Tag: Alcatraz Media

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.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — 2004

This legfal action is best understood with some background.  

Background

Alcatraz is an Atlanta, Georgia-based booking service – a seller of destination tours and activities, with agreements to purchase from over 2,000 companies across the United States as well as in Canada, Mexico, and in many countries worldwide.  Alcatraz also provides charter transportation services, bus rentals, boat rentals, limo rentals; and provides group tour and group event services.  Alcatraz is also a licensed Georgia ticket broker, though this is a tiny part of the business.  Alcatraz offers customers the convenience of finding detailed information regarding a variety of destination tours and activities and purchasing these tours and activities over the internet or over the telephone in advance.  Customers receive E-Tickets (or vouchers) that are redeemed at a designated location for the tour, tourist attraction, or activity.

Alcatraz competes with Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, and Priceline as well as other online travel services.

Upon information and belief, Alcatraz is the largest destination tour and activity seller in the world.  Alcatraz has sold over 10,000 different tours and activities available to it at wholesale rates from over 2,000 suppliers.  Alcatraz believes it is actually larger than travel giants Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, and Priceline in the destination tour and activity segment of the travel business.  Alcatraz has approximately two million customers.

Alcatraz is a rather unique business due to the variety of products sold.  In most cases, Alcatraz buys at wholesale rates, adds its profit margin, incorporates its own services, and promotes to customers at Alcatraz’s own rates.  Alcatraz pays the wholesale rate and generates a profit if it prices the product correctly and manages its overhead properly.  Alcatraz simply calculates its net expense, adds its profit margin, and then quotes a rate to the customer.  Alcatraz does not work on commission.  Alcatraz does not act as an agent for any supplier.  Alcatraz states in its Terms that its rates include a booking fee or service charge.  Alcatraz states this so customers will understand why Alcatraz’s rates are usually higher than the rates charged by Alcatraz’s suppliers.  Most of Alcatraz’s competitors make no such disclosure.  Alcatraz asks every supplier to give 25% so Alcatraz can sell at essentially the same price as the supplier.  If a supplier will not give 25%, Alcatraz has to charge more because Alcatraz loses money unless it has at least a 25% margin.

Alcatraz offers many benefits to its customers.  Alcatraz promotes worldwide offering tours and activities in almost every US state and Canadian province as well as all around the world.  Alcatraz usually offers the largest assortment of tours and activities in the markets it serves, and Alcatraz provides convenience and one-stop shopping for its customers.

Customers can contact Alcatraz or make reservations 24 hours a day, every day of the year, either online or by telephone.  Very few of Alcatraz’s suppliers are open from 8 am to 10 pm every day of the year.  Alcatraz provides simple one-stop shopping for travelers’ vacation and leisure needs, while most suppliers offer only the small number of tours and activities that they operate themselves.  Customers can plan and purchase all of their vacation needs from Alcatraz.

Alcatraz spends millions of dollars on advertising and provides travel and tour information and customer service to millions of people annually for free.  Alcatraz only gets paid when a customer decides to purchase booking services from Alcatraz.  Alcatraz offers excellent customer service with over 2,000 web sites and a large staff.  Alcatraz has approximately 1,000 toll-free numbers as well as local numbers in many markets so it does not cost anyone anything to call Alcatraz for more information.  These no-cost phone numbers are available to anyone – not just customers.  Alcatraz endeavors to provide the answers to most questions customers ask in the descriptions that Alcatraz provides for each tour and activity online.  Alcatraz also has an automated telephone system that enables customers to obtain basic information 24-hours-a-day.  Every page on every web site has two links that enable customers to email Alcatraz with their questions and needs, and toll-free telephone numbers are shown several times on each page.

Alcatraz has a large staff of well-trained Reservations Agents, and their job is to provide free information to anyone who calls or emails.  Reservations Agents are available by phone from 8 am to 10 pm every day of the year.  Customers are given toll-free numbers to reach Alcatraz’s Reservations Agents as well as local numbers and toll-free numbers to reach the tour operators.

Customers use Alcatraz web sites to learn about tours and activities that they would have never known about otherwise.  Alcatraz enables customers to make reservations before they travel.  This enables customers to have the assurance that they will have reservations to do the things they want to do.  Alcatraz enables customers to get guaranteed reservations for tours and activities that often sell out.  Customers avoid sold-out situations by using Alcatraz.

Alcatraz enables customers to pay in advance by MasterCard, VISA, Discover, American Express, wire transfer, or check, while many tour operators do not offer all of these options.  Alcatraz offers the ability for customers to obtain their tickets from any computer anywhere in the world with an internet connection.

Alcatraz provides a free travel planning service for its customers.  Alcatraz enables customers to use its computer system as a vacation planner, and customers may set up free accounts to track their plans and save their basic information as a time-saver when using the system in the future.  With Alcatraz, there is no such thing as a lost ticket as Alcatraz maintains a copy of the ticket on its web servers so tickets may be accessed at any time from any computer anywhere in the world with an Internet connection.

Customers receive E-Tickets (or vouchers) that are redeemed at a designated location for the tour, tourist attraction, or activity.  Like most retailers, Alcatraz charges fees for its services that are factored in along with supplier costs when Alcatraz’s retail prices are calculated and set.

Today, Alcatraz is a significant business headquartered at 8200 Roberts Drive, Suite 205, Atlanta, Georgia 30350.

Alcatraz provides extensive travel and vacation information on its network of approximately 2,400 web sites and by way of approximately 1,000 incoming toll-free telephone numbers.  Each web site offers a variety of tours and activities in a particular market as well as links to other markets that may be of interest to vacationers.

Alcatraz and Maid of the Mist Make Contact

Alcatraz contacted Maid ofn the Mist in June 2004 about a business relationship.  Carolyn Ballard Bazzo made the contact for Alcatraz, and she dealt with Sandra Carlson, Assistant Controller of Maid of the Mist.  Carlson was based in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Alcatraz had problems with Maid of the Mist from the very beginning because Sandra Carlson rarely did what she said she was going to do, and she had trouble even receiving normal emails and faxes.

Since Carlson failed to do what she pronised in 2004, Alcatraz was unable to begin selling for Maid of the Mist in 200.  Alcatraz had been, however, selling Maid of the Mist through tour operators in Niagara Falls since 2003.

Alcatraz had its largest growth in terms of nunmber of markets served and tours sold between 2004 and 2006.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — 2001

This legfal action is best understood with some background.  

When Alcatraz Media added a toll-free number in 2001, the phone started “ringing off the hook.”  Much to my son’s chagrin, the callers were not interested in Internet services; they wanted tickets to Alcatraz. There apparently were no companies named Alcatraz listed with directory assistance in San Francisco, because Ryan was told that when people called directory assistance for a number for “Alcatraz,” the operators would apparently say the only listing they had was a toll-free number for “Alcatraz Media.” Many would then call the toll-free number to reach my son.

My son was the only employee, and every incoming call rang to his cell phone.  After many days telling people that Alcatraz Media offered email service, web hosting, and web design, and didn’t sell Alcatraz tickets, and after many hundreds of dollars in toll-free telephone bills, my son seriously considered changing the company’s name.  The other option was to begin to sell Alcatraz tours.  This was a joke when first discussed, but after getting the toll-free telephone bill and realizing how many calls he was getting, my son thought it might make sense to try to capitalize on this accident.  So, he began selling tours to Alcatraz Penitentiary in San Francisco in 2001.

Soon after launching the Alcatraz/San Francisco website late in 2001, my sonan felt it would be wise to diversify so Alcatraz Media would not be totally dependent upon one market.  Tours and activities were added in Hollywood, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Orlando, and a few other markets in 2003.

The Company was largely a two-person operation (a computer person and my son) until the summer of 2003.  Alcatraz opened its first real office in April 2004 when the first employees were hired.  Prior to that time, the business was a virtual company with a few independent contract workers scattered around the country.

From September 2003 through March 2004, the business operated with a telephone system installed in our garage in Atlanta Georgia.  My wife and brother handled the calls.  A small office was finally opened in Norcross Georgia in April 2004.  Alcatraz moved to a larger space less than a year later.  Atlanta was chosen because family was here to help, and the cost of an office and staff in San Francisco was cost-prohibitive for a business such as this that works on a very small net profit margin.

A major expansion was undertaken in 2004 and 2005.  By the close of 2005, Alcatraz had achieved most of its North American territorial expansion goals with operations in 215 cities in all 50 states and most of the Canadian provinces.

Total revenues for the business were less than $60,000 in 2001 but grew to tens of millions of dollars by 2008.

Background for this Legal Action about Judicial Corruption — 1999

This legal action is best understood with some background.  For the Windsor family, it began in 1999.

Alcatraz Media, LLC was formed in 1999 by Rod Smith (“Rod”) and Ryan Windsor (“Ryan”).  Ryan was 23 years old.  Ryan attended college, but he did not graduate.  After he left college, he worked as a car detailer, a bartender, and doing web site set-up for a company where his Dad (Windsor) was CEO.
Alcatraz was Ryan’s idea, and he worked hard to start it and build it.  He started the business with just a few thousand dollars saved from money he earned working.  Rod provided financial assistance in the early years, and he does some work, but he has a full-time job in Ohio, and he is perhaps best described as a “silent partner” and a very good friend.  Rod owns 25%.  Ryan never came to his parents for any money to be used in financing the start-up or operation of his business.
Alcatraz began as a tiny Internet Service Provider offering web hosting, email services, web design and development.  The name “Alcatraz Media” was chosen after none of the names on Ryan’s first list of 25 potential corporate names were available in California.  A second list of 25 names was submitted, and six names were available.  Ryan’s basement apartment in Sausalito had a slight view of San Francisco Bay and Alcatraz.  The Alcatraz name was memorable, came up high on alphabetical lists, and it was the best of the six available names.  So, the company was named Alcatraz Media, LLC.
The business really struggled the first two years.  Upon information and belief, total revenues were approximately $20,000 for the first two years.