Violation #3 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Concealing Windsor’s Fax of July 28, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Violation #4 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Concealing Windsor’s Fax of August 10, 2005

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:  The proof of this violation is quite simple.  The Time Slips of Maid of the Mist’s Attorneys show that the attorneys received these documents.  The document productions from Maid of the Mist show that these requested documents were never produced.  These documents were damaging to them, so they concealed them. 

1.   On August 10, 2005, I decided to contact Maid of the Mist’s Attorney in Buffalo, New York, Mr. Arthur P. Russ.  I sent him a six page fax that included a credit card authorization for Maid of the Mist to use.  (Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25.)  (Exhibit 735 to Dec #5 — Evans Docket #378.)

2.    On August 10, 2005, Time Slips prove that Mr. Russ reviewed the fax from me.  [Evans Docket #253-15, P 1.]  Maid of the Mist never produced this fax, but this Time Slip shows that Maid of the Mist’s Attorneys had the fax.  The fax was important because it included the credit card authorization.  The fax is not included in the documents produced; I have placed all of Maid of the Mist’s document production into the record as evidence.  (Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo — Evans Docket #133 and 160.)  (Exhibit 3041 to Dec #25.)

3.    VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — Violation of FRCP Rule 37 by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 4.1 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice — concealing documents by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein;Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25; Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo — Evans Docket #133 and 160.)

4.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON — Violation of FRCP Rule 37 by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 4.1 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice — concealing documents by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein; Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25; Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo –“ Evans Docket #133 and 160.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY PHILLIPS LYTLE — Violation of FRCP Rule 37 by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 4.1 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice — concealing documents by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein; Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25; Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo — Evans Docket #133 and 160.)

6.    VIOLATIONS BY MARC W. BROWN — Violation of FRCP Rule 37 by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 4.1 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice –“ concealing documents by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein; Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25; Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo — Evans Docket #133 and 160.)

7.    VIOLATIONS BY ARTHUR P. RUSS — Violation of FRCP Rule 37 by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 3.4 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Violation of Rule 4.1 of the GCPC by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005; Obstruction Of Justice –“ concealing documents by failing to produce the six-page fax that I sent to Mr. Arthur P. Russ on August 10, 2005, in violation of 18 USC § 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the citations therein; Exhibit #3040 to Dec #25; Evans Docket #378 — Exhibit 178, 92, 266, 660, and 84 to Dec #5; Exhibit 1270 to Dec #25; and Exhibit S-1 to Schul Depo — Evans Docket #133 and 160.)

 

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

 

Violation #7 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Subornation of Perjury and False Sworn Pleadings 1

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:  The proof of this violation is found in the deposition testimony of Maid of the Mist’s managers who admitted they had no proof.  A Verified Complaint such ads this requires that the statements are true and within the personal knowledge of the person verifying the complaint.  People filing lawsuits can make accusations thatb they can’t prove and aren’t sure about in an UNverified complaint.  But in this case, Christopher Glynn was told to swear that all of this was true and within his personal kinowledge when he knew it was not.  Therefore, this is a False Sworn Pleading.

1.   On August 25, 2005, Christopher Glynn (“Glynn”), President of Maid of the Mist of the Mist and son of the owner, signed and dated a sworn affidavit in anticipation of the filing of the Verified Complaint in Georgia.  (Exhibit #63 to Dec #5 – Evans Docket #378.)  I have stated that 46 of the 50 sworn under penalty of perjury statements in the Affidavit of Glynn were false.  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 3.)  I believe I have proven that 44 of the 46 are false with the testimony of Glynn himself or with the testimony of his two managers, Ruddy or Schul.  (Dec #3 — Exhibits 1 and 2.)  Glynn did not have personal knowledge.   I submit that this is a violation of Rule 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  I submit that this is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”).  I submit that this is perjury, a violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-70 and USC 18 § 1621 and USC 18 § 1623.  I submit that this is Making False Statements in violation of 18 USC § 1001.  I submit that this subjects Maid of the Mist to set aside of the judgment and orders pursuant to O.C.G.A. 17-1-4.  I submit that this is theft by deception, a violation of O.C.G.A. 16-8-3.  I submit that this was fraud.  I submit that this was conspiracy to commit fraud.  I sumit that the preparation of the affidavit by Mr. Brown and the signature of Mr. Anderson on the filing constitute subornation of perjury and conspiracy to suborn perjury. I submit that this was one act in violation of the Georgia RICO Act, including O.C.G.A. 16-14-3 and 16-14-4.  I submit that this was a Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act — 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d).  I submit that this is Witness Tampering in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-93 and 18 U.S.C. 1503.  I submit that this is Obstruction Of Justice — influencing testimony — 18 USC § 1512(b).

2.   The sworn statements of Glynn in this Affidavit of August 25, 2005 and Verification of August 29, 2005 are discussed in paragraphs 900 to 1509.

3.    VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False Statements in Affidavit of 8-25-2005 and Verification of 8-29-2005 – Paragraph 1 of the Affidavit in support of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005:  “I am the President of Plaintiff Maid of the Mist of the Mist Corporation and Maid of the Mist of the Mist Steamboat Company, Ltd. (collectively “Maid of the Mist”).  As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.” (Evans Docket #1 — Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005.)  (Proof is detailed in Evans Docket # 377 — Amended Dec #3, Dec #5 — Evans Docket #378, and the paragraphs below.)

4.    Mr. Christopher Glynn (“Glynn”) did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the Verified Complaint, and many of the alleged facts were false. This is detailed quite clearly in paragraphs 900 to 1509 below. (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 9.)

5.    Glynn knowingly made false statements.  Glynn has subsequently admitted under oath that he did NOT have personal knowledge of various statements made in this affidavit.  He has knowingly made two or more declarations that are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false.  This is considered proof positive of perjury.

6.    Glynn signed a false sworn affidavit and has provided a verification of the Complaint that is filled with false sworn statements.  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 10.)

7.    VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False statements in Affidavit and Verification of Complaint — Perjury — O.C.G.A. 16-10-70 and USC 18 § 1621 and USC 18 § 1623; Making False Statements — 18 USC § 1001; Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act — 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d); Fraud; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Fraud on the Court — Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) — 18 USC § 371. (Proof is in the paragraphs above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

8.   VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — FALSE SWORN PLEADINGS — Violation of Rule 11 — False Sworn Pleading.  Violation of RULE 3.1  MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS — shall not file a suit that isn’t meritorious — frivolous if the lawyer is unable to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action based on the facts and the law; Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC — Candor Toward the Tribunal — made false statements of a material fact to the Court; offered evidence that the lawyer knew to be false; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Misconduct; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — Standards of Professional Conduct.  (Proof is in the paragraphs 898 to 1509 above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

 

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

 

Violation #8 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Subornation of Perjury and False Sworn Pleadings 2

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:  The proof of this violation is found in the deposition testimony of Maid of the Mist’s managers who admitted they had no proof.  A Verified Complaint such ads this requires that the statements are true and within the personal knowledge of the person verifying the complaint.  People filing lawsuits can make accusations thatb they can’t prove and aren’t sure about in an UNverified complaint.  But in this case, Christopher Glynn was told to swear that all of this was true and within his personal kinowledge when he knew it was not.  Therefore, this is a False Sworn Pleading.

1.    VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False Statements in Affidavit of 8-25-2005 and Verification of 8-29-2005 – Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit in support of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005:  “I am making this Declaration in support of Maid of the Mist’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 of the Mist tours (“Defendants’ Maid of the Mist Vouchers”) and forcing Defendants to remove any reference to Maid of the Mist from web sites Defendants currently operate or plan to operate.  (Evans Docket #1 — Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005.)  (Proof is detailed in Evans Docket # 377 — Amended Dec #3, Dec #5 — Evans Docket #378, and the paragraphs below.)

2.   Windsor never personally sold anything regarding Maid of the Mist.  I was not in the business of issuing vouchers for Maid of the Mist of the Mist boat rides, and I did not do any of the types of activities that Maid of the Mist accused me of in the Verified Complaint.  (Evans Docket #153 – Deposition of William M. Windsor, P 76: 11-15; P 92: 25, P 93: 1-25.)

3.    Mr. Timothy P. Ruddy (“Ruddy”) has admitted that I never sold anything personally and stated that when the term “Defendants’ Maid of the Mist Vouchers” was used in the Verified Complaint, it was meant to refer only to Alcatraz. (Evans Docket #90 and 132 – Steamboat Depo, P 27: 17-24.)  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 12.)

4.    In this case, “Defendants” were listed as “Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc., and William M. Windsor” and are thus defined as all three of these entities/people.  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 13.)

5.    “Defendants’ Maid of the Mist Vouchers” is defined in Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit of Christopher Glynn dated August 25, 2005 and in the Verified Complaint as “vouchers/e-tickets that are redeemed for Maid of the Mist tours.”  As Defendants were listed as “Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc., and William M. Windsor,” “Defendants’ Maid of the Mist Vouchers” are thus defined as “vouchers/e-tickets that are redeemed for Maid of the Mist tours” that are issued by the three parties — Alcatraz Media, LLC, Alcatraz Media, Inc., and William M. Windsor.  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 14.)

6.    “Voucher” is defined as a source document that is provided by a buyer of the Maid of the Mist of the Mist product that is presented to a client or a tour guide or tour escort which is approved in advance by Maid of the Mist and which is presented to the ticket window in exchange for boat tickets.  The important distinction is that the voucher is presented in lieu of payment, and Maid of the Mist would then look to the issuer of the voucher (Defendants) for payment. (Evans Docket #90 and 132 – Steamboat Depo, P 17: 13-18.)    (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 15.)

7.    “E-Ticket” is defined as a voucher that is electronic and is generated through a computer. (Evans Docket #90 and 132 – Steamboat Depo, P 17: 19-25.)  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 16.)

8.    There s no actual difference between a voucher and an E-Ticket.  These terms are identical.  The only difference is that a voucher might not be distributed electronically, while an E-Ticket is always delivered electronically.   (Evans Docket #90 and 132 – Steamboat Depo, P 18: 11-25, P 19: 1.)  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 17.)

9.    A “ticket” is a paper slip or card indicating that its holder has paid for or is entitled to a specified service, right, or consideration.  Maid of the Mist issues an actual “ticket” at its ticket window.  Vouchers/e-tickets that are redeemed for Maid of the Mist tickets.  Maid of the Mist does not offer tours; Maid of the Mist sells one and only one ticket for one and only one boat ride.  (Evans Docket #133 and 160 — Deposition of Robert J. Schul, P 195: 22-25, P 196: 1-10.)  Maid of the Mist’s ticket was Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing.  (Pr. Inj. Hearing, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1; Evans Docket #35, 36, 37.)  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 18.)

10.  What the Plaintiffs requested in their Verified Complaint was for the Defendants to not issue documents that would be presented to Maid of the Mist’s ticket window in exchange for boat tickets where Maid of the Mist would then look to the Defendants for payment.  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 19.)

11.  The Plaintiffs sought relief in this lawsuit that already existed at the time of the filing of this lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs sought “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 of the Mist tours (“Defendants’ Maid of the Mist Vouchers”).”  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 20.)

12.  I never at any time advertised, sold, or issued any vouchers or E-Tickets to be redeemed for Maid of the Mist tours (tickets).   (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 21.)

13.  Alcatraz Media, Inc. ceased advertising, selling, or issuing any vouchers or E-Tickets to be redeemed for Maid of the Mist tours (tickets) by the date the Verified Complaint was served (August 29, 2005).  (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶22.)

14.   VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False statements in Affidavit and Verification of Complaint — Perjury — O.C.G.A. 16-10-70 and USC 18 Â 1621 and USC 18 § 1623; Making False Statements — 18 USC § 1001; Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act — 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d); Fraud; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Fraud on the Court — Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) — 18 USC § 371. (Proof is in the paragraphs above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

15.  VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — FALSE SWORN PLEADINGS — Violation of Rule 11 — False Sworn Pleading.  Violation of RULE 3.1  MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS “shall not file a suit that isn’t meritorious — frivolous if the lawyer is unable to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action based on the facts and the law;Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC — Candor Toward the Tribunal — made false statements of a material fact to the Court; offered evidence that the lawyer knew to be false; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Misconduct; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — Standards of Professional Conduct.  (Proof is in the paragraphs 898 to 1509 above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

 

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

 

Violation #9 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Subornation of Perjury and False Sworn Pleadings 3

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:  A Verified Complaint such ads this requires that the statements are true and within the personal knowledge of the person verifying the complaint.  People filing lawsuits can make accusations thatb they can’t prove and aren’t sure about in an UNverified complaint.  But in this case, Christopher Glynn was told to swear that all of this was true and within his personal kinowledge when he knew it was not.  Therefore, this is a False Sworn Pleading.

1.    VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False Statements in Affidavit of 8-25-2005 and Verification of 8-29-2005 – Paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in support of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005 (Paragraph 23 of the Verified Complaint):  “Since 1846, Maid of the Mist has operated boat tours of Niagara Falls for millions of tourists from around the world.”  (Evans Docket #1 — Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed August 29, 2005.)   (Proof is detailed in Evans Docket # 377 – Amended Dec #3, Dec #5 — Evans Docket #378, and the paragraphs below.)

2.    Maid of the Mist has not operated boat tours of Niagara Falls since 1846. The two corporate entities defined as “Maid of the Mist” in this lawsuit did not begin in 1846.  The current operator of the boat rides has been operating the business since 1971.

3.    Glynn admitted this in his deposition. (Evans Docket #159 — Deposition of Christopher Glynn, P 276: 22-25, P 277: 1-23.) (Evans Docket #378 — Dec #5 ¶ 24.)  (Exhibit 197 and 198 to Dec #5 — Evans Docket #378.)

4.    I obtained corporate records that prove this statement was false.  (Exhibits 197 and 198 to Dec #5.)

5.   VIOLATIONS BY CHRISTOPHER GLYNN — False statements in Affidavit and Verification of Complaint — Perjury — O.C.G.A. 16-10-70 and USC 18 § 1621 and USC 18 § 1623; Making False Statements — 18 USC § 1001; Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act — 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d); Fraud; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Fraud on the Court — Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) — 18 USC § 371. (Proof is in the paragraphs above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

6.   VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — FALSE SWORN PLEADINGS — Violation of Rule 11 — False Sworn Pleading.  Violation of RULE 3.1  MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS  “shall not file a suit that isn’t meritorious — frivolous if the lawyer is unable to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action based on the facts and the law;Violation of Rule 3.3 of the GCPC — Candor Toward the Tribunal — made false statements of a material fact to the Court; offered evidence that the lawyer knew to be false; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Misconduct; Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — Standards of Professional Conduct.  (Proof is in the paragraphs 898 to 1509 above and the citations therein and exhibits thereto.)

 

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

 

Violation #6 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Subornation of Perjury

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:  The proof of this violation is found in the deposition testimony of Maid of the Mist’s managers who admitted they had no proof of this and in the Time Slips of Maid of the Mist’s Attorneys.

1.   On August 21, 2005, Time Slips show that Mr. Brown reviewed other emails from Alcatraz.  Mr. Brown added a complaint to the Better Business Bureau from a Mr. Scott McGrew to the Glynn Affidavit as a means for injunctive relief.  However, Alcatraz had nothing to do with Scott McGrew, and there was nothing whatsoever to indicate that Glynn had personal knowledge that this applied to Alcatraz.  McGrew was a Maid of the Mist customer who complained about poor service from Maid of the Mist.  Alcatraz has never had a customer named Scott McGrew, and Alcatraz was not involved with Scott McGrew.  This sworn complaint was obviously not researched in the slightest, and the inclusion of this false claim is a clear violation of many legal obligations of attorneys.  This false claim was part of the scheme that Maid of the Mist and Maid of the Mist’s Attorneys concocted to commit fraud on the Defendants.  (This is a violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  Getting Glynn to claim he had personal knowledge of this also constitutes subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.)   [Evans Docket #253-15, P 2.]  (Exhibit #927 to Dec #25, P 2.)

2.    VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Subornation of Perjury in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, USC 18 § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Obstruction Of Justice — influencing testimony in violation of 18 USC § 1512(b); Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — All lawyers practicing before this court shall be governed by and shall comply with the specific rules of practice adopted by this court and, unless otherwise provided, with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and with the decisions of this court interpreting these rules and standards; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Shall not violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the exhibits cited therein, oral contract, Evans Docket #253-15, Evans Docket #90 and 132 — Ruddy Depo testimony, Evans Docket #159 — Glynn Depo testimony, Evans Docket #133 and 160 — Schul Depo testimony, Docket #377 — Exhibits 1 to 28 in Amended Dec #3 and all citations therein.)

3.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON –“ Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Subornation of Perjury in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, USC 18 § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Obstruction Of Justice – influencing testimony in violation of 18 USC § 1512(b); Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — All lawyers practicing before this court shall be governed by and shall comply with the specific rules of practice adopted by this court and, unless otherwise provided, with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and with the decisions of this court interpreting these rules and standards; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Shall not violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the exhibits cited therein, oral contract, Evans Docket #253-15, Evans Docket #90 and 132 — Ruddy Depo testimony, Evans Docket #159 — Glynn Depo testimony, Evans Docket #133 and 160 — Schul Depo testimony, Docket #377 — Exhibits 1 to 28 in Amended Dec #3 and all citations therein.)

4.    VIOLATIONS BY PHILLIPS LYTLE — Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Subornation of Perjury in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, USC 18 § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Obstruction Of Justice — influencing testimony in violation of 18 USC § 1512(b); Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — All lawyers practicing before this court shall be governed by and shall comply with the specific rules of practice adopted by this court and, unless otherwise provided, with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and with the decisions of this court interpreting these rules and standards; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Shall not violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the exhibits cited therein, oral contract, Evans Docket #253-15, Evans Docket #90 and 132 — Ruddy Depo testimony, Evans Docket #159 — Glynn Depo testimony, Evans Docket #133 and 160 — Schul Depo testimony, Docket #377 — Exhibits 1 to 28 in Amended Dec #3 and all citations therein.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY MARC W. BROWN — Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Subornation of Perjury in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, USC 18 § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Obstruction Of Justice — influencing testimony in violation of 18 USC § 1512(b); Violation of Local Rule 83.1C — All lawyers practicing before this court shall be governed by and shall comply with the specific rules of practice adopted by this court and, unless otherwise provided, with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and with the decisions of this court interpreting these rules and standards; Violation of Rule 8.4 of the GCPC — Shall not violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  (Proof is provided in the paragraph above and the exhibits cited therein, oral contract, Evans Docket #253-15, Evans Docket #90 and 132 — Ruddy Depo testimony, Evans Docket #159 — Glynn Depo testimony, Evans Docket #133 and 160 — Schul Depo testimony, Docket #377 — Exhibits 1 to 28 in Amended Dec #3 and all citations therein.) 

 

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