SCREEN

Profile

Menu Style

Cpanel
Headlines:

Attorney Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Corruption

Professional Misconduct Complaints

Love does not come in color

wesley-foust-graham-goodwin-200w

Love does not come in color.

I am Ms. Wesley Foust-Graham Goodwin, the surviving spouse of James L. Goodwin.

This is a summary of my story of corruption in the legal system...

Read more: Love does not come in color

Another Miserable excuse for an Attorney appears with Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young -- Robert S. Thompson

thompson-robert-s

Photo Linked from Hawkins Parnell

This is Robert S. Thompson of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young.  I believe he is another miserable excuse for an attorney with this law firm that I have charged with criminal racketeering, theft, and other crimes and misconduct.

Until now, almost all of my Hawkins Parnell dealings have been with Carl H. Anderson, Jr., who I believe surely must be one of the most dishonest attorneys in the world.

This Thompson character is at the very least lacking in intelligence if not outright dishonest....

Read more: Another Miserable excuse for an Attorney appears with Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young -- Robert S....

Violation #2 - Professional Misconduct of Attorneys - Presenting False Evidence about Manoj Makharia

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:

1.   While Alcatraz never ever received a single complaint about reservations for specific times (something that Alcatraz never offered as was shown clearly on the web site and all E-Tickets), I believe Maid of the Mist wanted to manufacture a complaint.  So, Maid of the Mist then denied the E-Ticket of Manoj Makharia.  Exhibit #644 to Dec #5 is the E-Ticket for Manoj Makharia that he actually presented on July 2, 2005 (MOTM00700, MOTM00701, and MOTM00702).  I spoke with Mr. Makharia, and according to Makharia, his E-Ticket was not honored.  (Declaration of Manoj Makharia -- Exhibit #99 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

2.    Unfortunately for Maid of the Mist's plans, the ticket booth operator started to accept the E-Ticket as can be seen by the circled 6 and 1 on the E-Ticket.  Ruddy testified that this is the entry made my ticket booth operators when they accept an E-Ticket.  This meant Maid of the Mist could not use this document in court to claim it was not accepted.  (Evans Docket #90 and 132 -- Ruddy Depo.)

3.    So, Carlson called Alcatraz.

4.   One set of Mr. Makharia's E-Tickets, MOTM00700, MOTM00701, and MOTM00702, were produced in response to the Defendants' November 29, 2005 Request for Production of Documents.  Note that this is for a July 2, 2005 tour.  Another version of Mr. Makharia's E-Tickets, MOTM 01290, MOTM 01291, MOTM 01292, MOTM 01293, and MOTM 01294, were produced on December 5, 2006.  This is a production by Maid of the Mist of documents produced for Maid of the Mist by Alcatraz.  This can be determined because this is a fax from Alcatraz's files.  If it had been the copy that Maid of the Mist received, it would have shown the fax header that prints on all faxes.  Maid of the Mist concealed and never produced their copy of this fax that Maid of the Mist received.  Note that it is dated 07/05/2005 -- three days AFTER Manoj Makharia's tour.  Julia Brady ("Brady") of Alcatraz has advised me that she received a telephone call from Maid of the Mist (she believes from Carlson) asking that a copy of Manoj Makharia's E-Ticket be faxed to "him" at Maid of the Mists fax number.  So, Julia faxed it to the fax number given and addressed it to Manoj Makharia.  Manoj Makharia was not at Maid of the Mist on July 5.  He had been turned away three days before on July 2, 2005.

5.   Maid of the Mist apparently did this to have a copy of an E-Ticket that it could claim was not accepted because it showed a departure time, and Maid of the Mist  could claim that the customer showed up at that time and could not get on.  There was no other reason to call and pretend that the customer needed the E-Ticket faxed.  The customer obviously had the E-Ticket and presented it on July 2, 2005 as is seen in MOTM00700, MOTM00701, and MOTM00702.  (Exhibit 644 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378.)

6.    Now, let's fast forward to July 31, 2005.  Exhibit 242 to Dec #5 (Evans Docket #378) is the invoice from Maid of the Mist dated July 31, 2005.  Note that Maid of the Mist billed and collected from Alcatraz claiming Manoj Makharia took the boat ride on July 5, 2005.  But we know that is false.  Manoj Makharia presented his E-Tickets on July 2 and was turned away.

7.    VIOLATIONS BY MAID OF THE MIST - Alcatraz customer Manoj Makharia.  I submit that this represents Theft by Deception, Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act, Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conversion.  (Proof of this is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein, the oral contract, Evans Docket #90 and 132 -- Ruddy Depo Exhibit 3, P 137: 13-16, P 152: 24-25, P 153: 1-22, P 195: 23-25, P 196: 1-8; and in Exhibit #99 and 290 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378, Exhibit 242 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378, Exhibits 1036 and 2641 to Dec #25, Exhibits 435, 98, 644, 46, 60 434, 643, 645, 642, 242 to Dec #5 – Evans Docket #378; and Evans Docket #1 -- Verified Complaint Exhibit 2.  Testimony can also be provided by Julia Brady.)

8.    Now, let's fast forward to August 29, 2005 when Maid of the Mist filed the Verified Complaint against Alcatraz and me claiming all sorts of customer complaints and other horrors.  Exhibit #2 to the Verified Complaint is not the E-Ticket that Manoj Makharia presented to Maid of the Mist; it is the faxed copy obtained under false pretenses on July 5.  [Evans Docket #1 -- Verified Complaint Exhibit 2 - E-Ticket for Makharia, Manoj - faxed after the tour on July 5, 2005.]  In the Verified Complaint, Paragraph 7 of the Affidavit in support of Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005 and Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Glynn swears:  "A copy of Defendants' Maid Voucher for a Maid tour on July 2, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 2."  This was false.  Maid of the Mist used the July 5 faxed copy, not the July 2 E-Ticket that Manoj Makharia presented.  Review Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint, and you will see that this is yet another version of this E-Ticket.  The E-Ticket attached to the Complaint shows the fax header to prove it was faxed from Alcatraz to Maid on July 5, 2005.  The version used with the Verified Complaint was not produced in document production by Maid of the Mist.

9.   Now fast forward to April 11, 2006 and the Preliminary Injunction Hearing.  Glynn testified that Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint (also Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 at the Preliminary Injunction hearing) was what it was not:

19          Q.   ALL RIGHT.  I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS

20          PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, WHICH IS A COPY OF AN E-TICKET OR A

21          VOUCHER.

22          WOULD YOU TELL ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?  I BELIEVE

23          IT'S DATED JULY 2ND, 2005.

24          A.   YES.

25          Q.   OKAY.  DOES THAT HAVE A TIME STAMP ON IT?

1            A.   DEPARTURE TIME 3:00 P.M. IT SAYS.

2            Q.   DOES MAID HAVE TIME SPECIFIC TICKETS?

3            A.   WE DO NOT.  WE DO NOT TAKE RESERVATIONS.  WE DON'T HAVE

4            TIME TICKETS.

5            Q.   OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

6            AT THIS POINT THIS IS A RECORD THAT WAS KEPT IN THE

7            NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS BY MAID, AND YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

8            A.   YES, SIR.

9            MR. ANDERSON:  I WOULD LIKE TO TENDER PLAINTIFF'S

10          EXHIBIT NO. 2.

11       MR. RALEY:  NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

12       THE COURT:  IT'S ADMITTED.

(Evans Docket #35, 36, 37 -- P 14: 19-25, P 15: 1-12.)

10.   Mr. Raley did not realize what Maid of the Mist's Attorney, Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, was pulling at that point.  Mr. Anderson presented false evidence to the Court, and I believe it was presented for false and deceptive purposes.  Maid of the Mist "manufactured" this document under false pretenses as part of its conspiracy to commit fraud against Alcatraz and me.  In her orders, Judge Evans wrongly used this E-Ticket copy as â"proof" that Alcatraz sold time-specific vouchers/E-Tickets, which Alcatraz never did.

11.    VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL -- presenting false evidence about Manoj Makharia; Violation of Rule 3.3,  3.4, 8.4 of the GCPC; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of FRCPRule 37; Fraud on the Court -- FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Georgia RICO Act -- O.C.G.A. 16-14-3, 16-14-4; Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act -- 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d); False Statements to State -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Subornation of Perjury -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or USC 18 § 1622 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Witness Tampering -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-93 and 18 U.S.C. 1503; Obstruction Of Justice -- influencing testimony -- 18 USC § 1512(b); Concealing Documents -- 18 USC § 1512(c) and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. (Proof is provided in the paragraphs above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibit #99 and 290 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378, Exhibit 242 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378, Exhibits 1036 and 2641 to Dec #25, Exhibits 435, 98, 644, 46, 60 434, 643, 645, 642, 242 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378; and Evans Docket #1 -- Verified Complaint Exhibit 2, and Evans Docket #35, 36, 37 – P 14: 19-25, P 15: 1-12 and Plaintiffs' Exhibit #2; Evans Docket # 377 – Amended Dec #3; Evans Docket #378 – Dec #5; and throughout the rest of Dec #25.  Testimony can also be provided by Julia Brady.)

12.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON -- presenting false evidence about Manoj Makharia; Violation of Rule 3.3,  3.4, 8.4 of the GCPC; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of FRCPRule 37; Fraud on the Court -- FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Georgia RICO Act -- O.C.G.A. 16-14-3, 16-14-4; Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act -- 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d); False Statements to State -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Subornation of Perjury -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or USC 18 § 1622 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Witness Tampering -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-93 and 18 U.S.C. 1503; Obstruction Of Justice -- influencing testimony --18 USC § 1512(b); Concealing Documents --18 USC § 1512(c) and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. (Proof is provided in the paragraphs above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibit #99 and 290 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378, Exhibit 242 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378, Exhibits 1036 and 2641 to Dec #25, Exhibits 435, 98, 644, 46, 60 434, 643, 645, 642, 242 to Dec #5 -- Evans Docket #378; and Evans Docket #1 -- Verified Complaint Exhibit 2, and Evans Docket #35, 36, 37 -- P 14: 19-25, P 15: 1-12 and Plaintiffs' Exhibit #2; Evans Docket # 377 -- Amended Dec #3; Evans Docket #378 -- Dec #5; and throughout the rest of Dec #25.  Testimony can also be provided by Julia Brady.)

 

I have filed a Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Sarah Bright, Brett Mendell, Phillips Lytle, Marc Brown, and Arthur P. Russ.  I have also filed a lawsuit against most of these attorneys for fraud upon the courts, RICO violations, and other violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD.  I am filing a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia and the New York State Bar Association.

 

Violation #1 - Professional Misconduct of Attorneys - Ex Parte Communications

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:

1.   I submit that it is possible that Judge Evans and/or a clerk for Judge Evans may have been improperly influenced in this case.  I believe it is possible that improper influence could be a criminal violation, though I have no proof.  This is only a suspicion of a possibility, and I have this suspicion because the behavior of Judge Evans in this matter makes no logical sense to me.

2.   The Time Slips of Maid's Attorneys show that there was extensive ex parte communication between Maid's Attorneys and Judge Evans and her staff.  While some of this may be permissible, the volume of ex parte contact certainly indicates that there was plenty of opportunity for Judge Evans to be improperly influenced.  There were conversations and communications between Judge Evans and Maid's Attorneys that Judge Evans did not reveal to Alcatraz and me. (Exhibit #1 to Dec #23 -- Evans Docket #406.)  [Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10.]  (Exhibit #967 to Dec #25.)  (I submit that this is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  I submit that this is a violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.)

3.   VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL -- I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

4.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON -- I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY BRETT MENDELL -- I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

6.    VIOLATIONS BY SARAH L. BRIGHT -- I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

 

I have filed a Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Sarah Bright, Brett Mendell, Phillips Lytle, Marc Brown, and Arthur P. Russ.  I have also filed a lawsuit against most of these attorneys for fraud upon the courts, RICO violations, and other violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD.  I am filing a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia and the New York State Bar Association.

Violation #3 - Professional Misconduct of Attorneys - Concealing Windsor's Fax of July 28, 2005

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:

1.   July 27, 2005 -- Just before midnight, I made the changes to the E-Ticket that Carlson requested Alcatraz make by July 28, 2005.  Proof of this can be seen in the E-Tickets for July 28, 2005, because every E-Ticket purchased that day showed this change to the E-Ticket.  (Exhibit 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

2.   Because Alcatraz had emphatically refused to make such a change to the Alcatraz E-Tickets previously, I believe Maid of the Mist felt like they would be able to use such a refusal to justify their wrongful termination of the contract.  They were very surprised when they discovered that Alcatraz had made the change.  They had to scramble, and that meant more lies.

3.   On July 28, 2005 at 10:28 am, I emailed Carlson, Glynn, Schul, and Bazzo to advise that the change had been made to the E-Ticket as requested in the July 19, 2005 letter.  "The change you requested was made last night: Maid of the Mist base ticket price is $13.00 Canadian for adults and $8.00 Canadian for children. There is an additional service charge added to the cost of these tickets, which was included in the price you agreed to pay on the web site.  We have shown the price in Canadian funds. We are converting our system so most of our Niagara Falls prices will be shown Canadian since we primarily deal with Canadian tour operators. We have sold 1,697 tickets for you thus far this year. Bill Windsor."  (Exhibit #115 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

4.   July 28, 2005 -- A copy of this changed E-Ticket was faxed to Carlson by me on July 28, 2005.  (Maid of the Mist never produced this fax.)  (Exhibit #117 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)  E-Tickets for July 28, 2005 customers prove that the change was made.  (Exhibit #252 and 610 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL --“ Violation of Rule 3.4 of State Bar of Georgia Code of professional Conduct by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005.  A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence;shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; shall ensure that evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively; shall not disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel. (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

6.    VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL -- Violation of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by signing false pleadings about document production and failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice -- concealing documents -- concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) in concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of 18 USC § 371; Fraud on the Courtin concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d).  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

7.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON -- Violation of Rule 3.4 of State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005.  A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence; shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; shall ensure that evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively; shall not disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel. (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

8.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON -- Violation of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by signing false pleadings about document production and failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice -- concealing documents -- concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) in concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of 18 USC § 371; Fraud on the Courtin concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d).  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

9.    VIOLATIONS BY PHILLIPS LYTLE -- Violation of Rule 3.4 of State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005.  A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence;shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; shall ensure that evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively; shall not disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel. (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

10.    VIOLATIONS BY PHILLIPS LYTLE -- Violation of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by signing false pleadings about document production and failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice -- concealing documents -- concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) in concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of 18 USC § 371; Fraud on the Court in concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d).  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

11.    VIOLATIONS BY MARC W. BROWN -- Violation of Rule 3.4 of State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005.  A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence;shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value;shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; shall ensure that evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively; shall not disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel. (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

12.    VIOLATIONS BY MARC W. BROWN -- Violation of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by signing false pleadings about document production and failing to produce Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C by concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice -- concealing documents -- concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) in concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of 18 USC § 371; Fraud on the Courtin concealing Windsor's fax of July 28, 2005 in violation of FRCP Rule 60(d)(3); Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d).  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and citations therein, oral contract, and in Exhibits 115, 117, and 252 to Dec #5 - Evans Docket #378.)

 

I have filed a Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Sarah Bright, Brett Mendell, Phillips Lytle, Marc Brown, and Arthur P. Russ.  I have also filed a lawsuit against most of these attorneys for fraud upon the courts, RICO violations, and other violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD.  I am filing a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia and the New York State Bar Association.

 

Judges

Judicial Corruption is rampant.  Our rights to a fair trial are a myth.  Many judges are totally corrupt.

Constitution

Our fundamental rights have been taken away by a government of wrongs. Stolen by corruption.

Attorneys

Misconduct is everywhere. Dishonesty abounds. Perjury, subornation of perjury, corruption!

Police

Abuse, Dishonesty, Corruption.  It's all common with Police and Law Enforcement.

Government

Government Dishonesty is Bad.
We must find honest people
and make them accountable
to We the People.