Posts

Tennessee Waltz Undercover Sting led to Convictions of 12 Public Officials

Tennessee Waltz

Tennessee Waltz Undercover Sting was a landmark investigation: it not only led to the convictions or guilty pleas of a dozen state and local public officials — including several state senators, a state representative, two county commissioners, and two school board members — but also to new state ethics laws and the creation of an independent ethics commission in Tennessee.

Bribery. Bagmen. Crooked politicians. Ethical lapses. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/may/tennesseewaltz_050208

{jcomments on}

Gladwin Gill committed Election Fraud

Election Fraud

In December 2007, a California man named Gladwin Gill admitted to making nearly $67,000 in illegal contributions to several political campaigns from 2003 to 2005, including the elections of the U.S. President, two U.S. Senators, and a U.S. Representative.

Following an investigation by our Los Angeles office, he faces up to five years in jail and a potential fine of up to $670,000.  http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/december/electfraud_121807

{jcomments on}

Recusal – Another Constitutional Myth

Recusal by Judges

But…you might say…when you have an unfair judge, you file a motion and ask them to recuse themselves so you get a new judge.

After all, the Constitution guarantees a fair trial before an impartial judge.

Wrong again!  Recusal is nothing but another Constitutional myth.

We have no rights to a fair trial or an impartial judge.  At least in the federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia, the odds are that you will not get a fair trial (or even a trial at all), and you will get a dishonest judge.

When you file your motion for recusal, guess who gets to decide if the judge has bias and is unfair?  The judge that you are trying to get removed!  And judges know they are biased, but they claim that you did not establish extra-judicial bias.

Extra-judicial bias means the bias came from outside the courtroom, unrelated to the lawsuit.  So bias is allowed IN the courtroom — the one place where there should be no bias.

I have a brief on recusal that I will add to this page.  It’s a great brief, but it doesn’t matter in Atlanta, Georgia, and the story is probably the same in most federal courts.


Bill Windsor filming Lawless America

Bill Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not, therefore, reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose judicial corruption, government corruption, law enforcement corruption, attorney wrongdoing/corruption, and political corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our  Legal Notice and Terms

 

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com 

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

Copyright, 2022, Lawless America

#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor

FBI says it wants to Stem Corruption through Bribes to get Foreign Contracts

fbi

Companies should thrive overseas through competition, not corruption, says Chip Burrus, who heads up FBI criminal investigations.  FBI says it wants to Stem Corruption through Bribes to get Foreign Contracts.

“The American Dream was built on fairness and free enterprise, not on backroom deals half a world away.”

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 banned a growing habit of bribing international officials to win business. But stopping this global brand of public corruption has never been more important — or more on our radar — than it is today. 

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/february/fcpa020507

{jcomments on}

Corruption in South Gate California City Hall

Most of the corrupt politicians we investigate illegally peddle favors—the proverbial “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” kind, usually with money passed under the table to fully satisfy the itch.  Then there’s Albert Robles.

Continue reading Corruption in South Gate California City Hall

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — December 28, 2005

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 False Sworn Interrogatories

1.             On December 28, 2005, Maid’s Response to Interrogatories was sworn to by Christopher Glynn.

2.             On December 28, 2005, two (2) False Sworn Statements were in Maid’s Response to Interrogatories sworn to by Christopher Glynn.

3.             This is addressed on pages 681 to 715 of (Dec #25 – Evans Docket #462).

4.             Glynn swears the following is true as of December 28, 2005:

5.             “…Maid is unaware of any discussions initiated by Maid or its employees that defendants are “dishonest, operate a scam, or are fraudulent” during its communications with customers, prospective customers, and other internet tour operators.”

6.             “The facts and circumstances forming the basis for Maid’s allegation that defendants failed to refund its customers who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers includes the email and follow-up telephone conferences with Judith Berry, a Maid customer who purchased Defendants’ Maid Vouchers.”

7.             The filing of the response to Interrogatories by Mr. Anderson, signed while under his oath as an officer of the court as a member of the State Bar of Georgia, was a false sworn pleading.

8.             The Plaintiff believes this is subornation of perjury as well as fraud upon the court and violations of the GCPC and FRCP.

9.             Maid attorneys knew that these statements were false, but they did nothing about it.

10.          The Plaintiff believes this is subornation of perjury as well as fraud upon the court and violations of the GCPC and FRCP.

11.          Glynn swore that Maid knew nothing about Maid employees telling customers that Alcatraz was an Internet Scam.

12.          This was not true.

13.          Glynn swore that The Plaintiff and Alcatraz stole from customers, but he knew that was false.

14.          Glynn acted with reckless indifference to the truth.

15.          94 alleged lies and counting….

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — August 29, 2005

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 (“Glynn”), 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.              â€œI am the President of Plaintiffs Maid of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. (collectively “Maid”).  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.           â€œI 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 Vouchers”) 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.           â€œSince 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.            â€œThe 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œMaid 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œHowever, 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.           â€œSpecifically, 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.           â€œThese complaints were also directed at Maid.”  (Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶12.)

20.           â€œIn 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.           â€œMaid 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œIn 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.           â€œShortly 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.           â€œHowever, 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.           â€œAgain, these complaints were also directed at Maid.”  (Evans Docket #1 — Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005, ¶19.)

27.           â€œOn 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.           â€œMoreover, 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œWhen 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.           â€œThese 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œSpecifically, 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.           â€œIn 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.           â€œDefendants 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.           â€œIn 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.           â€œOn 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.           â€œIndeed, 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.           â€œIf 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.           â€œIn 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.           â€œMoreover, 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.           â€œSpecifically, 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.           â€œTherefore, 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.           â€œUnless 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.           â€œBased 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.           â€œIt 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.           â€œIn 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.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — August 2005

This information is taken from a legal filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

Maid of the Mist Breaches Contract with Alcatraz Media

1.             Beginning in early August 2005, Maid of the Mist began refusing service to Alcatraz customers.

2.             Maid of the Mist began defaming Alcatraz and telling Alcatraz’s customers that Alcatraz was an Internet Scam.

3.             In August, September, and October 2005, Maid refused to honor vouchers for more than eight hundred (800) Alcatraz customers.

4.             Alcatraz issued refunds to customers who placed orders that it believed would not be honored and to customers who contacted Alcatraz who claimed that Maid refused to honor the Alcatraz vouchers.

5.             Every customer was refunded by Alcatraz.

6.             Maid sold tickets to Alcatraz’s customers directly and generated a greater income as a result.

7.             William M. Windsor (“Windsor”) is the father of the 75% owner of Alcatraz.  He is not and never has been an officer, director, shareholder, owner, or employee of Alcatraz, but he stepped in to handle the legal problem on behalf of Alcatraz.

8.             Windsor placed five phone calls, sent five faxes, and sent approximately 20 emails from July 28, 2005 until August 28, 2005 in an attempt to get someone from Maid or a Maid attorney to speak with him about the problem.

9.             No one from Maid of the Mist and no Maid attorney ever spoke to Windsor or Alcatraz until after the lawsuit (“MIST-1”) was filed on August 29, 2005.

10.          Windsor informed Maid and Maid attorney, Mr. Russ, that Alcatraz planned to sue Maid.  Maid decided to file suit first.

11.          Maid of the Mist’s New York attorney, Mr. Arthur P. Russ, sent one letter and one email to Alcatraz that contained false statements.

.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — April 2005

This information is taken from a legal filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

Alcatraz and Maid of the Mist Begin Doing Business

1.             Alcatraz honored all of the terms of the oral contract with Maid.

2.             Maid breached the contract in a number of ways.

3.             Maid refused service to some Alcatraz customers who had valid E-Tickets.

4.             Initially, this was probably because no one at Maid bothered to advise the ticket takers that Alcatraz was issuing valid E-Tickets.

5.             Maid informed some Alcatraz customers that they should purchase their tickets directly from Maid at a lower price and file chargebacks against Alcatraz to get their money back from Alcatraz.

6.             Maid charged Alcatraz for some customers who did not receive the boat ride.

7.             Maid failed to give Alcatraz certain discounts that had been promised.

8.             Maid created false stories in an attempt to damage Alcatraz and manufacture a claim with which to breach the contract with Alcatraz.

9.             Upon information and belief, this was because Maid was in breach of contract with the Niagara Parks Commission (“NPC”) and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”).

10.          Carlson and Schul sent letters, faxes, and emails for Maid to The Plaintiff and Alcatraz that contained false claims.

11.          Glynn, Schul, and Carlson made false claims by telephone.

12.          Carlson sent a letter on June 14, 2005 that contained false claims of problems caused by Alcatraz.

13.          Carlson sent a letter on July 19, 2005 that contained false claims of problems caused by Alcatraz.

14.          The July 19, 2005 letter asked for Alcatraz to make changes to its E-Ticket.

15.          Alcatraz made changes to the E-Ticket.

16.          Carlson then sent an email claiming the July 19 letter asked for changes to the web site, but the letter said no such thing.

17.          Schul then sent a letter and emails that contained false claims of problems caused by Alcatraz.

18.          On July 29, 2005, Maid breached the contract with Alcatraz by declaring the contract to be terminated.

19.          The oral contract was for the entire 2005 season.

20.          Maid did not have the right to terminate the contract until it expired in mid October 2005.

21.          Alcatraz tried repeatedly for a month to get Maid or Maid’s Attorneys to speak with Alcatraz about the problem, but they refused.

22.          No one from Maid and none of Maid’s Attorneys spoke with Alcatraz about the problems until after MIST-1 was filed.

23.          Despite Maid’s written promise to Alcatraz on July 29, 2005 that Maid would honor tickets purchased prior to July 29, 2005, Maid subsequently refused to honor some Alcatraz tickets purchased prior to that date.

24.          Maid refused to honor these tickets despite the fact that Alcatraz had provided Maid with over $10,000 in prepayments, a written payment guarantee, and credit card authorization to charge any tickets purchased for the 2005 season, thus guaranteeing Maid that it would be paid for any Alcatraz customer who showed up with a voucher.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — 2005

This legal action is best understood with some background.  

Alcatraz and Maid of the Mist Enter Into Contract in March 2005

On March 3, 2005, Maid entered into an oral agreement with Alcatraz to allow Alcatraz to purchase tickets for the boat ride at Niagara Falls from Maid at a discounted rate for the entire 2005 season (April to October).

The terms of the oral contract were specific.

The period for the oral contract was less than a year.

It was a binding oral contract under Georgian law.

Carlson entered into the contract with Alcatraz on March 3, 2005.

Carlson made the agreement with Windsor.

Carlson made the agreement with Carolyn Ballard Bazzo (“Bazzo”).

Carlson sent faxes to both Windsor and Bazzo following the telephone conversations of March 3, 2005.

Maid agreed to provide Certificates of Insurance naming Alcatraz as additional insured, and Maid did.

Maid agreed to provide information for Alcatraz to use on its web sites, and they did.

Alcatraz agreed to submit a voucher (E-Ticket) for Maid’s approval, and Alcatraz did.

Maid approved the voucher.

The approval of the voucher was the final obligation agreed to when the contract was entered into on March 3, 2005.

Alcatraz advertised for Maid of the Mist boat tours at Alcatraz’s website www.niagarafallstours.net.  Alcatraz advertised for various tours in the Niagara Falls area, as well as for tours in Canada, New York and in others cities in the Northeast.  This web site did not represent that it was sponsored by Maid.  Rather, it expressly represented that it was run by Alcatraz.  Alcatraz has also used additional web sites to promote its 74 different Niagara Falls tours and activities and its 17 tours that include a Maid of the Mist ticket.

Alcatraz began generating excellent sales for Maid of the Mist in March 2005.

It still took a long time and a lot of hassles to get the informationn needed from Sandra Carlson, but it finally was resolved in early April.