name as the flyer/publication. Both of the Memons have served as the editors
of this flyer/publication at times that are material to this cause and they both have appeared on
the radio program. The flyet/publication has no paid subscribers, no cditorial policies or
guidelines, and it is not reviewed, edited or created by any person having any training in
journalism.
12. The Trust and Corporate Defendants are alter egos of the Memons and they are
equally liable for the defamatory statements that have been published by the Memons about the
Plaintiff in the flycr/publication and over the airwaves. Accordingly, all of the Defendants are
liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff and the
wrongful malicious conduct that has motivated these defamatory statements.
1B. The Plaintiff is a private individual. He is neither a public figure, nor a limited
purpose public figure with regard to any of the defamatory statements the Defendants have
published. None of the Defendants is a media defendant. They are not journalists; no Defendant
is regularly published in any recognized local, regional or national publications; and none of the
Defendants has any notoriety as a journalist or recognized member of che news media.
14, The false, defamatory statements the Defendants have published to others about
the Plaintiff, include the following:
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
jf
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 5/13
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 stored in his
garage, illegally sold from his garage, cigarcttcs 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;
Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in
the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment; and
L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender.
At the time these statements were made, the Memons were editor and assistant editor of
the gossip flier and hosts of the radio program. These statements were published by one or
more of the Defendants in: (1) a letter to Judge Janis Jack in Corpus Christ, Texas dated March
28, 2011; (2) issues of IHTBP? dated March 2010, April 2010, May 2010, October 2010,
November 2010, January 201, February 2011, July-September 2012; (3) an anonymous memo
attached to 200-300 copies of the July-September 2012 of IHTBP? that were distributed by the
Defendants to residents in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision in August 2012; (4) a letter to
U.S. Customs officials dated May 3, 2009; and (5) a letter to the Chief of Police of the League
City Police Department dated June 28, 2009.
13. Defendants made these, and other, defamatory statements that they knew or
should have known to be false. Defendants continue to churn out these same defamatory
—4-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 6/13
statements to fill out their paper. The defamatory statements have been published to a number
of third parties as intended by the Defendants and these defamatory statements have caused the
Plaintiff substantial harm.
a. This issue also stated that “HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER
SYED UMAR BUKHARL IS ALLEGED TO BE INVOLVED IN A MORTGAGE FRAUD
SCHEME WITH HIS FATHER, ALSO INVOLVED IN SELLING, STORAGEOF
COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER ITEMS AND OPERATING ILLEGAL STORAGE FACILITY OF
CIGARETTES (WITH OUT LICENSE) PUNISHABLE FEDERAL OFFENCE”. This statement
is false as Plaintiff has not committed Mortgage fraud and ts not involved in selling or storing
cigarettes illegally.
b. Inthe same issue of the gossip flyer the defendants wrote “ANOTHER
OURNALIST ATTACKED BY MEMBER OF PAKISTANI] MAFIA” Syed Rashid Bukhari a
member of a Pakistani mafia has been under investigation for financial fraud and mortgage fraud
including money laundering. This statement is defamatory as Plaintiff is not a member of a
Pakistani Mafia, and is not under any investigation for fraud or money laundering.
¢. In the same issue of the gossip flyer the defendants wrate “FROM PIMP TO
PHILANTHROPIST” “Syed Rashid Bukhari, a waiter in Hotel Intercontinental Lahore in 80's,
indulged in providing prostitutes to the hotel guest {rom local brothel Hira Mandi, came to USA
na medical visa to get his daughter's cancer treatment. During this visit he filed for farmer visa
by providing fake and fraudulent documentation stating that he was working asa farmer in a
local farm. With this visa he obtained U.S. citizenship and eventual y moved his entire extended
family of brothers, sisters and sons to the United States. Working his way from pimp to
philanthropist, Syed has made many frauds and taken loans with forged information punishable
5.
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 7/13
by local laws.” The statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not indulged in providing
prostitutes, has not committed any fraud to obtain U.S. citizenship, has never been a pimp, and
has never “forged” information.
d. Inthe Same issue defendants stated “View of Syed Rashid Bukhari’s garage
showing counterfeit designed items and cigarettes”. This statement is false and defamatory as
Defendants’ daughter Sana Memon took these pictures to prove them wrong, and defendants
were told that the pictures were taken so that defendants’ would stop their defamation
campaign. The items were not counterfeit and there were no stalen cigarettes.
e. In che same flyer also stared “Bukhari Money laundering story involved in money
laundering by sponsoring some fictitious foundation named after deceased daughter of a PAGH
‘Trustee Syed Rashid Bukhari. Syed Bukhari collected the funds from community members, in
the name of 501€ organization, for tax credit, PAGH President and Executives cut a $25,000
check to Syed Bukhari who transferred the moncy for this school project defrauding IRS and
failing to abide by the money transfer rules stipulated by US Government after 9/11" This
statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not been involved in Money laundering nor has
he defrauded the IRS.
t The October 2010 issue of this gossip flyer Defendants stated:
Plaintiff “selling Counterfeit Designer Items, and Mortgage Fraud” and that is a part of “The
Galaxy of Crime Dirty Seven” These statements are false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not sold
counterfeit designer items, has not committed Mortgage Fraud, and is not part of any “Galaxy of
Crime”.
g. Inthe same issue of the gossip flyer the Defendants wrote “PAGH TRUSTEES
RASHID BUKHARI AND KHALID MANZOOR RIPS OFF SMALL CONTRACTOR.” This
-6-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 8/13
statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not committed fraud and has not ripped off
small contractors.
h In November 2010 issue, the defendants write that “GALAXY OF CRIME
DIRTY NINE #4 SYED RASHID BUKHARL SELLING COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER” These
statements are false and defamatory as Plaintiff has never joined a galaay of Crime, and does not
sell counterfeit designer items.
i In January 201] issue defendants stated “PAGH TRUSTEES RASHID.
BUKHARI & KHALID MANZOOR MOTEL MORTGAGE BEING REVIEWED BY
INVESTIGATORS”. The statement is false and defamatory.
J In February 201] issue defendant write “PAGH TRUSTEES SYED RASHID
BUKHARI AND KHALID MANZOOR OBTAINED VISAS FOR DANCING GIRLS FOR
THEIR CLUB RIO”. This statement is false and defamatory as plaintiff was not involved in the
process of trying to obtain visas for dancing girls.
k. Inthe July - September 2012 issue of this gossip flyer, the defendants write:
“SYED RASHID BUKHARI FORMER CHAIRMAN EDUCATION COMMITTEE TRUSTEE
PAKISTAN CENTER INDICTED FOR INDECENCY WITH A 17 YEAR OLD FEMALE CHILD,
VICTIM WITHDREW CHARGES BEING GOOD SAMARITAN DUE TO SYED’S SMALL
CHILDREN SELLING COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER ITEMS FROM GARAGE STORAGE AND
SELLING CIGARETTES FROM GARAGE FILING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS TO US
IMMIGRATION TO ACQUIRE FARMER” This statement is false and defamatory. The
statements were made by both Manzoor memon and Amber Memon, and identified Plaintiff by
his name.
16. The Defendants made these defamatory statements when Manzoor Memon knew
7
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 9/13
or should have known they were false, but he failed to properly investigate the falsity of the
statements before publishing them even though their defamatory potential was obvious to any
person of reasonable prudence. These defamatory statements have been published by the
Defendants at various times since March 31, 2010, and they have continued to be published
during the pendency of this suit.
17. These false statements were also defamatory per se, because they accuse Syed
Rashid Bukhari of committing crimes or being unethical or dishonest in his business dealings.
18. Unfortunately, the Defendants’ course of defamation has been repeated and
continues, These defamatory statements have been published to a number of third parties in the
South Asian community and the Houston community as recently as August 2012; and they have
been continually republished on the internet. In fact, Defendant Manzoor Memon republished
300 copies of his August 2012 flyer/publication in the subdivision where the Plaintiff resides
with an unauthorized memo falscly calling for a meeting of the homecowncrs to “deal with the
alleged sex offender”.
19. These defamatory comments and the wrongful malicious conduct of the
Defendant Manzoor Memon have caused the Plaintiff to suffer substantial harm.
20. These false defamatory statements about the Plaintiff were also made with actual
malice, because they were made by Defendant Manzoor Memon with knowledge they were false
or they were made by Defendant Manzoor Memon with a reckless disregard of their falsity.
These defamatory statements were also a consequence of a specific intent to cause substantial
injury or harm to the Plaintiff and/or gross negligence of Defendant Manzoor Memon. This
wrongful, reckless and/or intentional course of conduct commenced when Defendant Manzoor
Memon’s daughter married the Plaintiff's son against the wishes of Manzoor Memon. It is part a
~g-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 10/13
concerted pattern of conduct of Manzoor Memon that he has utilized to defame a number of
persons in the community whom he has perceived to have slighted him or against whom he has
some grudge or vendetta. Manzoor Memon recklessly defames the Plaintiff and these other
persons without regard to the truth, facts or the law.
21. Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants are
vicariously liable for the malice and gross negligence of Defendant Manzoor Memon. The
unabashed personal use of the funds and bank accounts of the Trust and the Corporate
Defendants for the publication of these defamatory statements and the wrongful malicious
conduct makes these Defendants liable for the wrongful conduct of Defendant Manzoor Memon
as vice-principals and co-publishers of the defamatory statements.
22 Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants have also
endorsed, ratified, and/or permitted Defendant Manzoor Memon to engage in his wrongful
tortious malicious course of conduct, and they have taken no steps to curtail it, even though they
knew or should have recognized how wrongful his campaign of malicious tortious conduct is.
These Defendants have aided and abetted the wrongful, malicious conduct of Defendant
Manzoor Memon, because they knew his conduct was tortious; they gave him assistance and
encouragement in committing his tortious conduct; and their assistance and encouragement was
a substantial factor in the occurrence of his tortious conduct. Accordingly, all of the Defendants
are liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff and the
malicious wrongful conduct that motivated that wrongful campaign.
23. Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants have also
engaged in a civil conspiracy with Defendant Manzoor Memon. The Defendants had a tacit
~9-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 11/13
meeting of the minds regarding the campaign of defamation against the Plaintiff; all of these
Defendants knew or should have known the statements being published about the Plaintiff were
false, and Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants were well aware
of the animus Defendant Manzoor Memon had for the Plaintiff. Defendants Amber Memon, the
Trust and the Corporate Defendants knowingly allowed Defendant Manzoor Memon to embark
and continue his campaign a malicious defamation against the Plaintiff. As a consequence of this
conspiracy, all of the Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements
made about the Plaintiff and the malicious wrongful conduct that motivated that wrongful
campaign.
DAMAGES
24. As a consequence of the defamation per se of the Defendants and the malicious
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has
been seriously harmed. The Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress,
and his good reputation has been irretrievably tarnished, These general damages are presumed,
because the statements are defamatory per se. These presumed general damages are likely to
continue in the future.
25. In the event it should be determined these statements are only defamatory per
quod, these damages were also proximately caused by the defamatory statements and the
wrongful malicious conduct of the Defendants.
26. The total actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff significantly exceed the
minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. The Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment and
-10-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 12/13
post-judgment interest on his actual damages.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
27. The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover exemplary damages from the Defendants,
jointly and severally for Defendant’ Manzoor Memon’s actual malice and gross negligence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI prays
that upon final trial che Plaintiff have Judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as
follows:
1 All actual damages of the Plaintiff proximately caused by the defamation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, actual malice, and gross negligence of
the Defendants;
For exemplary damages in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant Manzoor
Memon to punish him for his actual malice, and/or gross negligence that has
harmed the Plaintiff and the other Defendants be held vicariously liable for these
exemplary damages;
For prejudgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law;
For past-judgment interest as provided by law at the highest rate allowed;
For all costs of suit; and
Such other and further relief at law and in equity to which the Plaintiff may show
himself justly entitled.
cd,
CL
aspee
ata F
Lospt
ADAM J
State Bar No. 24003499
P.O. Box 2579
Sugar Land, Texas 77487-2579
(281) 901-0378 Telephone
-l1-
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 13/13
wo Qosm one
[fos
\e rg Aviat AB
HOWARD R. KING
TSB: 11444500
P.O. Box 5379
Kingwood, Texas 77325
(713) 826-3649
(713) 904-2456 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Petition was
scrved on opposing counsel by facsimile, email for U.S. First Class is the 1 day
of December, 2012.
ALTAF ADAM }
-12-
Preview
12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 2/13 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 FIFTH AMENDED PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI, complaining of Defendants. MANZOOR MEMON, Individually and as Trustee of the Memon Living Trust, AMBER MEMON, Individually and as Trustee of the Memon Living Trust, MANZOOR ENTERPRISES, INC., RAKIB ENTERPRISES, INC., AKIB }=MANAGEMENT, INC., and AKIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. and for cause of action would show as follows: LEVEL OF DISCOVERY The intended level of discovery in this cause is Level 2 under Rule 190 T.R.C.P. PARTIES 2 The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Galveston County, Texas. 3 Defendant MANZOOR MEMON is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant and the Memon Living Trust have already answered and appeared in this case and they are being served with this Amended Petition through their counsel of record. 4 Defendant AMBER MEMON is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant and the Memon Living Trust have already answered and appeared in this case, and they arc being served with this Amended Petition through their counsel of record. 2. Defendant MANZOOR ENTERPRISES, INC. has already answered and appeared in this case, and it is being served with this Amended Petition through its counsel of record. 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 3/13 6 Defendant RAKIB ENTERPRISES, INC. has already answered and appeared in this case, and it is being served with this Amended Petition through its counsel of record. 7. Defendant AKIB MANAGMENT, INC. is corporation that has its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citation by serving its President, Manzoor Memon at 3810 Bogota Drive, Pasadena, Texas 77505. 8 Defendant AKIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. is corporation that has its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citation by serving its President, Manzoor Memon at 3810 Bogota Drive, Pasadena, Texas 77305. VENUE 9. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas. Defendant is a resident of Harris County, Texas; and the events that are the underlying hasis of this lawsuit occurred, in whole or in part, in Harris County, Texas. FACTS 10. The Plaintiff brings this suit related to malicious, defamatory comments the Defendants made about him. LIABILITY n. Defendants MANZOOR MEMON and AMBER MEMON (the “Memons*) are husband and wife. They are the trustees of the Memon Living Trust (the “Trust”), and the sole officers, directors and sharcholders of Defendants MANZOOR ENTERPRISES, INC., RAKIB ENTERPRISES, INC., AKIB MANAGEMENT, INC., and AKIB CONSTRUCTION, INC. (the “Corporate Defendants”). The MEMONS have no personal bank accounts, but choose to use the bank accounts and funds of the Trust and the Corporate Defendants for their personal purposes, including but not limited to publishing “ls Honesty the Best Policy?” (IHTBP?), a gossip 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 4/13 flyer/publication distributed in the South Asian community in Houston and republished on the internet at www.ishonestythebestpolicy.com, and purchasing time on the radio for a program bearing the same name as the flyer/publication. Both of the Memons have served as the editors of this flyer/publication at times that are material to this cause and they both have appeared on the radio program. The flyet/publication has no paid subscribers, no cditorial policies or guidelines, and it is not reviewed, edited or created by any person having any training in journalism. 12. The Trust and Corporate Defendants are alter egos of the Memons and they are equally liable for the defamatory statements that have been published by the Memons about the Plaintiff in the flycr/publication and over the airwaves. Accordingly, all of the Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff and the wrongful malicious conduct that has motivated these defamatory statements. 1B. The Plaintiff is a private individual. He is neither a public figure, nor a limited purpose public figure with regard to any of the defamatory statements the Defendants have published. None of the Defendants is a media defendant. They are not journalists; no Defendant is regularly published in any recognized local, regional or national publications; and none of the Defendants has any notoriety as a journalist or recognized member of che news media. 14, The false, defamatory statements the Defendants have published to others about the Plaintiff, include the following: 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 jf 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 5/13 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 stored in his garage, illegally sold from his garage, cigarcttcs 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; Syed Rashid Bukhari owned an establishment Club Rio and engaged in the crime of promoting prostitution at said establishment; and L Syed Rashid Bukhari is an alleged sexual offender. At the time these statements were made, the Memons were editor and assistant editor of the gossip flier and hosts of the radio program. These statements were published by one or more of the Defendants in: (1) a letter to Judge Janis Jack in Corpus Christ, Texas dated March 28, 2011; (2) issues of IHTBP? dated March 2010, April 2010, May 2010, October 2010, November 2010, January 201, February 2011, July-September 2012; (3) an anonymous memo attached to 200-300 copies of the July-September 2012 of IHTBP? that were distributed by the Defendants to residents in Whispering Lakes Ranch subdivision in August 2012; (4) a letter to U.S. Customs officials dated May 3, 2009; and (5) a letter to the Chief of Police of the League City Police Department dated June 28, 2009. 13. Defendants made these, and other, defamatory statements that they knew or should have known to be false. Defendants continue to churn out these same defamatory —4- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 6/13 statements to fill out their paper. The defamatory statements have been published to a number of third parties as intended by the Defendants and these defamatory statements have caused the Plaintiff substantial harm. a. This issue also stated that “HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER SYED UMAR BUKHARL IS ALLEGED TO BE INVOLVED IN A MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEME WITH HIS FATHER, ALSO INVOLVED IN SELLING, STORAGEOF COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER ITEMS AND OPERATING ILLEGAL STORAGE FACILITY OF CIGARETTES (WITH OUT LICENSE) PUNISHABLE FEDERAL OFFENCE”. This statement is false as Plaintiff has not committed Mortgage fraud and ts not involved in selling or storing cigarettes illegally. b. Inthe same issue of the gossip flyer the defendants wrote “ANOTHER OURNALIST ATTACKED BY MEMBER OF PAKISTANI] MAFIA” Syed Rashid Bukhari a member of a Pakistani mafia has been under investigation for financial fraud and mortgage fraud including money laundering. This statement is defamatory as Plaintiff is not a member of a Pakistani Mafia, and is not under any investigation for fraud or money laundering. ¢. In the same issue of the gossip flyer the defendants wrate “FROM PIMP TO PHILANTHROPIST” “Syed Rashid Bukhari, a waiter in Hotel Intercontinental Lahore in 80's, indulged in providing prostitutes to the hotel guest {rom local brothel Hira Mandi, came to USA na medical visa to get his daughter's cancer treatment. During this visit he filed for farmer visa by providing fake and fraudulent documentation stating that he was working asa farmer in a local farm. With this visa he obtained U.S. citizenship and eventual y moved his entire extended family of brothers, sisters and sons to the United States. Working his way from pimp to philanthropist, Syed has made many frauds and taken loans with forged information punishable 5. 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 7/13 by local laws.” The statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not indulged in providing prostitutes, has not committed any fraud to obtain U.S. citizenship, has never been a pimp, and has never “forged” information. d. Inthe Same issue defendants stated “View of Syed Rashid Bukhari’s garage showing counterfeit designed items and cigarettes”. This statement is false and defamatory as Defendants’ daughter Sana Memon took these pictures to prove them wrong, and defendants were told that the pictures were taken so that defendants’ would stop their defamation campaign. The items were not counterfeit and there were no stalen cigarettes. e. In che same flyer also stared “Bukhari Money laundering story involved in money laundering by sponsoring some fictitious foundation named after deceased daughter of a PAGH ‘Trustee Syed Rashid Bukhari. Syed Bukhari collected the funds from community members, in the name of 501€ organization, for tax credit, PAGH President and Executives cut a $25,000 check to Syed Bukhari who transferred the moncy for this school project defrauding IRS and failing to abide by the money transfer rules stipulated by US Government after 9/11" This statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not been involved in Money laundering nor has he defrauded the IRS. t The October 2010 issue of this gossip flyer Defendants stated: Plaintiff “selling Counterfeit Designer Items, and Mortgage Fraud” and that is a part of “The Galaxy of Crime Dirty Seven” These statements are false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not sold counterfeit designer items, has not committed Mortgage Fraud, and is not part of any “Galaxy of Crime”. g. Inthe same issue of the gossip flyer the Defendants wrote “PAGH TRUSTEES RASHID BUKHARI AND KHALID MANZOOR RIPS OFF SMALL CONTRACTOR.” This -6- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 8/13 statement is false and defamatory as Plaintiff has not committed fraud and has not ripped off small contractors. h In November 2010 issue, the defendants write that “GALAXY OF CRIME DIRTY NINE #4 SYED RASHID BUKHARL SELLING COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER” These statements are false and defamatory as Plaintiff has never joined a galaay of Crime, and does not sell counterfeit designer items. i In January 201] issue defendants stated “PAGH TRUSTEES RASHID. BUKHARI & KHALID MANZOOR MOTEL MORTGAGE BEING REVIEWED BY INVESTIGATORS”. The statement is false and defamatory. J In February 201] issue defendant write “PAGH TRUSTEES SYED RASHID BUKHARI AND KHALID MANZOOR OBTAINED VISAS FOR DANCING GIRLS FOR THEIR CLUB RIO”. This statement is false and defamatory as plaintiff was not involved in the process of trying to obtain visas for dancing girls. k. Inthe July - September 2012 issue of this gossip flyer, the defendants write: “SYED RASHID BUKHARI FORMER CHAIRMAN EDUCATION COMMITTEE TRUSTEE PAKISTAN CENTER INDICTED FOR INDECENCY WITH A 17 YEAR OLD FEMALE CHILD, VICTIM WITHDREW CHARGES BEING GOOD SAMARITAN DUE TO SYED’S SMALL CHILDREN SELLING COUNTERFEIT DESIGNER ITEMS FROM GARAGE STORAGE AND SELLING CIGARETTES FROM GARAGE FILING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS TO US IMMIGRATION TO ACQUIRE FARMER” This statement is false and defamatory. The statements were made by both Manzoor memon and Amber Memon, and identified Plaintiff by his name. 16. The Defendants made these defamatory statements when Manzoor Memon knew 7 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 9/13 or should have known they were false, but he failed to properly investigate the falsity of the statements before publishing them even though their defamatory potential was obvious to any person of reasonable prudence. These defamatory statements have been published by the Defendants at various times since March 31, 2010, and they have continued to be published during the pendency of this suit. 17. These false statements were also defamatory per se, because they accuse Syed Rashid Bukhari of committing crimes or being unethical or dishonest in his business dealings. 18. Unfortunately, the Defendants’ course of defamation has been repeated and continues, These defamatory statements have been published to a number of third parties in the South Asian community and the Houston community as recently as August 2012; and they have been continually republished on the internet. In fact, Defendant Manzoor Memon republished 300 copies of his August 2012 flyer/publication in the subdivision where the Plaintiff resides with an unauthorized memo falscly calling for a meeting of the homecowncrs to “deal with the alleged sex offender”. 19. These defamatory comments and the wrongful malicious conduct of the Defendant Manzoor Memon have caused the Plaintiff to suffer substantial harm. 20. These false defamatory statements about the Plaintiff were also made with actual malice, because they were made by Defendant Manzoor Memon with knowledge they were false or they were made by Defendant Manzoor Memon with a reckless disregard of their falsity. These defamatory statements were also a consequence of a specific intent to cause substantial injury or harm to the Plaintiff and/or gross negligence of Defendant Manzoor Memon. This wrongful, reckless and/or intentional course of conduct commenced when Defendant Manzoor Memon’s daughter married the Plaintiff's son against the wishes of Manzoor Memon. It is part a ~g- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 10/13 concerted pattern of conduct of Manzoor Memon that he has utilized to defame a number of persons in the community whom he has perceived to have slighted him or against whom he has some grudge or vendetta. Manzoor Memon recklessly defames the Plaintiff and these other persons without regard to the truth, facts or the law. 21. Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants are vicariously liable for the malice and gross negligence of Defendant Manzoor Memon. The unabashed personal use of the funds and bank accounts of the Trust and the Corporate Defendants for the publication of these defamatory statements and the wrongful malicious conduct makes these Defendants liable for the wrongful conduct of Defendant Manzoor Memon as vice-principals and co-publishers of the defamatory statements. 22 Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants have also endorsed, ratified, and/or permitted Defendant Manzoor Memon to engage in his wrongful tortious malicious course of conduct, and they have taken no steps to curtail it, even though they knew or should have recognized how wrongful his campaign of malicious tortious conduct is. These Defendants have aided and abetted the wrongful, malicious conduct of Defendant Manzoor Memon, because they knew his conduct was tortious; they gave him assistance and encouragement in committing his tortious conduct; and their assistance and encouragement was a substantial factor in the occurrence of his tortious conduct. Accordingly, all of the Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff and the malicious wrongful conduct that motivated that wrongful campaign. 23. Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants have also engaged in a civil conspiracy with Defendant Manzoor Memon. The Defendants had a tacit ~9- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 11/13 meeting of the minds regarding the campaign of defamation against the Plaintiff; all of these Defendants knew or should have known the statements being published about the Plaintiff were false, and Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants were well aware of the animus Defendant Manzoor Memon had for the Plaintiff. Defendants Amber Memon, the Trust and the Corporate Defendants knowingly allowed Defendant Manzoor Memon to embark and continue his campaign a malicious defamation against the Plaintiff. As a consequence of this conspiracy, all of the Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for the defamatory statements made about the Plaintiff and the malicious wrongful conduct that motivated that wrongful campaign. DAMAGES 24. As a consequence of the defamation per se of the Defendants and the malicious defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been seriously harmed. The Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress, and his good reputation has been irretrievably tarnished, These general damages are presumed, because the statements are defamatory per se. These presumed general damages are likely to continue in the future. 25. In the event it should be determined these statements are only defamatory per quod, these damages were also proximately caused by the defamatory statements and the wrongful malicious conduct of the Defendants. 26. The total actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff significantly exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. The Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment and -10- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 12/13 post-judgment interest on his actual damages. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 27. The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover exemplary damages from the Defendants, jointly and severally for Defendant’ Manzoor Memon’s actual malice and gross negligence. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, SYED RASHID BUKHARI prays that upon final trial che Plaintiff have Judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1 All actual damages of the Plaintiff proximately caused by the defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, actual malice, and gross negligence of the Defendants; For exemplary damages in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant Manzoor Memon to punish him for his actual malice, and/or gross negligence that has harmed the Plaintiff and the other Defendants be held vicariously liable for these exemplary damages; For prejudgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law; For past-judgment interest as provided by law at the highest rate allowed; For all costs of suit; and Such other and further relief at law and in equity to which the Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled. cd, CL aspee ata F Lospt ADAM J State Bar No. 24003499 P.O. Box 2579 Sugar Land, Texas 77487-2579 (281) 901-0378 Telephone -l1- 12/11/2012 01:32:04 PM 713-755-1451 Page 13/13 wo Qosm one [fos \e rg Aviat AB HOWARD R. KING TSB: 11444500 P.O. Box 5379 Kingwood, Texas 77325 (713) 826-3649 (713) 904-2456 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Petition was scrved on opposing counsel by facsimile, email for U.S. First Class is the 1 day of December, 2012. ALTAF ADAM } -12-