This information is taken from a legal filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Maid of the Mist files a Lawsuit against Alcatraz Media and William M. Windsor
1. On August 25, 2005, Christopher Glynn (“Glynnâ€), President of Plaintiffs (Maid of the Mist), signed a sworn affidavit to be used with the filing of the lawsuit in Gwinnett County Court, Georgia. [Evans Docket #1.]
2. The Plaintiff believes that as many as 46 of the 50 paragraphs were false or incorrect.
3. This is a False Sworn Affidavit.
4. Proof to show that as many as 46 of the statements are false is set out on pages 364 to 553 of Dec #25 (Evans Docket #462).
5. Glynn swore that his statements were his personal knowledge, but that was false.
6. Personal knowledge means the information is known from direct experience rather than hearing about it from someone else or making it up.
7. Glynn swore that everything in his affidavit was true and correct, but that was false.
8. MOTM, Steamboat, Glynn, and Maid’s Attorneys each swear that each statement was true on August 25, 2005:
9. “I am the President of Plaintiffs Maid of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. (collectively “Maidâ€). As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶1.)
10. “I am making this Declaration in support of Maid’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order and interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc., William M. Windsor from advertising and selling vouchers/e-tickets that are redeemed for Maid tours (“Defendants’ Maid Vouchersâ€) and forcing Defendants to remove any reference to Maid from web sites Defendants currently operate or plan to operate. (Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶2.)
11. “Since 1846, Maid has operated boat tours of Niagara Falls for millions of tourists from around the world.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶3.)
12. “The tour operators Maid uses are at Maid’s discretion and their rights and privileges to sell vouchers/e-tickets that are redeemed for Maid tickets can be revoked by Maid at any time.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶5.)
13. “On July 29, 2004, Maid accepted Defendants’ application for credit and to serve as a tour operator with rights and privileges to sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers. A copy of Maid’s letter dated July 29, 2004 is attached as Exhibit 1.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶6.)
14. “Upon Information and belief, defendants used the world wide web to sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers to Maid customers who would obtain Maid tickets at Maid’s ticket offices when Maid vouchers were redeemed. A copy of Defendants’ Maid Voucher for a Maid tour on July 2, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 2.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶7.)
15. “Maid would then bill Defendants at the group rate for Maid tickets, which was $9.65 US or $10.70 Can. The Canadian dollar is approximately worth $0.82 to the United States dollar. A copy of Maid’s 2005 ticket rate sheet is attached as Exhibit 3.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶8.)
16. “On April 21, 2005, Maid opened its 2005 season and began redeeming Defendants’ Maid Vouchers for Maid tickets.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶9.)
17. “However, shortly thereafter, Maid began receiving complaints from its customers regarding the cost of Defendants’ Maid Vouchers.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶10.)
18. “Specifically, Maid’s customers complained that Defendants’ Maid Vouchers were higher than Maid’s retail ticket prices and that Defendants’ Maid Vouchers did not include additional services or attractions for the additional cost.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶11.)
19. “These complaints were also directed at Maid.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶12.)
20. “In June 2005, Maid learned that on Defendants’ web site, Defendants misrepresented Maid’s retail ticket prices as costing $18.95 US.†Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶13.)
21. “Maid also learned that Defendants’ Maid Vouchers cost $13.95 US for adults and $12.95 US for children while Maid’s retail tickets cost $11.50 US or $13.00 Can for adults and $6.75 US or $8.00 Can for children. See Exhibit 3.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶14.)
22. “On June 14, 2005, Maid informed Defendants about its customers who complained that they were overcharged by Defendants. A copy of Maid’s letter dated June 14, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 4.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶15.)
23. “In addition, Maid informed Defendants that they would no longer be accepting Defendants’ Maid Vouchers after June 30, 2005. See Exhibit 4.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶16.)
24. “Shortly thereafter, Maid spoke with Defendants’ representative and allowed Defendants an opportunity to rectify the pricing problem regarding the sale of Defendants’ Maid Vouchers.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶17.)
25. “However, over the next month, Maid continued to receive daily complaints from customers who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers at prices higher than Maid’s retail ticket prices.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶18.)
26. “Again, these complaints were also directed at Maid.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶19.)
27. “On July 19, 2005, Maid informed Defendants that Maid’s customers continue to feel that they were misled and overcharged by Defendants and Maid. A copy of Maid’s letter dated July 19, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 5.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶20.)
28. “Moreover, Maid specifically requested that Defendants state Maid’s retail ticket prices and Defendants’ service charges on Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and gave Defendants until July 27, 2005 to fix their pricing problem. See Exhibit 5.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶21.)
29. “On July 29, 2005, after Defendants failed to rectify their pricing problem, Maid requested that Defendants immediately discontinue the advertising and sale of Defendants’ Maid Vouchers. A copy of Maid’s letter dated July 29, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 6.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶22.)
30. “On July 30, 2005, Maid informed its customers that they would no longer honor Defendants’ Maid Vouchers that were purchased after July 29, 2005. A copy of Maid’s notice dated July 30, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 7.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶23.)
31. “On July 30, 2005, Defendants continued to sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers for Maid tour dates in August, 2005. A copy of Defendants’ Maid Voucher with receipt for a tour on August 2, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 8.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶24.)
32. “When Maid customers attempted to redeem Defendants’ Maid Vouchers for Maid tickets, Maid informed them that Defendants’ Maid Vouchers were no longer honored. See Exhibit 7.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶25.)
33. “These customers became irate and blamed Maid for not accepting Defendants’ Maid Vouchers.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶26.)
34. “On August 5, 2005, Maid’s counsel informed Defendants that their actions damaged Maid’s reputation and goodwill and demanded that Defendants immediately discontinue their advertisement and sale of Defendants’ Maid Vouchers. A copy of the letter from Maid’s counsel dated August 5, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 9.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶27.)
35. “On August 8, 2005 Defendants responded by threatening Maid and by trying to bribe Maid to sell the company. A copy of Defendants’ e-mail dated August 8, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 10.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶28.)
36. “Specifically, Defendants stated “Wouldn’t you rather just pay us a seven figure amount and accept that we will be selling Maid of the Mist tickets forever? Write us a big fat check. See Exhibit 10 (emphasis added).†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶29.)
37. “In addition, Defendants stated in their August 12, 2005 e-mail: “Alcatraz Media has complied and continue [sic] to comply with all the terms of the contract with Maid of the Mist. Therefore, Alcatraz Media will continue to sell. Alcatraz Media has no intention of ever stopping to sell Maid of the Mist tickets. I myself, personally, am busily preparing a new web site that will solely sell Maid of the Mist tickets.†A copy of Defendants’ e-mail dated August 12, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 11.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶30.)
38. “Defendants also claimed they had a contract with Maid, but Maid is unaware of any contract with Defendants. See Exhibit 11 to the Affidavit.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶31.)
39. “Indeed, Defendants’ rights and privileges to act as Maid’s tour operator can be revoked at any time by Maid.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶32.)
40. “As of August 25, 2005, Defendants continue to advertise and sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and include misleading information about Maid on its web site. A copy of Defendants’ web site dated August 10, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 12.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶33.)
41. “Specifically, Defendants misrepresent Maid’s ticket prices by stating that Maid charges $20.95 US. See Exhibit 3.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶34.)
42. “Defendants continue to offer Defendants’ Maid Vouchers throughout the remainder of the 2005 season, schedule reservation times when Maid does not allow reservations, and state that prior dates were “sold out†when, in fact, Maid’s tours were not sold out.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶35.)
43. “In addition, Defendants use their web site to encourage Maid’s customers, including those who did not purchase Defendants’ Maid Vouchers to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau. A copy of a complaint with the Better Business Bureau dated August 16, 2005 is attached as Exhibit 13.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶36.)
44. “On August 16, 2005, Maid customer Scott McGrew informed the Better Business Bureau that he “attempted†[sic] to contact the company online and they directed me to the BBB. I bought tickets…when we visited the park.†See Exhibit 13 (emphasis added).†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶37.)
45. “Indeed, Mr. McGrew did not purchase Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and, as set forth in their August 12, 2005 e-mail, Defendants are clearly using their web site to direct Maid’s customers to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau. See Exhibit 11.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶38.)
46. “If Mr. McGrew would have truly contacted “the company,†Maid would have addressed and resolved his complaint.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶39.)
47. “In fact, Maid is unaware of any complaint ever filed with the Better Business Bureau by Maid’s customers.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶40.)
48. “Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendants are not refunding their customers who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers that were not honored by Maid. A copy of an e-mail dated August 25, 2005 from a Maid customer who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers is attached as Exhibit 14.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶41.)
49. “On August 25, 2005, Judie Berry, one of Maid’s customers who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers, wrote that Defendants left threatening messages on her answering machine in response to her e-mail and telephone messages requesting a refund for her purchase.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶42.)
50. “Specifically, Ms. Berry wrote that Defendants stated that they were: “going to ‘come after me.’ Called me the b— word. Called me a ‘lowlife, scumbag, scum of the earth.’ [Defendants] also stated that [they] hoped I do something against the law, something criminal, so ‘we can put you in jail.’†See Exhibit 14 (emphasis added).†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶43.)
51. “Notably, Maid never billed Defendants for Defendants’ Maid Vouchers that were not honored.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶44.)
52. “Therefore, by threatening and stealing from Maid’s customers, Defendants are damaging Maid’s reputation and goodwill.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶45.)
53. “Unless Defendants are enjoined from advertising and selling Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and are forced to remove Maid from web sites they currently operate or plan to operate, Maid will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and its reputation and goodwill will continue to be tarnished.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶46.)
54. “The harm suffered by Maid far exceeds any inconvenience that would be caused to Defendants if Defendants continue to hold themselves out as authorized to sell Defendants’ Maid Tickets and use Maid’s name and images on web sites that they maintain, use and/or control.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶47.)
55. “Based on Maid’s termination of Defendants’ right to sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and Defendants’ misrepresentations on its web site regarding Maid’s ticket prices, the availability of Maid’s tickets, and their ability to sell Defendants’ Maid Vouchers, the equities clearly balance in Maid’s favor.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶48.)
56. “It is highly likely that Maid will ultimately succeed on the merits and be granted a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from advertising and selling Defendants’ Maid Vouchers and forcing Defendants to remove Maid from web sites that Defendants currently operate or plan to operate.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶49.)
57. “In addition, based on Defendants’ bad faith actions, Maid should be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.†(Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶50.)
58. In deposition testimony, Glynn admitted that some of the statements in his August 25, 2005 Affidavit were not true.
59. In his deposition testimony, Ruddy testified that some of the statements in Glynn’s August 25, 2005 affidavit were not true.
60. In his deposition testimony, Schul testified that some of the statements in Glynn’s August 25, 2005 affidavit were not true.
61. Alcatraz, Windsor, and Bazzo testified in depositions that statements in Glynn’s affidavit were not true.
62. Glynn’s August 25, 2005 affidavit was drafted by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Russ.
63. The drafting of this affidavit by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Russ, while under oath as officers of the court as members of the Bar, was improper, and statements in the affidavit were known to be false by the attorneys.
64. In drafting this affidavit, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Russ acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
65. No Maid attorney ever advised the courts that any of these statements were false.
66. The Plaintiff believes the conduct of Maid attorneys is subornation of perjury as well as fraud on the court, and it violates the GCPC and FRCP.
67. 46 alleged lies and counting….
68. On August 29, 2005, Maid filed a Verified Complaint in Gwinnett County Court, Georgia with a sworn verification by Glynn.
69. Plaintiff believes that as many as 46 of the 50 paragraphs were false or incorrect. [Evans Docket #1.]
70. This is a False Sworn Pleading.
71. Proof to show that as many as 44 of the 46 paragraphs are false is set out on pages 364 to 553 of (Dec #25 – Evans Docket #462).
72. The filing of this Verified Complaint by Mr. Anderson, signed while under his oath as an officer of the court as a member of the State Bar of Georgia, constituted a false sworn pleading.
73. Plaintiff believes Mr. Anderson’s actions are subornation of perjury as well as fraud on the court and violate the GCPC and FRCP.
74. Maid attorneys knew and/or subsequently learned that many of these statements were false, but no Maid attorney ever notified the courts.
75. The Plaintiff believes this is subornation of perjury as well as fraud on the court and violations of the GCPC and FRCP.
76. 92 alleged lies and counting….
77. When Maid sued, they sued Alcatraz and William M. Windsor personally (Ryan’s Dad).
78. The lawsuit falsely and maliciously claimed that Windsor operated his own business and did everything that Alcatraz was accused of doing.
79. Maid and Maid attorneys knew this was false.
80. Ruddy testified that Windsor should not have been included in many of the sworn paragraphs in Glynn’s affidavit and verification.
81. The Plaintiff and Alcatraz testified in depositions that these claims of Maid against Windsor were false.
82. Maid never produced any evidence to prove that Maid had any valid legal claim against Windsor for tortious interference.
83. Maid never produced any evidence to prove that Maid had any valid legal claim against Windsor for anything.
84. Maid attorneys never amended the Verified Complaint.
85. Maid attorneys never advised the courts of Ruddy’s 30(b)(6) testimony in this regard.