They Stole Every Thing I Had,
Except My Honor, My Pride, & My Tenacity.
This is How They Did It To Me,
They Could Do It To You Too!
For forty years I have struggled to take back the right to use my name, defend my honor, and my life from the man who took it – aided by a corporation and abetted by the corruption of the judiciary and judicial members.
For them, it was about power, money, and control of possession of my name which has a great historic significance and profound meaning in the traditions of my people.
The name, “Sassoon” identifies me as a descendant of the great King David. To have been given the name “Sassoon Sassoon” held meanings I only understood after years of study. I am certain that some of the players involved knew more about the history of the Name at the time than I did.
I asked myself “How can you steal someone’s Name” and “why would you, if you could?” These Questions are what has driven me to fully understand the importance of my Name. When you understand from the outline of all that has happened to me you can see that any one of us could be the next Sassoon Sassoon of today.
I swore an oath to never give up and never stop fighting to reclaim my legacy and my name. This is the reason I founded Sassoon Saleem Sassoon International Inc. and appointed Jay E. Gell as Vice President and Chairman of the Board of Directors to provide an enduring legacy for redress and promulgation of my unique skills in the trade that was wrongfully taken away from me.
On this site you find my story, the documentation, the truth about Vidal and what he, a corporation, and the courts did.
Sassoon Saleem Sassoon
And now for the rest of the story…
Here are the Details.
A little background:
Sassoon Sassoon’s first salon opened in 1963, soon after he graduated from cosmetology school.
By 1969 Sassoon Sassoon had multiple salons, products, trademarks, and was planning his next salon – in Beverly Hills.
Beginning in the 60’s Sassoon Sassoon was captivated by the fascinating work of Royal Rife, Tesla, and others who saw the possibilities of living in harmony with the environment and world of nature.
Sassoon Sassoon products were “organically” made specifically to have no negative impacts on the individual or the environment.
Sassoon Sassoon chose the theme of a pyramid to reflect the background of his family, who are Jewish.
Sassoon Sassoon had first met Vidal in the early 60s at a hair and beauty show at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles.
Sassoon Sassoon has said “My brother, Alan, and I joked about Vidal after the event and for quite sometime later.
Vidal refused to discuss his name or family, though naturally the Sassoons’ asked about whether they connected in the family tree.
“Sassoon” is not a very common name, and in this instance is doubly so since both the first and last name are “Sassoon.”
This naming was in remembrance of an honored ancestor and is fairly unusual. Initially, it did not surprise him to find other Sassoon’s in the business of hair cutting, styling or even as a Barbour.
Casual inquiries soon revealed that no one in the family knew of this man, Vidal, or could tell anything about his background. Sassoon Sassoon found this disturbingly puzzling and strange, given the unique history of the name “Sassoon”.
It is different for other families. Many people do not know the full names of their grandparents or their heritage.
Not so with Sassoon’s family. Family events always included discussion of their relatives, some they saw regularly and others separated by distance were kept up with letters and long distance communications.
No one in the family knew anything about Vidal, including any of the descendants of David Sassoon, our cousins, the wealthy and famous side of the family.
Sassoon’s lineage is that of a family that was mid to upper middle class. They were not snobs in any way. They worked hard. They were innovators who were also involved in their local synagogues and communities.
Sassoon was dedicated to providing excellent products and services. Today they be would characterize as “natural” and “organic,” and “environmentally-friendly” or “Eco-Safe.”
Sassoon Sassoon was licensed to do business as a hair dresser in 1963.
Vidal has never had a cosmetology license in the United States.
Sassoon Sassoon’s right to use his name, given at birth, in business should have been absolutely protected by common law and by statute. This is a fact that the courts should have recognized and enforced.
No one can legally keep you from using your own name even if they were in that trade first.
However, in each area of business, cutting hair, trademarks, products, and copyrights, Sassoon Sassoon was first into these markets.
Why Vidal needed to stop him from doing business in his own name?
It is Simple, He could not sell the name to Proctor & Gamble because Sassoon Sassoon owned the name absolutely.
Both his first and last name are Sassoon.
During the legal proceedings set forth below, Vidal had produced a suspicious birth certificate (Which is believed to be a fake) with his mother and father listed as “Sasson.” There was a British TV show on at the time, it was called “This is Your Life” where “Vidal” Appeared and admittedly was identified as his real name being “Bernie Schwartz” or something similar.(if you have additional information on this episode please contact us as our copy on VHS is degraded). It has been extremely difficult to trace Vidal’s Real history before the change of names to “Sasson.” We believe there was some very high compensation for altering vital records in this matter.
Only Sassoon Sassoon had legitimate trademarks and copyrights on my products and was engaged in commerce.
Sassoon Sassoon, not Vidal, held the Trademarks, Service Marks, and Copyrights until Vidal and Richardson-Vicks stole them in 1976.
You CANNOT sell anything if you do not hold title.
Vidal needed to destroy Sassoon Sassoon’s claim to the name to achieve his goals.
This fact scenario explains why there is a gap of more than a decade.
1963 – 1976, when Vidal is not asserting ownership of the name publicly.
Vidal Sasson, Vidal Sassoon Inc. nor Proctor & Gamble (Richardson Vicks) has never had any legitimate claim to the name “Sassoon Sassoon”, then or now.
On this site you will find the documents, the names, and how their greed motivated them to use illegal and unethical methods within our judicial and corporate institutions to achieve goal when they could have honestly taken an inclusive position and asked Sassoon Sassoon to sell his otherwise exclusive rights in the form of Royalties rather than taking the hostile and aggressive position. Why not? Their profits would have been markedly less having another overhead cost. It was Greed pure and simple.
The personal costs and loses Sassoon Sassoon has endured and has affected his family have been greater than he can ever adequately express.
They endured the humiliation and suffering. Before his Mother passed away she continued to ask him “when would we again have our name.” he could not give an answer with any certainty.
Sassoon Sassoon has said “I will never stop trying until I stand at her grave at the Mount of Olives in Israel and tell her this time has come and our name is returned to us.”
Sassoon S. Sassoon’s History in The United States:
1949 – Sassoon Family arrives in the New York City. The Sassoons become United States citizens.
1958 – Continuing west, the Sassoon Family arrives in Los Angeles.
1961 – Sassoon Sassoon graduates from Fairfax High School and immediately goes into the family business of beauty care.
Several Sassoon cousins had become quite successful in the field of cosmetology, e.g., Eddie Carroll of Eddie Carroll Salon in Beverly Hills, California. Sassoon, interested in attending cosmetology school, did so with the encouragement and influence of his cousins
1961 – Sassoon Sassoon enrolled in Lapin Brothers Beauty School. Sassoon and a girlfriend started together, but it was Sassoon S. Sassoon who found his calling.
1963 – Sassoon Sassoon graduated from Lapin Brothers Beauty School and opened the original of the three Sassoon Salons and Beauty Supplies stores in Los Angeles, California, (near the University of Southern California).
Sassoon Sassoon issues his first bumper sticker with “Get Sassooned,” the first of multiple advertisements, products, bumper stickers and published articles from 1963 and 1964.
1969 – Sassoon Sassoon opens the Sassoon Salon in Westwood Village near the UCLA campus. He has always loved the Beverly Hills and Westwood areas.
June 12, 1969 – Receives a letter from Franklin and Weinrib, the attorneys for Vidal Sassoon. This letter’s purpose was to deceive and intimidate Sassoon. Yet it acknowledged, in paragraph #1, “ . . your lawful rights to his published slogan “Get Sassooned”” and in paragraph #3 stated, “If your legal name is Sassoon, we, of course, cannot demand that you cease and desist from using same.” The letter then demanded he prove his birth name or forever cease using the Sassoon name to protect their client’s rights. A Certified copy of his Birth Certificate was promptly and timely provided. Soon thereafter this Law Firm withdrew from the representation of Vidal and Richardson Vicks (Proctor & Gamble).
Sassoon Sassoon initiates filings for State of California and Federal copyrights and trademarks on several categories of hair care products and related goods.
Sassoon Sassoon is the first Sassoon to engage federal registrations (trademark and service mark) in the products and goods classifications (six major classification areas of goods and services including  cosmetics,  clothing,  jewelry,  prints and publications,  food and food ingredients, and  tobacco products). All prior to Vidal.
Vidal has never been licensed as a cosmetologist in any state within the United States. He was, in fact, prosecuted for practicing without a license in New York City.
1966 to 1968 – Allan Sassoon, brother of Sassoon Sassoon, opened and began operating his own salon as a licensed cosmetologist in California. He owned Sassoon Hair Designs in Los Angeles. He, too, would be threatened with a law suit by Vidal.
1969 August – September, Upon receipt of official vital records,Sassoon Sassoon sent a certified copy of his birth certificate to Franklin and Weinrib to verify Sassoon Saleem Sassoon as his birth name.
1970 – Sassoon Sassoon opens the third location at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Westwood Boulevard in Westwood (Los Angeles, California). Plans to open a shop in Beverly Hills, California, and negotiated for a store location there. Forms corporation in California named the Sassoon Saleem Sassoon Corporation.
1974 – Vidal begins sporadically to market his hair clippers and pH charts in the United States. No trademarks are filed. Sassoon Sassoon’s presence in the market is gaining ground.
1975 – Vidal’s agents enter the Sassoon Sassoon Salon in Westwood Village and take photographs of the salon, its signage, the window treatments and signs in the windows, and products bearing the name Sassoon Sassoon. These included Pyramid Shampoo and Pyramid Products& Systems, etc. They purchased products with the Sassoon Sassoon name on them.
Early 1975 – Based upon the visits by his agents, Vidal files a $1,500,000 lawsuit against Sassoon Sassoon. This lawsuit fraudulently claims damages, infringement of trademarks and trade names (although he had never filed for any trademarks at the time of this lawsuit), Vidal claims Sassoon Sassoon is confusing the public by “palming” himself off as “Vidal Sassoon.” Charges formed the basis of a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Sassoon Sassoon without evidence or proof to the court. The court grants the restraining order without evidence having been provided. Vidal used Silverberg, Leon and Rosen, the firm used by Vidal. 1975 – 1976.
1976 – Sassoon Sassoon files a Writ of Prejudice in Santa Monica Municipal Court and other charges against the judicial performance of Judge Rittenband with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Bar of California, and notifies local Congresspersons. The Writ of Prejudice was denied as was his appeal. All charges were also denied.
1977 – Case was continued in Judge Rittenband’s Court. Comments from Rittenband: “I don’t like the duplicity of your name,” (referring to the fact his name is Sassoon Sassoon) and says, “What do you need your name for?”
1977 – Vidal Sassoon begins marketing his entire hair care products line in, after he obtained the TRO and preliminary injunction against Sassoon Sassoon.
1978 – 1979 – Case transferred to the court of Judge Raymond Choate. Sassoon Sassoon was never informed as to why or how the change of venue occurred. Judge Choate continued enforcement of all decisions and orders of Judge Rittenband.
1979 and 1980 – Vidal files for his federal trademarks in the United States for the first time.
1979, January 7 – Sassoon Sassoon is summoned to court on variety of contempt charges as the scope of the preliminary injunction granted stated that he, Sassoon Sassoon, had to prove to the court his total release, abandonment and relinquishment of all his federal trademark registrations and sign them over to Vidal. Intimidated, he does so under threat of incarceration, Duress, and coercion in order to under the assumption he could protect his own goods and products non-related to hair goods and products classifications.
On the Morning of the Contempt proceeding. Sassoon Sassoon is told to come in at 8:00 AM. He arrives to find the opposing counsel ready and willing to intimidate him. Before the case is officially calendared, Judge Choate says to Sassoon Sassoon, “that’s a nice white suit you are wearing. It would be too bad if you go to jail.” Sassoon Sassoon is thus threatened by the Judge and reveals his bias toward a predetermined outcome, and the punishment planned if Sassoon Sassoon does not comply with the court order initially set by Judge Rittenband. Sassoon Sassoon responds, “That’s all right your honor, I can always have it dry cleaned.”
Sassoon Sassoon states to the court that he will not be coerced into signing in the presence of. his attorney, Don Levinson, and the opposition’s James P. Schreiber, and Richard Feller.
Judge Choate states that the case would be temporarily taken off calendar.
Sassoon Sassoon is ushered to the outer lobby where he is informed he faces a contempt hearing and 30 to 90 days in jail. In the outer lobby, accompanied by associates and aforementioned attorneys., Sassoon Sassoon is told by Vidal’s attorneys that their client has no interests in going into the various areas that he has registered by trademarks. (see documents) He is told that signing over this trademarks is intended only to maintain the status quo. There will be no bail. Donald Levinson was present as his attorney. (Get Donald Levinson Letter) (Minute Order and Docket Sheet. )
Sassoon Sassoon telephones attorney Roger Blakeley, who he had retained, explaining the nature of the hearing. Blakeley advised Sassoon Sassoon that he might prevail but there is no bail possible in this instance. Sassoon Sassoon is forced, at the threat of imprisonment, to surrender all federal trademarks registrations under his own name, not to the Patent Office but to Vidal.
Categories surrendered include jewelry, prints and publications, tobacco products, food and food ingredients, clothing, and cosmetics.
The order issued by the Santa Monica Superior Court prohibited him from further proceeding with any claim in any state or with the federal government regarding the questioned trademarks and copyrights. The court, in so doing, knew it had no jurisdiction or legal authority to so rule.
June 1980 – Sassoon Sassoon’s legal counsel, Bob Carmer, counsel, Lee Landrum, counsel, fails to advise him of a 14-day time frame within which he could file for a jury trial. This resulted again in contempt-proceedings in front of Judge Choate. (Milton Wasserman Letter)
Sassoon Sassoon is referred by a client to attorney Lee Landrum, who represented hairdressers who sued Warner Brothers for copyright infringement. Their claim was having copyrighted their story, which became Warren Beatty’s movie, Shampoo.
Sassoon Sassoon negotiated a verbal arrangement with this attorney to represent him at trial. A few weeks before the trial commences Landrum excused himself because of his wife’s recent or upcoming SIDDs surgery.
May 5, 1980 – Sassoon Sassoon discusses his case with attorney Fred Flam. Flam attends the first day of trial in the capacity of “amicus curia,” friend to the court, in order to assist Sassoon Sassoon. The request for a continuance is denied.
May 6, 1980- The trial begins in the Court of Judge Loring with Sassoon Sassoon representing himself.
Sassoon Sassoon requested an extension of time to retain counsel, and even though there were six months remaining before the statute of limitations to start the trial ran, Judge Choate set the trial date for May 6, 1980
SSS attempts to find representation:
Six months left for a five year time frame, gives SSS a trial date. The Lawyer, Lee Landrum, met with him. Landrum represented the movie that was plagiarized for Shampoo. After the meeting Landrum told SSS said he would take the case. 3 weeks prior to the trial date Landrum backs out of the case, asking for a continuance.
May 7, 1980 – Second day of trial, attorney Milton Wasserman files a written declaration with the court that he was familiar with his case and that the decision was unconscionable and void. Mister Wasserman further stated that Sassoon Sassoon did not wish to represent himself in such a complicated matter and to allow that would be a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Wasserman asked for a recess so he could represent Sassoon Sassoon after the close a trial in which he was then involved.
Judge Loring denied his request; Sassoon Sassoon was forced to represent himself for approximately 2½ days.
May – 1980 – Judge Loring entered a $240,000 judgment against Sassoon Sassoon with a permanent injunction against him and the use of his own birth name. (copy of judgment and injunction)
June 1980 – The two attorneys Sassoon Sassoon hired strictly for the appeal of the judgment and a request for a new trial, let the time frame lapse. Sassoon Sassoon is forced to attempt to file an appeal by himself. His motion is denied because of a defect in failure to follow certain rules with which he was unfamiliar.
The appeal was denied and the judgment enforced.
June – July – (An abstract lien of judgment for $240,000.00) (from the above referenced judgment) was placed on the Sassoon family’s Bel-Air (Los Angeles, California) home. From Los Angeles Superior Court, The home was in the name and title of Sassoon Sassoon’s parents Hannah and Ezekiel Sassoon who had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit or judgment.
Night before trial Sassoon Sassoon gets a hold of an attorney, Fred Flam, who came in as attorney, not of record. SSS, not a litigator, has to find an attorney an hour before the case is called. The next day Milton Wasserman, another attorney, appears as a friend of the court, offering a declaration. The document he signed states all the prior and anticipated action was illegal should be held unconscionable and void by all judges and attorneys involved. Wasserman is then in the middle of another trial down the hall. He asks the court to allow him to represent SSS, who is unable to represent himself. Wasserman asks for a brief recess.
The judge asks if he can begin immediately and then denies a recess.
Sassoon Sassoon was eviscerated because he did not know what to do, referring to his notes, he offers his birth certificate, his products, his license and other evidence, including the letter of 1969. He is told the evidence has no bearing to the case.
During the recess while he is pro per, Sassoon Sassoon calls other attorneys, asking them him for help. He finds none. The court, with no proof of damages, makes a finding for punitive damages.
Later in 1980 – Sassoon Sassoon files for bankruptcy. There are no other creditors. Abstract of lien against the recorders office against the property, 100,000 first holder second took out a loan, capitol home loan, Menzer hold loan, 90,000 Payments was in arrears 6 payments, borrows from his Mom. Loan from the property. They came into bankruptcy court with San Diego bankruptcy attorney, Studman, Treister, Glatt, asked the bankruptcy judge. Judge Dooley, Los Angeles, US Federal District Court. Request against any foreclosure sales from mortgage holders. March 8 – March 28th, no foreclosure sales held against me. To determine the equity in the judgment to satisfy the money loaned. Access to the property so his. Determine the appraisal of the property.
September 1981 – Sassoon Sassoon is forced to file a bankruptcy solely to save the Bel-Air home. His first bankruptcy attorney, Michael Worthington,` files the wrong chapter. He had been paid $3,500 to handle the case. Sassoon Sassoon files a complaint against him with the State Bar of California. No action was taken.
November 24, 1981- Sassoon Sassoon retains a second attorney, Ron E. Michaelman, who re-filed for the correct chapter.
March 8, 1982 – In a hearing, Federal Bankruptcy Judge Dooley in an opposition position hearing which requested from the court an injunction against any foreclosures on the Sassoon residence (because of Vidal’s interference to all Sassoon Sassoon’s personal and business matters, Sassoon Sassoon was forced into late payments for each payment owed to the lenders of the first, second and third loans on the home). This request of injunction by opposition to determine equity and value of his property in lieu of Vidal’s $240,000 judgment against him.
March 9, 1982 – Judge Dooley grants an injunction against foreclosure on the Sassoon residence through March 28, 1982, with two stipulations: (1) that Vidal’s appraiser could appraise the property, and (2) his client V.S.I. (Vidal Sassoon Inc.) would post a bond to secure the interests of the first and second trust deed holders while this determination of equity was being made.
March 9, 1982 – Vidal’s appraisers were allowed on the Bel-Air property.
Monday, March 13, 1982 – Sassoon Sassoon receives a call from his bankruptcy attorney at 9:00 o’clock AM and stated that he received a letter dated March 11, 1982, from Vidal’s attorney that had been slipped under his door over the weekend. The letter stated that their appraisal of the Sassoon home was so low in value, and due to what was owed and what was encumbered by their judgment of $240,000, V.S.I. had no further interest on said property and therefore did not post a bond as stipulated in court. This voided the injunction against any sale of the property. The house was worth more money and the appraisal was low.
Friday, June 12, 1982 – The home is sold. The court order was never released. Since the bond was not put in place it wasn’t enforceable and the lien holders foreclosed.
July 7, 1982 – When Sassoon Sassoon arrives at the Bel-Air home that day all locks had been changed, all his possessions, including furniture, appliances and personal effects– clothing, jewelry, etc. had been collected and confiscated as a further result of the court orders, procedural orders and his attorney’s failure to procedurally respond to these matters.
September 1984 – Sassoon Sassoon asks the court at the non-dischargeability hearing to grant additional time to obtain legal counsel, and briefly stated the chronology of the case. He is denied a continuance by Judge Dooley, who rules in favor of Vidal, holding Sassoon Sassoon liable for $240,000 non-dischargeable debt.
December 14, 1984 – A non-dischargeability hearing was held in Santa Monica Superior Court. Prior to this Vidal’s attorney had filed a new legal action against Sassoon Sassoon stating that even though the property was lost because of their actions he was still responsible for the entire $240,000 judgment owed him.
1989 – Legal research by consulting counsels Andy Nicolaw and Richard Forest, concluded that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. A filing in Federal court was made. It was denied on a lone prejudiced interpretation, not on the specific issues of the jurisdictional points. by denied and diverted to how the framework of Sassoon Sassoon Trust was structured in representing this matter (the rights of trustee to represent the rights of Sassoon Sassoon against Vidal Sassoon, and Richardson Vicks (Procter & Gamble).
A writ of certiorari was then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court which remanded aforementioned jurisdictional issues back to the federal court. It remained there.
Sassoon Sassoon’s legal representative moves to New Mexico due to personal problems.
1991 – Sassoon Sassoon files a cross complaint against Vidal Sassoon, Procter & Gamble and Richardson-Vicks.
Vidal files a complaint against Sassoon Sassoon, claiming he is in entitled Enforcement of Domestic Judgment. By this time his name and product lines were licensed to Richardson-Vicks, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble. This judgment stems from the original case, the entered $240,000 judgment against Sassoon Sassoon, of which money judgment was found non- discharged (now some $650,000 with additional attorney’s fees and interest over an 11 year period).
February 25, 1994- Sassoon Sassoon filed in the Federal District Court of California against Vidal, Vidal Sassoon Inc., Richardson Vicks, and Procter & Gamble. The complaint charged fraud and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
April 15, 1994 – Defendant (Vidal Sassoon et al) filed answer and a Motion to Dismiss.
June 6, 1994 – Plaintiff, Sassoon Sassoon, filed Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
July 11, 1994 – Plaintiff, Sassoon Sassoon, filed first amended complaint.
July 29, 1994 – Defendant (Vidal Sassoon et al) files Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
August 8, 1994 – Plaintiff, Sassoon Sassoon, filed Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
September 15, 1994- Judge Tagasuki dismisses the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.
October 3, 1994 – Plaintiff, Sassoon Sassoon, filed Second Amended Complaint.
Defendant, Vidal Sassoon et al, filed motion to dismiss.
October 17,1994 – Plaintiff, Sassoon Sassoon, filed objection to Motion to Dismiss.
November 30, 1994- Judge Tagasuki dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice on, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Court claimed that diversity did not exist.