Source: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20:professional-misconduct-complaint-against-carl-hugo-anderson-of-hawkins-parnell-thackston-young&catid=111:professional-misconduct-complaints&Itemid=210
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 02:29:23
Document Index: 328104486

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1512', '§ 1621', '§ 1621', '§ 1621', '§ 1623', '§ 1746', '§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 1746', '§ 1001', '§ 1001', '§ 1001', '§ 1001', '§ 1622', '§ 1623', '§ 1621', '§ 1503', '§ 1001']

Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Carl Hugo Anderson of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young
Created: Friday, 15 October 2010 22:00
Carl Hugo Anderson is an attorney with Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston Young.
I have filed a lawsuit against Carl Anderson and his firm, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston, Young.
I have also filed a Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl H. Anderson.
This was filed with Judge Julie Carnes, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
This same complaint is being sent to the Georgia State Bar Association.
It is my hope that Carl Hugo Anderson will be disbarred.
Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson
The details of the complaint against Carl Hugo Anderson are many. I allege that he has violated many Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, many rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of the Northern District of Georgia, and has committed a number of violations of criminal statutes:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON YOUNG, CARL HUGO ANDERSON,
SARAH BRIGHT, BRETT MENDELL,
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, MARC W. BROWN, and ARTHUR P. RUSS
William M. Windsor (â€œWindsorâ€) hereby submits this VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON, YOUNG (â€œH&Pâ€), CARL HUGO ANDERSON (â€œMr. Andersonâ€), SARAH BRIGHT (â€œMs. Brightâ€), BRETT MENDELL (â€œMr. Mendellâ€), PHILLIPS LYTLE (â€œPLâ€), MARC W. BROWN (â€œMr. Brownâ€), and ARTHUR P. RUSS (â€œMr. Russâ€), (jointly â€œMaidâ€™s Attorneysâ€) (â€œComplaintâ€), and shows the Court as follows:
1. This Complaint is brought to expose the extreme dishonesty, numerous criminal acts, massive number of rule violations and professional misconduct of Maidâ€™s Attorneys, especially Mr. Anderson and Mr. Brown.
2. This Complaint is made pursuant to LR 83.1C and LR 83.1F(2) of the Local Rules (Civil Rules) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (â€œLRâ€), Rule 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (â€œFRCPâ€),Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, and 8.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (â€œGRPCâ€), and the Courtâ€™s Inherent Powers. The Thirty-Fifth Declaration of William M. Windsor (â€œDec #35â€) in Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD is being submitted to Judge William S. Duffey for filing contemporaneously with the submission of this COMPLAINT to the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Georgia and is incorporated herein for all purposes. Dec #35 provides a sworn statement as required by LR 83.1F(2). Dec #35 provides proof of the professional misconduct of Maidâ€™s Attorneys.
3. LR 83.1 ATTORNEYS: ADMISSION TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE COURT -- F. Attorney Discipline. (2) Misconduct of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia states:
â€œComplaints of professional misconduct, including those referred
by judges, shall be submitted to the court in writing and shall state with particularity the circumstances out of which the charges arose. Complaints submitted by counsel are subject to the strictures of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. All other complaints of professional misconduct, except those submitted by judicial officers of this court, shall be under oath.
â€œUpon receipt of a complaint regarding the professional conduct of an attorney in a proceeding before this court or when a complaint regarding an attorneyâ€™s conduct in a proceeding in another court comes to the attention of this court, the district judge before whom the case is pending or to whom the alleged misconduct in another court has become known (or, in the district judge's discretion, the court) shall determine whether: [emphasis added]
4. As LR 83.1F(2) allows such a Complaint to be presented to any district judge, Windsor is submitting this to Chief Judge Julie Carnes. Windsor filed a similar complaint with Judge Orinda D. Evans in 2009, and she ignored it. Windsor has appealed the outrageous actions of Judge Evans. Windsor filed a similar complaint with Judge William S. Duffey in 2009, and he refused to file it or consider it claiming Windsor failed to submit proof as he refused to take judicial notice of everything filed in Judge Evansâ€™ court. Much more has happened since 2009, and Windsor is providing the proof with this COMPLAINT.
5. The proof of the misconduct is attached on a CD-ROM. This contains thousands of pages of sworn under penalty of perjury affidavits. These affidavits address the misconduct and provide precise citations to the records of the courts to prove the wrongdoing. In most cases, the proof is provided in the testimony of one of Maidâ€™s managers. Proof is also provided in the exhibits to Declarations filed in MIST-1, especially Docs. 361, 362, 368, and 378. The CD-ROM and the Dockets in all matters related to Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE (â€œMIST-1â€), Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD (â€œMIST-2â€), Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01543-WSD (â€œDeposition Actionâ€), and Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00197 (RJL) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (â€œDC Actionâ€) are referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto. The Microsoft Word copies of affidavits on the CD-ROM are not signed, but all copies are signed, notarized, etc. and filed with the courts.
6. Judge Orinda D. Evans and Judge William S. Duffey are corrupt. Take one look at this CD-ROM filled with EVIDENCE, and then consider the words of these judges when they falsely and maliciously claimed there was no evidence.
7. The problem in this matter is that there has been so much wrongdoing that the list of the wrongdoing alone is massive. The proof is overwhelming. Windsor feels the best way to deal with this will be with an evidentiary hearing in which the various violations of the rules and the laws can be effectively illustrated in court. Windsor also asks this Court to issue subpoenas to enable Windsor to obtain documents from these attorneys that will prove wrongdoing. It would also help reduce the work that this Court will have to do on this matter if Windsor can be issued subpoenas so he can take the depositions of these attorneys. In a case like this, the most damaging proof is probably in the attorneyâ€™s files. Since this is a case of professional misconduct, fraud, and criminal violations, there can no longer be attorney-client privilege.
8. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated many rules and have committed numerous criminal acts. Windsor has massive evidence of the violations and crimes. If this Court doesnâ€™t want to do the reading necessary to review all the evidence, Windsor asks that the Court advise Windsor what will make it easier for the Court. Windsor could provide an electronic file that links all of the proof (linking to sworn Declarations and exhibits). Windsor can present everything at an evidentiary hearing.
9. Windsor has spoken with the State Bar of Georgia about this matter, and Ms. Carmen Rojas Rafter, Grievance Counsel for the State Bar of Georgia, asked that each violation be set out as a separate statement paired with proof of the violation. The magnitude of the rule violations is so great that Windsor has numbered each violation and is presenting them in Dec #35.
10. Windsor has lost approximately $1,500,000 in legal fees on this matter. While Windsor submits that the Court or the Committee on Discipline and the State Disciplinary Boards of the State Bars should disbar Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, Jr. (â€œMr. Andersonâ€) and Mr. Marc W. Brown (â€œMr. Brownâ€), and such action will hopefully help others from being victimized, Windsor will still be out $1,500,000 in legal fees that he should not have had to incur. LR 83.1 allows sanctions of â€œDiscipline by this court may include disbarment, suspension from practice for a definite time, reprimand, or other discipline which the court deems proper.â€ Rule 11 provides: â€œthe court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.â€
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
11. FRCP Rule 11(c)(2) requires that â€œa motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).â€ Windsor will submit a motion for sanctions to Judge Duffey in Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD. Windsor will explain in that motion that it is tied to this COMPLAINT.
12. William M. Windsor (â€œWindsorâ€) has provided proof to the Court that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have filed false sworn pleadings, have filed false pleadings, have filed improper pleadings, have filed allegations and other factual contentions that lack evidentiary support, have committed perjury, have obstructed justice, and have suborned perjury.
13. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that by presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney is certifying that to the best of the personâ€™s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, (1) that it is not being presented for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information and belief.
14. The abuses in this lawsuit are immense. It is appalling what Maid and Maidâ€™s Attorneys have gotten away with in this case. Maid and Maidâ€™s Attorneys have perpetrated a fraud on the Court, and their abuse of Windsor is beyond words.
15. Windsor respectfully requests a hearing on this COMPLAINT. Windsor has additional evidence that can be presented at a hearing, including the testimony of witnesses that thus far exists in the record in MIST-1 only as exhibits to the Fourth Declaration of William M. Windsor filed April 24, 2009. Windsor can also subpoena witnesses for the hearing who will not cooperate with Windsor by providing affidavits.
16. Windsor looks forward to illustrating the wrongful actions of Maid and Maidâ€™s Attorneys, and Windsor trusts that the Court will grant the Motion and send a message that is loud and clear to Maid and Maidâ€™s Attorneys as well as to others who would so abuse our judicial system that the courts will not tolerate such abuse.
17. The record will show that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have knowingly had Maid verify false pleadings, have filed false sworn pleadings, have filed false pleadings, have filed improper pleadings, have filed allegations and other factual contentions that lacked evidentiary support, and Maidâ€™s Attorneys have suborned perjury. Mr. Brown of PL drafted many of the pleadings. Maidâ€™s managers lied and committed hundreds of counts of perjury. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers with knowledge that information therein was false. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers for improper purposes. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers to harass Windsor. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers to increase the cost of litigation. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers for which the claims, defenses, and legal contentions were not warranted. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers for which the allegations and contentions did not have evidentiary support. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed pleadings, motions, and other papers for which the denials of factual contentions were not warranted.
18. This should subject Mr. Anderson and Mr. Brown to professional discipline for knowingly making false statements of fact; assisting a client in illegal or fraudulent conduct; engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on the attorney's fitness to practice law. Attorneys have a duty to not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law and knowingly making false statements of law or fact, and such prohibitions even more strongly apply to claims made in verified pleadings as in this case.
19. The obvious intent of the rules is to deter frivolous or untrue claims by requiring that they be sworn to. Verifications are not to be taken lightly, and false sworn affidavits, false testimony, and false verification are a form of perjury. Verification, like sworn testimony, must be so direct and unequivocal as to subject the affiant to perjury if untrue.
20. Truth is the cornerstone of the judicial system; a license to practice law requires allegiance and fidelity to truth. Filing a lawsuit requires honesty and truth. Maidâ€™s Attorneys ignored honesty and ignored the truth because they had to lie and suborn perjury in hopes of prevailing in the litigation. Maidâ€™s Attorneys should no longer be allowed to practice law.
21. Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE (â€œMIST-1â€) began with a Verified Complaint with 46 of the 50 paragraphs that were false or incorrect. Exhibit 2 to the Third Declaration of William M. Windsor in MIST-1 itemizes proof to show that 44 of the 46 paragraphs are proven false by the Plaintiffsâ€™ testimony or by documents. [CD-ROM file: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 1 to Third Declaration of William M Windsor.]
22. Judge Orinda D. Evans (â€œJudge Evansâ€) signed an Order Granting Preliminary Injunction against Defendants (the â€œPI Orderâ€) on May 11, 2006. Much of the false information provided by Maidâ€™s Attorneys is in the PI Order. By Windsorâ€™s count, the PI Order contains as many as 39 false statements or conclusions based on false statements, and the Proposed Order and Corrected Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Against Defendants contains as many as 164 false, inaccurate, or deceptive statements or conclusions based on false statements. [CD-ROM file: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 7 - Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - False Statements - 2009-04-21 - Exhibit 9 - Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - False Statements - 2009-04-21.]
23. Windsor gathered evidence that will establish that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have filed several false sworn affidavits in MIST-1 and that Maidâ€™s President, Christopher Glynn, gave false sworn testimony, and that Maidâ€™s Vice-President, Timothy P. Ruddy, has filed a false sworn affidavit and gave false sworn testimony, and that Maidâ€™s Controller and chief financial manager, Robert J. Schul, gave false sworn testimony. [CD-ROM file: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 1 - Complaint and Glynn Affidavit 2005-08-25 - False Statements - 2009-05-12; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 3 - Maid of the Mist - Interrogatories - False Statements - 2009-05-01; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 4 - Maid of the Mist - Glynn Affidavit 2006-03-14 - False Statements - 2009-05-01; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 6 - Motion to Reopen - Maid of the Mist - Glynn Injunction Testimony 2006-04-11 - False Statements - 2009-05-01; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 8 - Ruddy Affidavit 2006-05-02 - False Statements - 2009-04-21 â€“ final; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 10 - Ruddy Deposition 2006-11-15 - False Statements - 2009-04-21 - yellow removed; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 11 - Glynn Deposition 2006-12-04 - False Statements - 2009-04-21 - yellow removed; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 12 - Schul Deposition 2006-12-05 - False Statements - 2009-04-21 - yellow removed; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 14 - Ruddy Affidavit 2007-01-22 - False Statements - 2009-05-07; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 20 - Schul Affidavit - False Statements - 2009-05-07; Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 21 - Corporation Deposition - False Statements - 2009-05-07.]
24. Windsor has gathered evidence that establishes that key points presented to Judge Evans in the â€œFactual and Procedural Backgroundâ€ recited in the PI Order are either false or incorrect, and that Maidâ€™s Attorneys knew or should have known that the pleadings were false or incorrect. Similar proof has been identified with Maidâ€™s Attorneysâ€™ summary judgment filings. [CD-ROM file: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 13 - Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts for SJ - False Statements - 2009-04-22 - ready for Kinko's.]
25. Windsor has proven that the Plaintiffs have made many hundreds of FALSE SWORN STATEMENTS. Windsorâ€™s proof filed in MIST-1 was never controverted in any manner. The Plaintiffs filed absolutely no sworn affidavits in any attempt to defend themselves.
26. Proof of the Rule 11 violations of Maidâ€™s Attorneys is provided in the Motion to Reopen Case filed April 24, 2009 and the Third Declaration of William M. Windsor [CD-ROM file: 3 - Verified Action - Affidavit of WMW Third - 2009-07-28] and the 28 exhibits thereto and citations therein [CD-ROM files: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 28], the First Declaration of William M. Windsor and the 16 exhibits thereto and citations therein [CD-ROM files: 1 - First Affiidavit - 2009-04-19 and Declaration 1 - Exhibit 1 to Declaration1 â€“ Exhibit 16], the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor [CD-ROM file: 2 - Maid of the Mist - Motion to Recuse - Second Affidavit - 2009-04-20], and Fourth Declaration of William M. Windsor and the 11 exhibits thereto and citations therein [CD-ROM files: 4 - Fourth Declaration - 2009-04-20 and affidavits of Alcatraz Media employees].
27. Maidâ€™s Attorneys made as many as 166 statements that Windsor has shown are false or incorrect in the Proposed Order and Corrected Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction that resulted in as many as 39 statements that Windsor has shown are false or incorrect in the Preliminary Injunction Order signed by Judge Evans.
28. Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed alleged â€œStatements of Undisputed Factâ€ in their Motion for Summary Judgment that include as many as 130 statements that Windsor has shown are false or incorrect. An analysis of the Summary Judgment Order reveals that the Summary Judgment Order contains 416 sentences. TWO HUNDRED AND TEN (210) of the 416 statements by Judge Evans are false or incorrect.
29. The record of the Court in MIST-1 will show that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have filed pleading after pleading after pleading that are false, contain false statements, and contain false sworn affidavits. The record of the Court in MIST-1 will show that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have filed improper allegations and pleadings that lack evidentiary support. The record of the Court in MIST-1 will show that Maidâ€™s Attorneys have committed perjury and have suborned perjury.
30. Judge Evans signed an Order Granting a Preliminary Injunction Against Defendants on May 11, 2006. The grant of the Order was based on the false sworn affidavits, false sworn testimony, and false pleadings filed by Maidâ€™s Attorneys.
31. Judge Evans signed a Summary Judgment Order on August 7, 2007. The grant of the order was based on the false sworn affidavits, false sworn testimony, and false pleadings filed by Maidâ€™s Attorneys.
32. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have not simply slipped up and made a little mistake that resulted in an incorrect statement regarding an inconsequential issue in an affidavit. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have established a pattern and practice of lies, multiple false sworn statements in multiple false sworn affidavits by multiple people, false sworn testimony at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, in their depositions, and more. These were material false statements. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have fabricated the claim upon which they obtained a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary Injunction, a Summary Judgment, and more.
33. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have knowingly had their client verify false pleadings. This should subject Mr. Anderson and Mr. Brown to professional discipline for knowingly making false statements of fact; assisting a client in illegal or fraudulent conduct; engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on the attorney's fitness to practice law. Attorneys have a duty to not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law and knowingly making a false statement of law or fact.
34. Windsor will show that these statements were knowingly and deliberately falsified to serve the improper needs of Maidâ€™s Attorneys, to inflict pain, suffering, and financial loss on Windsor.
VIOLATIONS OF State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct
35. There have been many violations of the State Bar of Georgia Code of Professional Conduct by Maidâ€™s Attorneys. The categories of violations are listed below. Dec #35 provides the proof of each infraction.
36. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated Rule 1.2 (D): SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION â€“ â€œLawyers shall not counsel to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.â€ There is no question that Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown, and perhaps others counseled Maid to commit criminal and fraudulent actions. Dec #35 is filled with examples. The violation of Rule 1.2(D) began when the attorneys began working for Maid because the Verified Complaint was as false as legal documents can get. Windsor has provided proof that 46 of the 50 paragraphs were false. [CD-ROM file: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 1 - Complaint and Glynn Affidavit 2005-08-25 - False Statements - 2009-05-12 and Dec #35.]
37. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated Rule 1.2 (D): SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION â€“ â€œLawyers shall not knowingly assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.â€ There is no question that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Brown knowingly assisted Maid to commit criminal and fraudulent actions. Upon information and belief, the lawyers masterminded the unconscionable scheme that Maid used against the Defendants in MIST-1. Maid attorneys knew that Glynn, Ruddy, Schul, Carlson, and Berry were committing perjury. Windsor believes they coached them to do so and drafted their words in many cases. Faced with the possibility of going to prison for perjury, Windsor believes some or all of Maidâ€™s witnesses will admit in court that Maidâ€™s Attorneys counseled them to commit criminal acts. The best examples of this are every affidavit of Christopher Glynn because the evidence and the testimony of his managers, and ultimately his own testimony, prove most of what he swore to be false. In March 2006, Maidâ€™s Attorneys had Christopher Glynn swear to statements that they knew were false due to emails received from the attorney for Alcatraz Media. The May 2006 affidavits of Timothy P. Ruddy are another excellent example. Mr. Anderson field an affidavit with one position on one day, and a few days later, he field one that took the polar opposite position. The documents that were in the record of the court proved that the second affidavit was completely false â€“ documents that Mr. Anderson had produced to the Defendants. The affidavits of Judith Berry are similarly excellent proof. Maidâ€™s attorneys had her take one position on a key issue in an affidavit, and later determined that a different position would be beneficial, so they got her to say something completely contradictory in a second affidavit. The Affidavit of Sandra Carlson is perhaps the best example of where Maidâ€™s Attorneys employed the â€œliteral truthâ€ to defraud the courts and the defendants. Carlsonâ€™s denials of wrongdoing were turned into gibberish so her statements would be literally true. Maidâ€™s Attorneys Time Slips show that attorneys spent time drafting affidavits â€œto avoid perjury.â€ These Time Slips are in the record in MIST-1. If a court will take the time to compare the depositions of Glynn, Ruddy, and Schul and then the exhibits 10, 11, and 12 to the Motion to Reopen, it is absolutely undeniable that Mr. Carl Hugo Anderson, who participated in each deposition, knew that his clients were lying.
38. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œLawyers shall not file a suit when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.â€ Mr. Brown knew the claims and contentions in the Verified Complaint were not meritorious. Mr. Anderson had a duty to know.
39. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œLawyers shall not assert a position when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.â€ Mr. Brown and Mr. Anderson knew the claims in the motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction were not meritorious.
40. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œLawyersshall not take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.â€ Mr. Anderson took actions throughout the case for the purpose of harassing and injuring Windsor and Alcatraz Media.
41. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œLawyersshall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law.â€ Mr. Anderson took many actions throughout the case that were not warranted.
42. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ Lawyers have a â€œduty not to abuse legal procedure.â€ Mr. Anderson abused legal procedure throughout the case.
43. The Verified Complaint in this case was false. 46 of the 50 sworn paragraphs were false or incorrect, and deposition testimony from the Plaintiffsâ€™ witnesses have proven many of these false sworn statements. Windsor believes 44 of the 50 are proven false below by the testimony of an employee of the Plaintiffs or by documents. The Verified Complaint apparently wasnâ€™t investigated by Mr. Anderson. It should have been clear that the action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure the Defendants. The Plaintiffs knew that many of the claims in the Verified Complaint were false. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys specifically knew that the claim that the Defendants stole money from customers and other claims were false. Details of the False Statements in the Verified Complaint are provided on the CD-ROM and in Dec #35 [CD-ROM file: 35 - Verified Action - MIST-2 - Thirty-Fifth Declaration - 2010-10-10.]
44. Mr. Anderson filed alleged proof of damages on tortious interference claim with no proof. After having sworn testimony from the customers involved that proved there were no damages, he made the same claim yet again in the summary judgment filing in his so-called â€œStatement of Facts.â€
45. Mr. Anderson filed statements of facts that were not supported by any evidence as well as â€œstatements of factsâ€ that were false and were not evidence before the Court. Most of the so-called â€œfactsâ€ filed at the preliminary injunction and summary judgment were false or evidence that was not before the Court. Details of the False Statements are provided on pages 1052 to 1691 and 2378 to 3038 of Dec #35.
46. Details of the False Statements in the Glynn Affidavit dated August 25, 2005 are provided on pages 365 to 554 of Dec #35. 46 of the 50 sworn paragraphs were false or incorrect. Windsor believes 44 of the 50 are proven false below by the testimony of an employee of the Plaintiffs or by documents.
47. Details of the False Statements in Interrogatories are provided on pages 682 to 716 of Dec #35.
48. Details of the False Statements in the Glynn Affidavit dated March 14, 2006 are provided on pages 732 to 832 of Dec #35.
49. Details of the False Statements in the Updated Motion for TRO are provided on pages 732 to 832 of Dec #35.
50. Details of the False Statements in the Glynn Preliminary Injunction Testimony are provided on pages 855 to 1039 of Dec #35.
51. Details of the False Statements in the Proposed Order and Corrected Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction are provided on pages 1052 to 1690 of Dec #35. Windsor has identified as many as 164 statements in the Proposed Order (MIST-1 Docket #27) that are false, incorrect, or omit important information or that he believes are false or incorrect. Testimony of the Plaintiffsâ€™ managers, documents, and the fact that most of these statements are not anywhere in the record before the Court proves that 158 of the 164 are false.
52. Details of the False Statements in the Ruddy Affidavit dated May 2, 2006 are provided on pages 1044 to 1052 of Dec #35. There was one false statement in this declaration, and that has been proven by documents provided by the Plaintiffs.
53. Details of the False Statements in the Preliminary Injunction Order are provided on pages 1691 to 1791 of Dec #35. Windsor has identified at least 39 statements in the Order that are false, incorrect, or omit important information or that he believes are false or incorrect. Windsor believes 17 of the 39 are proven false below by the testimony of a Maid employee or by documents.
54. Details of the False Statements in the Ruddy Deposition are provided on pages 1861 to 2044 of Dec #35. In his deposition testimony on November 15, 2006, Mr. Timothy P. Ruddy made numerous false statements â€“ 139 statements that Windsor believes are false or incorrect: 76 of the 139 statements have been proven to be false with other testimony of Ruddy, testimony of the two other corporate officers for the Plaintiffs, documents, or the testimony of a third party.
55. Details of the False Statements in the Glynn Deposition are provided on pages 2063 to 2196 of Dec #35. In his deposition testimony on December 4, 2006, Mr. Christopher Glynn has made 89 false statements, or statements that Windsor believes are false. 32 of the 89 statements have been proven false by the testimony of another manager for the Plaintiffs, documents, or testimony of a third party. The 89 statements include 278 additional false statements as he claimed prior lies in various documents were true.
56. Details of the False Statements in the Schul Deposition are provided on pages 2194 to 2272 of Dec #35. In his deposition testimony on December 4, 2006, Mr. Robert J. Schul has made 54 false statements, or statements that Windsor believes are false. 22 of the 54 statements have been proven false by the testimony of another manager for the Plaintiffs, documents, or testimony of a third party.
57. Details of the False Statements in the Statement of Undisputed facts for Summary Judgment are provided on pages 2378 to 3038 of Dec #35.
58. Details of the False Statements in the Summary Judgment Order are provided on pages 3133 to 3445 of Dec #35.
59. Details of Rule 11 violations are provided in Exhibit 23 to the Third Declaration of William M. Windsor in support of the Motion to Reopen Case filed in MIST-1 on April 24, 2009.
60. Details of the Improper Inclusion of Windsor as a Defendant are provided in Exhibit #28 to the Third Amended Declaration of William M. Windsor [MIST-1 Docket #377].
61. Details of the Discovery Abuse are provided in Exhibit #16 to the Second Declaration of William M. Windsor. [MIST-1 Docket #361.]
62. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œLawyers shall not file frivolous complaints; complaints are 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.â€
63. The Verified Complaint was clearly frivolous as 46 of the sworn paragraphs were false. This action was taken for the purpose of harassing and maliciously injuring the Defendants. Maid attorneys were unable to honestly make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
64. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œIf after filing it is discovered that the lawsuit has no merit, the lawyer is obligated to dismiss the lawsuit or in the alternative withdraw.â€
65. Maid attorneys had an obligation to dismiss the lawsuit or withdraw, and he did not. Maidâ€™s Attorneys knew that extensive information presented to the Court by the Plaintiffs was false, but they never advised the Court and never amended the pleadings.
66. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS â€“ â€œThe advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.â€
67. Maid Attorneys repeatedly abused legal procedure. Mr. Anderson abused discovery as a tool to disadvantage the Defendants. Mr. Anderson abused mediation as a tool to disadvantage the Defendants. Mr. Anderson filed false pleadings. Mr. Anderson filed false sworn pleadings. Mr. Anderson routinely filed variations of pleadings which served to increase the litigation costs of the Defendants. Mr. Anderson failed to produce the documents requested when due in December 2005; produced most of the documents less than 60 days before the close of discovery; produced some critical documents less than 30 days before the close of discovery after the lawsuit had been pending for 16 month; and never produced other documents. Mr. Anderson listed nine adults and claimed they did not buy tickets and established damages for tortious interference, but the nine adults did buy tickets, and Mr. Anderson knew it. He had affidavits in hand that proved these nine people did buy tickets. Mr. Anderson filed a Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction when he had emails in hand from Mr. Brian Raley, attorney for the Defendants, explaining that Alcatraz Media was not doing what Mr. Anderson was accusing Alcatraz of doing. Most of this is detailed in Dec #35.
68. Maid attorneys participated in faking the claim that a customer purchased a voucher in 2006 to manufacture a claim for tortious interference that the Court accepted as a fact. Mr. Anderson regularly lied to the Defendantsâ€™ attorney, Mr. Raley, and to Windsor, who was pro se, on a verity of subjects. Mr. Anderson filed the false sworn affidavit of Timothy Ruddy when Mr. Anderson had produced contracts to the Defendants on December 30, 2005 that proved Ruddyâ€™s Affidavit to be false and proved testimony at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing of Glynn, the President of the Plaintiffs, to be false. Mr. Anderson filed the false sworn Affidavit of Christopher Glynn on March 16, 2006.
69. Mr. Anderson pretended the Plaintiffs had no knowledge of contracts and claimed the Defendants changed their position on the contract when the first thing he ever received from the Defendants after the lawsuit was filed was a letter from Windsor that outlined the two contracts. Mr. Anderson actually produced the letter in December 30, 2005 document production, so he cannot deny receipt of the letter. Windsor believes that Mr. Anderson probably participated in the alteration of documents. The actions of Mr. Anderson caused a TRO and injunction to be granted against the Defendants in MIST-1 based upon false testimony. The record before the courts includes a number of examples where one version of documents was produced in response to requests for production of documents, but those same documents plus handwritten notes on the documents were filed with Maidâ€™s summary judgment filing. The testimony of Robert J. Schul in his deposition proves that documents were provided to Maidâ€™s Attorneys that were not produced to the Defendants as they should have been.
70. Mr. Anderson allowed perjury galore. Mr. Anderson knew the Plaintiffsâ€™ witnesses were lying. Windsor believes he coached them to lie. A time slip from Phillips & Lytle indicates that time was spent rewording affidavits in an attempt to avoid perjury. The result can be seen in affidavits filed by the Plaintiffs that avoid literal perjury by making nonsensical statements that at first seem to be saying something didnâ€™t happen, but then a few words are added to the end of the statement to give it a different meaning literally. For example: â€œI never said we will agree to an oral contract for the 2005 season or for a giant pink rabbit.â€ The addition of â€œor for a giant pink rabbitâ€ would make this statement literally true if the person never said all of that statement.
71. Maid attorneys failed to list witnesses or provide any contact information on witnesses needed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffsâ€™ interrogatory answers, which are part of the record, list only five witnesses. The Plaintiffs refused to produce one of the five and then came up with affidavits for people not listed as witnesses at summary judgment. Mr. Anderson filed excessive motions galore to run up the costs of the Defendants. Many, many motions were filed multiple times.
72. Mr. Anderson did improper coaching of witnesses during depositions. Mr. Anderson refused to allow the Defendants to take preservation of testimony depositions - telling the Defendants he would file actions in every state to stop the Defendants. Mr. Anderson refused to allow the Defendants to conduct discovery during mediation, and then he prolonged the mediation to eat up the discovery time.
73. Windsor believes Mr. Anderson falsely claimed Mr. Timothy Ruddy could not appear for the Maid of the Mist Corporation 30(b)(6) deposition because of a death in the family. Windsor suspects that Mr. Anderson participated in the destruction of evidence. Mr. Anderson submitted a Proposed Order and Corrected Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction that contained information that he knew was not in the record and knew was false.
74. Mr. Anderson withheld documents related to Judy Berry throughout the lawsuit. Windsor saw him reading from them at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing and during Windsorâ€™s deposition. Windsor called him on it at the deposition, and he lied. Then Windsor took Berry's deposition after discovery had closed, and two affidavits showed up as well as communication with Berry by Maid's attorneys. These documents had not been produced. Windsor called him on it, and Mr. Anderson stated in emails and letters that the affidavits were sent to the Defendants with a supplemental production. They were not. This is easily proven by examination of the supplemental production in MIST-1.
75. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.2: EXPEDITING LITIGATION â€“ â€œLawyers shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.â€
76. Maid attorneys delayed the litigation through filing excessive motions, amendments, updates, and corrections as well as by stalling the discovery process in every way imaginable.
77. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.2: EXPEDITING LITIGATION â€“ â€œDilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.â€
78. Maid attorneys brought the administration of justice into disrepute. The Verified Complaint in this case was false. 46 of the 50 sworn paragraphs were false or incorrect, and deposition testimony from the Plaintiffsâ€™ witnesses have proven these false sworn statements. The Verified Complaint wasnâ€™t drafted by Mr. Anderson. It apparently wasnâ€™t investigated by Mr. Anderson. It should have been clear that the action would serve merel to harass or maliciously injure the Defendants. The Plaintiffs knew that many of the claims in the Verified Complaint were false. Maid and Maidâ€™s Attorneys specifically knew that the claim that the Defendants stole money from customers and other claims were false. Details of the False Statements in the Verified Complaint are provided in Exhibit #1 to the Third Declaration of William M. Windsor, attached to the Motion to Reopen Case filed April 24, 2009. [CD-ROM files: Motion to Reopen - Exhibit 1 - Complaint and Glynn Affidavit 2005-08-25 - False Statements - 2009-05-12.]
79. Mr. Anderson filed alleged proof of damages on tortious interference claim with no proof. After having sworn testimony from the customers involved that proved there were no damages, he made the same claim yet again in the summary judgment filing. Mr. Anderson filed statements of facts that were not supported by any evidence as well as â€œstatements of factsâ€ that were false and were not evidence before the Court.
80. Mr. Anderson withheld important documents claiming irrelevant. Mr. Anderson abused the discovery process in every way imaginable. Mr. Anderson failed to produce documents provided by client. Mr. Anderson produced documents a year late at the end of discovery when it was too late for the defendants to do anything with them.
81. Maid attorneys failed to produce witnesses for depositions. Mr. Anderson refused to provide names and contact information for witnesses.
82. Mr. Anderson filed duplicative motions and court filings as a routine practice. Mr. Anderson used the mediation process to run out the discovery clock. Mr. Anderson delayed producing the first Plaintiffsâ€™ deponent until 45 days before the close of discovery. Mr. Anderson delayed in producing important documents until 25 days before the close of discovery â€“ documents due 11 months before.
83. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3L CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.â€ Mr. Anderson made many false statements of fact. Mr. Anderson made false statements of material facts to the courts in Civil Action Nos. 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, 1:09-CV-02027-WSD, and in numerous appellate court filings.
84. Mr. Anderson heard the false pleadings proven to be false by the testimony of the employees of the client and did nothing about it. Mr. Anderson used false documents to obtain the Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Anderson suborned perjury. Maid attorneys counseled their client on how to be tricky in wording affidavits to avoid perjury. Mr. Anderson tampered with witnesses.
85. Mr. Anderson came to know the falsity of material evidence, but he never took remedial measures. He heard the sworn testimony in the case by his own clients that proved hundreds of false sworn statements. Mr. Anderson knew that his clientâ€™s employees had committed multiple counts of perjury but he failed to make disclosure to avoid assisting criminal and fraudulent acts by his client.
86. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.â€
87. Maid Attorneys never disclosed any of the material facts to the courts that they knew about criminal and fraudulent acts by the Plaintiffs.
88. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.â€
89. Maid Attorneys offered a massive amount of false evidence. Documents used in MIST-1 include falsified documents and documents that appeared in one form before discovery closed and then in a different form as part of the summary judgment filing.
90. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œIf a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.â€
91. Maid attorneys knew that material evidence they offered was false, but they took no remedial measures whatsoever. Maid attorneys knew the Verified Complaint was false, but they did nothing. They knew the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was false, but they did nothing. They knew the motion for summary judgment was false. They knew that motions for sanctions were false and without legal basis. They filed a motion to have Windsor, his son, and Alcatraz Media found in contempt, and they knew the motion was frivolous and totally without factual or legal foundation. They knew documents were false or incorrect. They knew witnesses had committed perjury. They never took any remedial measures.
92. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œWhen evidence that a lawyer knows to be false is provided by a person who is not the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer it regardless of the client's wishes.â€
93. Mr. Anderson presented an overwhelming amount of false evidence. Mr. Anderson never notified the Court of false evidence and false testimony that was filed with the Court.
94. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œAn advocate must disclose the existence of the client's deception to the court or to the other party.â€
95. Maid attorneys knew that material evidence they offered was false, but they did not notify Judge Evans or the Defendants. Maid attorneys knew the Verified Complaint was false; they knew the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was false; they knew the motion for summary judgment was false; they knew motions for sanctions were false; they knew motions for contempt were false; they knew various filings in the appellate courts were false; but they did nothing. They knew documents were false or incorrect. They knew witnesses had committed perjury. They never notified the courts or the Defendants.
96. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œIf there is an issue whether the client has committed perjury, the lawyer cannot represent the client in resolution of the issue, and a mistrial may be unavoidable.â€
97. Maid attorneys knew their client committed perjury, but they did nothing. Mr. Anderson is especially guilty of this as he sat through every deposition and hearing and was involved with everything that happened once the lawsuit was filed.
98. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œAn advocate must disclose the existence of perjury with respect to a material fact, even that of a client.â€
99. Mr. Anderson presented an overwhelming amount of false evidence. Mr. Anderson never notified the Court of false evidence and false testimony that was filed with the Court. Mr. Anderson was aware of significant perjury by his client. Mr. Anderson never notified the Court of the perjury, false evidence, and false testimony that was filed with the Court
100. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œA lawyer has authority to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer believes is untrustworthy.â€
101. Mr. Anderson presented an overwhelming amount of false evidence. Mr. Anderson never notified the Court of false evidence and false testimony that was filed with the Court. Windsor believes Mr. Anderson participated in generating false evidence and false testimony.
102. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL â€“ â€œLawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct.â€
103. Maid attorneys encouraged improper fraudulent and criminal conduct.
104. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence.â€
105. Maid attorneys concealed evidence, altered evidence, withheld evidence until the last few days of discovery, and much more. Mr. Anderson withheld important documents claiming they were irrelevant when they were not. Mr. Anderson abused the discovery process in every way imaginable. Mr. Anderson failed to produce documents provided by client. This is proven by extensive deposition testimony of Mr. Robert Schul, Controller for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Anderson produced documents a year late at the end of discovery when it was too late for the defendants to do anything with them. Maid attorneys failed to produce witnesses for depositions. Maid attorneys failed to provide names and contact information for witnesses. Windsor believes Maidâ€™s Attorneys filed bogus documents with Judge Evans for in camera inspection, and Judge Evans did not allow Windsor to see the documents. These documents will prove fraud upon the courts.
106. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyers shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.â€
107. Maid Attorneys concealed and withheld many documents. Maid attorneys blocked access to important documents.
108. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not counsel or assist another person to unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.â€
109. Maid attorneys wrongly frustrated the rights of the Defendants to establish a claim or defense by participating in altering, concealing, and/or destroying evidence for the purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding
110. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not falsify evidence. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense.â€
111. Maid attorneys falsified evidence. Mr. Andersonâ€™s Proposed Order and Corrected Proposed Order and Statement of Facts at preliminary injunction was false. Mr. Andersonâ€™s alleged Statement of Facts at summary judgment was false. Mr. Anderson committed perjury, and Maid attorneys suborned perjury by allowing their clients and others to submit false evidence.
112. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely.â€
113. Maid attorneys suborned perjury by allowing their clients and others to submit false evidence. Windsor believes Maid attorneys drafted false affidavits intentionally and put words in the mouths of witnesses.
114. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyers shall not request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party.â€
115. Maid attorneys suborned perjury by allowing their clients and others to submit false evidence. Windsor believes Maid attorneys drafted false affidavits intentionally and put words in the mouths of witnesses. Windsor believes Maid attorneys advised witnesses to refuse to appear for depositions. Windsor believes Maid attorneys coached witnesses as to what to say in depositions and affidavits.
116. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyersshall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.â€
117. Maid attorneys included two bogus criminal charges in the Verified Complaint â€“ theft and bribery -- for the apparent purpose of trying to obtain advantage in the civil matter. The Time Slips of Maid attorneys show that Maid attorneys contacted both the New York Attorney General and the Georgia Athletic and Entertainment Commission in what Windsor alleges is an attempt to fabricate criminal charges.
118. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œLawyers must allowevidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively.â€
119. Mr. Anderson participated in the destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like. The discovery abuse in MIST-1 was gargantuan.
120. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL â€“ â€œA lawyer may not disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel.â€
121. Maid attorneys totally disregarded the rights of the Defendants and the attorney for the Defendants. Mr. Anderson lied to the Defendants and to the attorney for the Defendants.
122. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 4.1: TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS â€“ â€œLawyersshall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.â€
123. Maid attorneys made false statements of material facts as a routine matter. Mr. Anderson led to the Defendants and their attorney. Mr. Anderson lied in court. Mr. Anderson allowed his client to lie hundreds of times.
124. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 4.1: TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS â€“ â€œLawyersshall not fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.â€
125. Windsor has submitted that Plaintiffs committed many fraudulent and criminal acts. Maid attorneys never disclosed anything.
126. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 4.1: TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS â€“ â€œA misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false.â€
127. Maid attorneys lied to the Defendants and their attorney. Mr. Anderson lied in court. Mr. Anderson allowed his client to lie hundreds of times. Mr. Anderson failed to correct false statements made by his client. Mr. Anderson attended the depositions where he heard witnesses for the Plaintiffs swear to testimony that proved false statements made by other witnesses for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Anderson presented false statements in the Proposed Order and Corrected proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction and in the so-called â€œStatement of Factsâ€ at summary judgment.
128. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 4.1: TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS â€“ â€œMisrepresentations can also occur by failure to act.â€
129. Maid attorneys presented an overwhelming amount of false evidence. Mr. Anderson never notified the courts of false evidence and false testimony that was filed with the courts. Windsor believes Mr. Anderson participated in generating false evidence and false testimony.
130. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 4.4: RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS â€“ â€œLawyers shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.â€
131. Maid attorneys filed MIST-1to embarrass and burden the Defendants. The lawsuit is especially egregious as to Windsor, because he did nothing wrongful that Maid attorneys and the Plaintiffs claimed he did personally.
132. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 8.3: REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT â€“ â€œA lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, should inform the appropriate professional authority.â€
133. Mr. Mendell and Ms. Bright had a duty to inform the appropriate professional authority about Mr. Andersonâ€™s violations. Mr. Anderson had a duty to inform the appropriate professional authority about Mr. Brownâ€™s violations. I do not believe anyone was notified of anything.
134. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT â€“ â€œA lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office should inform the appropriate authority.â€
135. Maid attorneys should have reported Judge Evans, but they were happy to be the recipient of violations that were repeatedly favorable to them.
136. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT â€“ â€œLawyers 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.â€
137. Maid attorneys committed many violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Anderson violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct routinely. Mr. Anderson knowingly assisted or induced others to do so.
138. Maidâ€™s Attorneys have violated RULE 8.4: MISCONDUCT â€“ â€œLawyers shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.â€
139. Maid attorneys engaged in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Obstruction Of Justice â€“ concealing documents
140. Maidâ€™s Attorneys are guilty of Obstruction Of Justice â€“ concealing documents â€“18 USC Â§ 1512(c) and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93. â€œA person commits the offense of subornation of perjury or false swearing when he procures or induces another to commit the offense of perjury or the offense of false swearing and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both.â€
Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621
141. Anyone who willfully makes false statements made under oath before a competent tribunal, officer or person or expressly under penalty of perjury, on a material matter which the defendant does not believe to be true violates 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621.
142. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621. H&P and Mr. Anderson knowingly made false, material statements or declarations that they knew were false at the time, made in a proceeding before or ancillary to a court. These statements were made voluntarily and intentionally.
143. Proof of these false statements is detailed in Dec #35 filed in 1:09-CV-02027 and in Dec #25 â€“ MIST-1 Doc. 462 and in the Verified Complaint in MIST-2.
Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1623
144. Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under Â§ 1746 of Title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration.
145. Anyone who knowingly makes any false material declaration under oath in a court proceeding violates 18 USC Â§ 1623 (a).
146. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1623.
147. H&P and Mr. Anderson knowingly made false, material statements or declarations that she knew were false at the time, made in a proceeding before or ancillary to a court. These statements were made voluntarily and intentionally.
148. Proof of these false statements is detailed in Dec #35 filed in 1:09-CV-02027 and in Dec #25 â€“ MIST-1 Doc. 462 and in the Verified Complaint in MIST-2.
149. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings.
Obstruction of Justice -- Conspiracy to Defraud United States â€“ 18 U.S.C. Â§ 371
150. 18 USC Â§ 371 makes it a federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to defraud the United States or any of its agencies. To "defraud" the United States means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft, or trickery.
151. The accused attorneys were part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
152. Defendants agreed to take various actions to obstruct justice with the federal courts.
153. Defendants performed acts and/or made statements that they knew to be false, fraudulent, and/or deceitful in courts, which disrupted the functions of the courts. Defendants obstructed legitimate government functions. Defendants knew statements were false or fraudulent when made.
154. Several of the conspirators committed overt acts of obstruction of justice. The overt acts were knowingly committed to carry out the object of the conspiracy or were carried out by failing to take action to stop it.
False Unsworn Statements â€“ Violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1746
155. H&P and Mr. Anderson made false â€œunswornâ€ statements.
156. H&P and Mr. Anderson violated 18 U.S.C. 1746.
False Swearing â€“ Making False Statements â€“ Violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001
157. H&P and Mr. Anderson have falsified, concealed and/or covered up material facts by trick, scheme and/or device.
158. H&P and Mr. Anderson have made false, fictitious and/or fraudulent statements or representations.
159. Statements made were both written and oral.
160. H&P and Mr. Anderson have made or used false writing and/or documents knowing the same to contain false, fictitious, and/or fraudulent statements or entries.
161. The specifics of false representations are detailed in the Factual Background provided in MIST-1 Docket 462, 377, 378, and 474, referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto.
162. H&P and Mr. Anderson have each falsified, concealed, or covered up a material fact by tricks, schemes, or devices; made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations; and made or used false documents or writings.
163. Facts that have been falsified, concealed, or covered up were material, made knowingly and willfully, and made in relation to matters in the NDGa, WDNY, or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
164. False, fictitious, or fraudulent statements made were material, made knowingly and willfully, and made in relation to matters in the N.D.Ga, W.D.N.Y., or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
165. False documents or writing used by H&P and Mr. Anderson were false, material, made knowingly and willfully, and made in relation to matters in the N.D.Ga., W.D.N.Y., or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
166. Statements were made both orally and in writing. 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001 does not require that statements be sworn, so it covers all writings by Mr. Anderson and H&P.
167. Statements were made with reckless disregard of the truthfulness of the statements or with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truthfulness of the statements.
168. Mr. Anderson and H&P signed affidavits that were filed containing false statements. The statements made were false, material, made knowingly and willfully, and made in relation to matters in the NDGa, WDNY, or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
169. The statements were made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity, and/or to mislead.
170. Details are provided in Evans Docket 462, Evans Docket 377 â€“ Amended Declaration #3 and Exhibits 9 and 22 thereto, Evans Docket 378, and Evans Docket 474, referenced and incorporated herein as if attached hereto.
171. Statements were made that contemplated that the statements were to be utilized in courts of the State of Georgia and/or United States.
172. H&P and Mr. Anderson either knew statements were false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth.
173. The truth was concealed and/or covered up.
174. Half-truths were told.
175. Each violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001is a separate violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001. Windsor has not yet attempted to count these, but the number is significant.
176. Article 18, Sec. 4, of the United States Code, "â€¦Whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony, cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible, make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority, under the United States, is guilty of the federal crime of Misprision of a felony."
177. The accused attorneys had knowledge of felonies. They did not report the felonies or take action on the felonies. This makes them guilty of Misprision of Felonies.
178. This Court should refer this matter to the appropriate authorities for action.
Conspiracy to Suborn Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 USC Â§ 1622
179. Various Defendants committed perjury.
180. H&P and Mr. Anderson conspired to procure the perjury corruptly.
181. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe it to be false testimony.
182. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
183. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Subornation of Perjury.
184. The testimony given was false. At the time the witnesses testified, the witnesses knew the testimony was false. The witnesses gave such testimony voluntarily and intentionally. The false testimony was material.
Subornation of Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 USC Â§ 1623
185. Various Defendants committed perjury.
186. H&P and Mr. Anderson procured the perjury corruptly.
187. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe it to be false testimony.
188. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
189. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Subornation of Perjury.
190. The testimony given was false. At the time the witnesses testified, the witnesses knew the testimony was false. The witnesses gave such testimony voluntarily and intentionally. The false testimony was material.
Subornation of Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 USC Â§ 1621
191. Various Defendants committed perjury.
192. H&P and Mr. Anderson procured the perjury corruptly.
193. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe it to be false testimony.
194. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
195. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Subornation of Perjury.
196. The testimony given was false. At the time the witnesses testified, the witnesses knew the testimony was false. The witnesses gave such testimony voluntarily and intentionally. The false testimony was material.
Subornation of Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 USC Â§ 1503
197. Various Defendants committed perjury.
198. H&P and Mr. Anderson procured the perjury corruptly.
199. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe it to be false testimony.
200. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
201. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Subornation of Perjury.
202. The testimony given was false. At the time the witnesses testified, the witnesses knew the testimony was false. The witnesses gave such testimony voluntarily and intentionally. The false testimony was material.
Subornation of Perjury â€“ Violation of 18 USC Â§ 1001
203. Various Defendants committed perjury.
204. H&P and Mr. Anderson procured the perjury corruptly.
205. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe it to be false testimony.
206. H&P and Mr. Anderson knew, believed, or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.
207. H&P and Mr. Anderson are guilty of Subornation of Perjury.
208. The testimony given was false. At the time the witnesses testified, the witnesses knew the testimony was false. The witnesses gave such testimony voluntarily and intentionally. The false testimony was material.
209. Windsor has had serious eye problems in 2010. He has had three surgeries thus far, and he may have more. At the present time, Windsor cannot effectively read anything printed. This COMPLAINT has been written on a giant 30-inch monitor that sits approximately 30-inches from Windsorâ€™s eyes. Windsor can read the monitor with larger type. But reading documents that are not in Microsoft Word on the computer screen is essentially impossible. Windsor has ordered four new pairs of glasses, including an experimental pair, and he hopes that pone of the four will enable him to read without dizziness, headaches, and nausea. This COMPLAINT was written by copying, pasting, and modifying information that Windsor had previously written. It does not yet provide the level of detail that Windsor wants to provide for wrongdoing in 2009 and 2010. H&P and Mr. Anderson have continued to file false pleadings and have violated many of the rules cited above. Mr. Anderson has also made false statements to Judge Evans in hearings. Mr. Anderson and H&P have illegally field liens against the personal asserts of both Windsor and Windsorâ€™s wife, who is not involved in any of this litigation. As soon as Windsor can read, he will review all of the filings by Mr. Anderson and H&P in 2009 and 2010, and he will prepare an itemized list of violations with the proof of the violations.
210. Windsor has been damaged by the violation of the rules, the Code of professional Conduct, and these criminal statutes by Maidâ€™s Attorneys. Windsor has been restrained or enjoined since the Temporary Restraining Order was issued on April 3, 2006. Windsor has incurred approximately ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS in litigation expense due to the wrongful actions of Maidâ€™s Attorneys. Windsor has incurred damages due to refunds, expenses, lost profits, slander, and more.
WHEREFORE, Windsor respectfully requests that the Court do as follows:
(1) order that the Clerk of the Court issue subpoenas so Windsor can take depositions and subpoena documents;
(2) grant a hearing on this Complaint;
(3) strike the pleadings of the Plaintiffs;
(4) dissolve the Injunctions;
(5) order the Plaintiffs to pay Windsorâ€™ litigation expense to date;
(6) order the Plaintiffs to repay the litigation expenses paid by Windsor
(7) repay to Windsor the costs that were levied by Courts;
(8) bar the Plaintiffs from filing a similar complaint in another court;
(9) conduct a hearing to consider the perjury of Christopher Glynn, Timothy P. Ruddy, Robert J. Schul, Sandra Carlson, and Judy Berry and hear the testimony of Glynn, Ruddy, Schul, Carlson, and Berry;
(10) order that the alleged professional misconduct of Mr. Brown, Mr. Russ, and Phillips Lytle, attorneys not a member of the State Bar of Georgia, justifies further inquiry by the court and should be referred to a Committee on Discipline appointed by the court for investigation;
(11) ask the State Bar of Georgia to investigate the actions of Mr. Anderson. Mr. Mendell, Ms. Bright, and Hawkins Parnell; and
(12) ask the New York Bar Association to investigate the actions of Mr. Marc W. Brown, Mr. Arthur Russ, and Phillips Lytle in this matter.
Respectfully submitted, this 12th day of October, 2010.
Telephone: 770-578-1094, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
About Carl Hugo Anderson
University Phillips UniversitÃ¤t, Marburg, Germany; Davidson College, B.A., 1984
Law School Mercer University, J.D., 1987
Admitted 1987, Georgia
Memberships Atlanta and American Bar Associations; State Bar of Georgia.
Born Glen Ridge, New Jersey, July 8, 1962
You are here: Home News Attorney Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Corruption Professional Misconduct Complaints Professional Misconduct Complaint Against Carl Hugo Anderson of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young