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

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

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

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

3.    So, Carlson called Alcatraz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21          VOUCHER.

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

23          IT’S DATED JULY 2ND, 2005.

24          A.   YES.

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

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

2            Q.   DOES MAID HAVE TIME SPECIFIC TICKETS?

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

4            TIME TICKETS.

5            Q.   OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

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

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

8            A.   YES, SIR.

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

10          EXHIBIT NO. 2.

11       MR. RALEY:  NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

12       THE COURT:  IT’S ADMITTED.

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

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

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

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

 

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

---