Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke does not accept any advertising or contributions nor does use cookies of any type.
It is our aim to have web pages load quickly and cleanly so the layout is kept simple.

The Texas Interstate Highway Bully
Hall Of Shame Member
Buc-ee's Boobs

Last updated - June 20, 2017
Page added - November 15, 2016

I (Mike) was once asked a question that allowed me to render my opinion of (corporate) lawyers. My reply was, "I consider most lawyers to be professional liars and prostitutes." The lawyers in the room gave me a dirty look. They asked the question and I answered it.

Management and the lawyers for Buc-ee's seem to have a solid grip on most, if not all, of the 7 Deadly Sins .

In our opinion, for the most part, corporate lawyers, especially those in large legal firms, are immoral, unethical and money mongers. And the large law firms dominate the intellectual property domain arena. These multi-national firms charge large hourly rates in order to feed their staff. Their clients pay for their fancy offices, their country club memberships and their expensive digs. Whether or not the client has a valid legal claim is of no consequence as long as the client pays for the billing. These lawyers can argue either side of the case as they are paid. While they have an ethical obligation to follow the law and to not pursue a case that is not justified, they rarely have any qualms about their paychecks coming in from frivolous cases, especially ones against weaker foes who cannot afford to fight back. Money doesn't just talk, it screams bloody murder. And those who are murdered are the ones who lack the financial resources to fight the trademark extortion tactics of the bullies. Buc-ee's is a trademark bully. A big time bully.

Our legal system is run by attorneys, judges who were attorneys and other professionals with law degrees. It is a closed system that pretends outsiders, that is pro se defendants, have the same rights and opportunity in court as the legal professionals. That is a lie. There is a pro se bias that would be illegal in almost any other profession or industry. [Medicine being one of the few exceptions].

The Buc-ee's claims of trade dress violations are so outrageous the many lawyers for Buc-ee's should be required to retake legal ethics courses and to compensate the victim companies they bullied into settlements. But these lawyers and law firms do not care about "justice", only that their bill is paid on time and in full. Read the trade dress claims and we think you will agree with our opinion that these not-so-fine legal minds supported and advanced frivolous trade dress claims solely for the purpose of clubbing a smaller competitor into submission. Buc-ee's paid the bill but these lawyers and their firms helped to perpetrate the legal fraud. A perfect example of trademark extortion.

Buc-ee's is Lone Star Stupid but its lawyers know about thses pages and have know about them since at least November 21, 2016. They spent a preliminary hour viewing most if not all of the pages posted at that time. Gee, no cease and desist letter from them. We wonder why? Perhaps we speaketh the truth?

If what we are saying about their cases was not accurate surely they would have voiced some concern to us in the form of a cease and desist demand. They have not. Our opinions of Buc-ee's and the legion of Buck-ee's Boobs is not subject to a cease and desist unless we are inventing falsehoods. But wait! That's exactly what Buc-ee's did through its lawyers, Buc-ee's Boobs.

So really how can they object to us being a little creative in our stated opinions when they go into federal court and lie? In our opinion they lied and we support what we think with lots of facts. They lied in federal court to browbeat lesser cash-infused competition into submission. That is what we call trademark extortion.

The Lying Lawyers Of Buc-ee's
The lawyers for Buc-ee's, to whom we refer to as Buckey's Boobs, withdrew their frivolous trade dress claims after Choke Canyon fought back. The logical conclusion that can be drawn from this action is that Buckey's Boobs, and/or Buc-ee's management, knew, reasonably, that the trade dress claims were bogus from the beginning. Logically, that means that every previous trademark court suit by Buc-ee's alleging trade dress violations were deliberately false and filed with malice of forethought.
Unfortunately for Chick's. Irv's and the others, they entered into voluntary settlement agreements, albeit under duress, settlements that probably bar them from undoing the agreements. So Buc-ee's, lying and laughing all the way to the courtroom, prevails in those cases. The owners of Buc-ee's are deplorable for their intentionally wrongful attacks on perceived competition. They must be very unsure of their stature in the marketplace because of instead of limiting the competition by providing a superior product and great service they stoop to lying and intimidation. Tactics that makes one wonder about the sanity and moral direction of those running the ship. Iceberg ahead? Perhaps many.

We would suggest everyone Boycott Buc-ee's.

We obtained this information from the court filings. This list might be incomplete, as we did not look at every document. Sometimes during the course of an action parties bring in hired guns from another firm or another jurisdiction. Pictures and other information came from law firm web sites.

And now, on to the many boobs hired by Buc-ee's to represent their over-bearing and frivolous trade dress claims.

Buc-ee's Boobs

13-cv-00640 -- March 8, 2013 -- Buc-ee's v Chick's

Representing the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P, Fulbright Tower 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77010

the ever popular Charles S. Baker and Charles B. Walker, Jr., Of Counsel [applause please];

also Of Counsel, Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb, both of whom appear to be in-house counsel for Buc-ee's [a meaningful hum-m-m-m is appropriate here]. (Fulbright & Jaworski and been renamed to Norton Rose Fulbright.) But we ask, did Charles S. Baker and Charles B. Walker, Jr bill Buc-ee's the many hours for a new complaint when essentially all they did was a cut-and-paste-and-replace?

Charles S. Baker

Charles B. Walker, Jr

Jeffery Frank Nadalo

Elizabeth Lieb

13-CV-02080 July 16, 2013 Buc-ee's v Beaver Water

Again from the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P:

Charles S. Baker

And again, also Of Counsel, Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb. It makes us wonder what was wrong with Charles B. Walker, Jr. as he was dropped from the Crummy Counsels Club? (a.k.a. the CCC). Or perhaps, since 2013 Lawsuit #2 (Beaver Water) was a simple cut-and-paste and substitution from 2013 Lawsuit #1 (Chick's), Charles B. Walker, Jr. wasn't needed. A paralegal could have done the paperwork with the attorneys simply signing their names after they came back from golf. It was not a complete cut-and-paste since Buc-ee's Boobs alluded to, but did not detail, trade dress claims as they did with Chick's. So they had to put some actual thought into the Original Complaint. The silliness of the claims shows their thought process is very flawed..[polite applause for the following]

Charles S. Baker

Jeffery Frank Nadalo

Elizabeth Lieb

13-CV-03346 November 13, 2013 Buc-ee's v Irv's

H. Tracy Richardson, III, Attorney In Charge, in-house counsel for Buc-ee's, or rather, according to, Deputy General Counsel at Buc-ee's, Ltd.. Formerly of Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard, L.L.P., 595 Orleans, Suite 1400 Beaumont, TX 77701. What we found amusing was in the Amended Complaint the signature page was changed to include "Attorney In Charge" under his name. His new job must have gone to his head. Perhaps he was exerting his newfound authority to put Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb in their respective places. We're guessing that did not go over well as he did not include his new position in subsequent filings.

And again, also Of Counsel, the ever faithful Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb. Another simple cut-and-paste-and-substitution from the earlier two 2013 filings. Maybe Buc-ee's caught on to the duplications and decided to copy evereything in-house to save money?

We were unable to locate a photo of H. Tracy Richardson, III, Esq.. Could it be he is afraid of being recognized? Unlikely because the posters in the Post Office tend to have pictures that are not a good likeness. We did find some images that we think are representative of him.

H. Tracy Richardson, III

Jeffery Frank Nadalo

Elizabeth Lieb

14-CV-01844 July 3, 2014 Buc-ee's v Frio Beaver

Again, H. Tracy Richardson, III, but this time Not Attorney In Charge

and again, also Of Counsel, Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb

H. Tracy Richardson, III

Jeffery Frank Nadalo

Elizabeth Lieb

15-CV-03704 December 23, 2015 Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon Travel Center

Since this case was contested, you can't tell the lawyers without a scorecard.

Original Complaint -- filed December 23, 2015
Again, H. Tracy Richardson, III, but again this time, modesty prevailed, Not Attorney In Charge but rather General Counsel. WOW!

Of Counsel, again Charles S. Baker, who appears to have jumped ship, going to the law firm of Locke Lord, L.L.P. 2800 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Houston, Texas 77002. Looks like he took some clients with him, or at least Buc-ee's. We thought that only happened on television shows.

But, no longer Of Counsel, H Tracey's faithful companions Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb. H Tracy old boy, what happened to them? Couldn't get past Attorney In Charge? Elizabeth Lieb appears to have jumped ship and gone to another law firm.

First Amended Complaint -- filed February 26, 2016
Signed by one Kevin J. Meek, where in the hell did he come from (?), but only "with permission of" H. Tracy Richardson, III. "With permission"? It seems that H Tracy keeps his subordinates on a short leash. "You can do anything you want as long as you check with me first", or is it, "When I say jump you don't ask how high until after you are in the air"? One tough cookie. Or is he a cupcake? But poor H Tracy, he is back to being Deputy General Counsel. When did you get demoted old man? Did they take back your pay raise as well? Perhaps Buc-ee's did so Buc-ee's could pay for all of these other attorneys.

Now, enter the law firm of Baker Botts L.L.P., 98 San Jacinto Boulevard Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701-4078. Kevin J. Meek is Of Counsel and it looks like on loan from Baker Botts. Also Of Counsel from Baker Botts, Joseph Gray ( pro hac vice forthcoming), .

Also enter the law firm of Banner & Witcoff, LTD., Ten South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606-7407. Chicago - the murder capitol of the world, and home to more hired guns. What happened? Someone fights back and all of a sudden H. Tracy Richardson, III is no longer good enough to take out Buc-ee's trash? If the trade dress claims are so firm then why all of these other law firms and over-priced attorneys?

In any event, add Joseph J. Berghammer (pro hac vice forthcoming) from Banner & Witcoff to the list of boobs representing the Buc-ee's.

Plaintiffs Response To Motion To Dismiss -- filed April 22, 2016
Buc-ee's seems to be back to trusting H. Tracy Richardson, III, with a helping hand from Kevin J. Meek, to handle this one by themselves. But again with the "with permission of" H. Tracy Richardson, III. Or is H Tracy only getting top billing for work being done by Kevin? Perhaps the "pro hac vice" for the other newbies had not been approved yet. Inquiring minds want to know.

Buc-ee's Response To Supplimental Filing -- filed August 30, 2016
Signed by a new player, Janice V. Mitrius, over the name of our favorite Deputy General Counsel, H. Tracy Richardson, III. No permission this time. Wonder why? What happened to Jeffery Frank Nadalo and Elizabeth Lieb? Ouch! And, wasn't Kevin J. Meek good enough? Are Chicago law firms better than law firms in Austin, Texas? Really? Texas should be offended. Considering the stupidity of the lawsuit, the sleazy tactics employed by Buc-ee's and its myriad of lawyers should offend all Texans.

Kevin J. Meek is back but not as Of Counsel. Strange. Also on the signature page, in order of appearance, Joseph J. Berghammer (pro hac vice), Janice V. Mitrius (pro hac vice), Katherine Laatsch Fink (pro hac vice), Eric J. Hamp (pro hac vice), all of Banner & Witcoff of Chicago, Illinois.

The Supplimental Filing, filed August 24, 2016, is signed by ONE lawyer, Charles W. Hanor, of San Antonio. Buc-ee's has SEVEN lawyers from three different cities (and TWO states) up against ONE lawyer. Harking back to an earlier observation, if the trade dress case by Buc-ee's was so solid, why are SEVEN lawyers needed to fend off one lawyer who is fighting back?

Second Amended Complaint -- filed October 13, 2016
Since a victim is fighting back, Buc-ee's decided to drop the obviously frivolous trade dress claims in its Second Amended Complaint. Maybe the collective great minds of the SEVEN lawyers concluded they were collectively stupid and had to do something about it before they were officially knighted as Sir Idiots. So, be gone trade dress claims and lets us focus on blurring and other obscure parts of trademark law.

Signed by Janice V. Mitrius, again over the name of H. Tracy Richardson, III, but now he is no longer Deputy General Counsel but back to being General Counsel. They cannot seem to make up their minds. It is so-o-o confusing.

Additional partners in crime, that is other signatories, are Kevin J. Meek of Banner & Witcoff, and Joseph J. Berghammer (pro hac vice), Janice V. Mitrius (pro hac vice), Katherine Laatsch Fink (pro hac vice), Eric J. Hamp (pro hac vice), all of Banner & Witcoff of that windy murder capitol, Chicago, Illinois.

There will be more filings. We will update this Boobs Of Buc-ee's listing as it advances.

WTF is going on with H. Tracy Richardson, III? In one filing he is General Counsel. Then he is Deputy General Counsel. H, can we call you by your initial (?), does your job title change from day to day or are you just very confused? Do you also wear combat ribbons and medals you did not earn when you go out in public? Or did you just lie about your actual status in the legal hierarchy at Buc-ee's. We worry about your mental stability if you cannot remember your place at Buc-ee's. In your nick-name "Ping-pong"? Ooops, be careful - that was a trademarked name at one time.

So H, did you lie about your imagined status or are you just incompetent. Take your pick. We see the two being interchangeable in your case. Perhaps you should ignore those voices in your head. They did not go to the same law school you slept through. But then, those voices might be your only real company.

The Malevolent Seven

H. Tracy Richardson, III

Charles S. Baker

Kevin J. Meek

Joseph J. Berghammer

Janice V. Mitrius

Katherine Laatsch Fink

Eric J. Hamp

The Lying Lawyers Of Buc-ee's
Why did Buc-ee's withdraw the trade dress claims after ten months of claiming them, and subsequently defending them, in federal court? Because they were frivolous and could not be defended. And the lawyers for Buc-ee's knew that BEFORE they filed any of the above mentioned lawsuits. Knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit is making false statements to a court. That is a violation of Bar Ethics [an oxymoron] and a violation of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure [FRCP]. A false statement is also called lying but that word is seldom used against lawyers. But it should.

In our opinion, Buc-ee's and its lawyers should have to pay a fine, be sanctioned and have to pay all legal fees for the many defendants who wasted time and resources defending obviously frivolous trademark dress claims. In addition, those earlier "settlements" should be thrown out. But none of these is going to happen. Courts do not dispense justice, they apply the law. And the law is not about justice.

95% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. There are a lot of good lawyers out there and somehow Buc-ee's has managed to avoid them all. In our opinion, for what it is worth.

Want to see more BOOBS? Just go to these law firm websites and you will find lots more.

Baker Botts
Banner & Witcoff
Locke Lord
Norton Rose Fulbright

Click on the links below to go to the pages shown.
The Big Bad Blowhard Beaver's Main page Buc-ee's Boobs
The Beaver-Chicks Logo Comparison The Beaver-Beaver Water Logo Comparison The Beaver-Irv's Logo Comparison
The Beaver-Frio Beaver Logo Comparison The Beaver-Choke Canyon Logo Comparison The Beaver vs Sam's Mart Logo Comparison
Bucky's vs Buc-ee's, part 1 Dec 12, 2008 (Nebraska). Bucky's vs Buc-ee's, part 2, Mar 14, 2017 (Houston)

This web site, is owned and maintained by Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors, P.O. Box 87, Hartsel CO 80449. We are solely responsible for the content and the opinions expressed here. Please make sure you spell our names correctly on any threats of litigation and/or court documents.

Please stay tuned. Don't touch that dial.