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.