IRNewswires Special Reports Re Emergency Motion For Leave For DOJ To Show Cause For Criminal and Civil Contempt of Court Orders

IRNewswires Breaking News:
New U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams and USAG Merrick

Garland are named as respondents in new Criminal Contempt
Filings. Will the law be enforced? Is there a cover up of DOJ Crimes?
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams
“And Brutus and Cassius were honorable men.” (Julius Caesar).
IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigative Group

Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., Int’l Investigative Reporter
October 19, 2021
London, UK
IRN’s lawyers have received a copy of Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware’s

recent submission to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Mr. Ware is seeking to hold
Mr. Damian Williams, federal judge Edgardo Ramos, Mr. Merrick Garland, the U.S.
Attorney General, and other DOJ prosecutors in civil and criminal contempt for alleged
Page 1 of 122
October 19, 2021
IRNewswires 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project
“egregious willful violation of the Brady Court Orders” and “Court Judgments”
according to the claims in the court filing. In the filings Mr. Ware claimed that the U.S.
Attorney’s Office (SDNY), DOJ’s prosecutors, and others deliberately and willfully
withheld, suppressed, and concealed material Brady exculpatory evidence that proved
his innocence of all charges in the “bogus” and “fraudulent” indictments obtained by
the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
IRN’s lawyers and investigators have reviewed Mr. Ware’s claims and the “clear
and convincing evidence” attached to the criminal contempt filing and conclude that
Mr. Ware is absolutely correct that material Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence was deliberately suppressed and concealed by the DOJ’s prosecutors and
the federal judges assigned to his cases, Robert W. Sweet (deceased) and Williams H.
Pauley, III (deceased).
Mr. Ware’s civil and criminal contempt filing raises a very serious and existential
threat to Mr. Williams, Judge Ramos, Chief Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, and the U.S.
Attorney General Mr. Garland, officers of the court. How is it possible that Mr.
Williams and Mr. Garland, a former federal judge, can remain in their respective
positions at the U.S. Department of Justice and at the same time be guilty of willful and
bad faith suppression and concealment of Brady exculpatory evidence in willful
resistance and violation of Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments? Criminal
contempt of the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments is a crime, a high crime and
misdemeanor, that will likely cause Mr. Williams, Mr. Garland, Judge Ramos, and Chief
Judge Taylor-Swain to face impeachment charges and criminal prosecution if the law is
enforced as it was fraudulently enforced against Mr. Ware. This case is a no-win
situation for Mr. Garland, the U.S. Attorney General.
IRN retained a retired U.S. federal judge, an expert in U.S. law and procedure, to
review and advise IRN on Mr. Ware’s claims. According to IRN’s experts, Chief District
Judge Laura Taylor-Swain is now faced with enforcing Local Rule District Court
(SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) against the lawyers named in Mr. Ware’s filing; which is a very
serious and dubious circumstance for Chief Judge Taylor-Swain. On the one hand, she
is likely a ‘team player’ and will probably attempt to stall and delay performing her
official duties and obligations of convening the required Disciplinary Committee to
investigate Mr. Ware’s credible claims. On the other hand, Judge Taylor-Swain has
personal and official liability under the Federal Tort Claim Act for abuse of process,
Page 2 of 122
October 19, 2021
deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud on the court if she acts with a evil and criminal
motive and stalls and delays the required investigation of the DOJ’s prosecutors and
the lawyers that were involved in Mr. Ware’s cases. Thus, in either case, Judge Taylor-
Swain has potential liability for aiding and abetting the continued willful resistance of
the “Brady Court Orders” and the “Court Judgments” which is a crime that Judge
Taylor-Swain is required to be criminally prosecuted according to Title 18 Sections
401(2) and 401(3) of the U.S. Code; notwithstanding an egregious violation of the Code
of Conduct for Federal Judges, i.e., indisputable judicial misconduct.
IRN’s lawyers and investigators will continue to investigate and provide

commentary and reporting on the ongoing criminal contempt proceedings in the
Manhattan federal courts concerning Judge Edgardo Ramos, U.S. Attorney Damian
Williams, Chief Judge Taylor-Swain, and the U.S. Attorney General, Mr. Merrick
Garland.
Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain
Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved

IRNewswires Media Group
Page 3 of 122
October 19, 2021
Docket NO: 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) (52A.1)
Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
_____________________________
Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Prevailing Party”), Petitioner
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Submitted on October 18, 2021
In the United States District Court

For the Southern District of New York
____________________________
Emergency Motion for Leave to Enforce Compliance with the Brady
Court Orders and Court Judgments by Civil Contempt and Fed. R. Crim.
P. Rule 42 Criminal Contempt Proceedings:
In re Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments.1

_________________________
Certificate of Service
I Ulysses T. Ware have this 18th day of October 2021, served the United States DOJ’s
lawyer, Damian Williams (SDNY), with a copy of this pleading via email to
[email protected].
1
See page 5, infra. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, infra.
Page 4 of 122
October 19, 2021
Table of Contents
1. Opening statement …………………………………….. 3

2. Lawful Brady Court Orders and Court Judgements …………. 5
3 Requested reliefs …………………………….. 6
4. Claims …………………………….. 14
5. The legal standards …………………………….. 18
6. October 18, 2021, Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware …………. 22
7. Edgardo Ramos’ high crimes and misdemeanors, …………….. 49
civil and criminal contempts; and civil and criminal contempts of
DOJ prosecutors Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta,
Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Damian Williams, Melissa Childs,
Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, and other DOJ prosecutors.
8. Exhibits 1 thru 28 ………………………………. 58

clear and convincing evidence of civil
and criminal contempt, and other high
crimes and misdemeanors of Edgardo Ramos.
Page 5 of 122
October 19, 2021
A. Opening Statement:
Petitioner, the Prevailing Party, contends that the willful and knowing civil and criminal
contempt of the lawful court orders and judgment listed in Section 1, A., infra, (the “Court
Orders”) are lawful definitive court orders entered by the District Court (SDNY) or the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Thus, the Government Lawyers2 and their accomplices’ willful and
knowing resistance, hindrance, avoidance, subversion, and impeded the definitive commands
and inherent preclusive effects of the Court Orders is a “crime in the ordinary sense”3 against the
lawful judicial authority of the District Court (SDNY), and the Court of Appeals, which issued the
Court Orders, to accord Ulysses T. Ware, the constitutional right to due process of law. This
insidious, malicious, and pugnacious and repeated crime was and is an unprecedented egregious
and willful and bad faith crime, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), committed by DOJ prosecutors, a
purported federal judge Edgardo Ramos,4 acting in his individual and personal capacity, the
retained and CJA counsels5, and others as a deliberate and intentional series of overt acts, a
2
See n. 6, infra.
3
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). (“Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a
violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.”). (emphasis
added).
4
The criminal contempt crimes committed by Edgardo Ramos are high crimes and misdemeanors and
subjects Ramos to the Impeachment Power of Congress; furthermore, Ramos’ crimes require the District
Court (SDNY) to immediately refer Ramos to the Executive Director of the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts with a recommendation that Ramos be impeached and prosecuted for his crimes against the
law, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3). An insidious violation of the Codes of Conduct and Canons for Federal
Judges.
5
The CJA counsels, Marlon Kirton, Esq., and Gary G. Becker, Esq., are required to be criminally prosecuted
for filing false claims and perjury in the fabrication and fraudulent creation and submission of false CJA
compensation documents to the District Court (SDNY). Both Kirton and Becker did not perform as Sixth
Page 6 of 122
October 19, 2021
pattern of racketeering activity, in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct due process of law,
violate the Supreme Court’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, violate the DOJ’s policy expressed in
the U.S. Attorney’s Manual Sections 9-5.001-002, and knowingly and willfully impeded and
hindered the administration of the criminal justice by the District Court (SDNY) and the Court of
Appeals.
Amendment counsel, but, rather, as an accomplice with, and aided and abetted, the Government Lawyers
to resist and disobey the commands and inherent preclusive effects of the Brady Court Orders and Court
Judgments willfully and knowingly.
Page 7 of 122
October 19, 2021
I.
A. Lawful court orders and final judgments entered in favor of Ulysses T. Ware, the
Prevailing Party, which have been willfully and knowingly civilly and criminally resisted,
avoided, hindered, impeded, and effectively voided by the Government Lawyers and their
accomplices in willful violation of 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), criminal contempt, and in willful
and knowing violation the ethical and professional responsibility standards for lawyers
imposed by the District Court (SDNY), Local Rule (USDC) SDNY Rule 1.5(b)(5).
(1) In re August 10, 2007, Brady Disclosure Court Order, United States v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY)(RWS), (“1224”), Dkt. 32, Exhibit 2; and
(2) In re May 19, 2006, Brady Disclosure Court Order, United States v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) (WHP), (“1115”), Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9, Exhibit 3; Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 jointly, the “Brady Court
Orders.”6
(3) In re August 18, 2009, superseding final judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07-
5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.), Gov.-I, ), Exhibit 4; and
(4) In re December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. ICG Corp., a/k/a GPMT, et
al., 02cv2219 (SDNY)(LBS), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2) final order-judgment, Exhibit 5; Exhibit 4
and Exhibit 5 jointly, (the “Court Judgments”); and
(5) In re October 30, 2007, final judgment of the Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 48 Government
Lawyers’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
indictment, Exhibit 1, against Ulysses T. Ware, the “Dismissal Judgment.”
_______________________________
6
Criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), governs the ethical and professional responsibility
standards of the Government’s lawyers, to wit, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Jeffrey R.
Ragsdale, Damian Williams, Margaret Garnett, Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany,
Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, David N. Kelley, Michael
J. Garcia, Steve R. Peikin, Joon Kim, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Eddy, Alexander J. Wilson,
and Preet Bharara, jointly and severally, (the “Government Lawyers”), in regard to their full compliance
with the terms and commands of the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments.
Page 8 of 122
October 19, 2021
II.
A. Requested Reliefs.
Comes now Ulysses T. Ware, the Petitioner-Prevailing Party, and on behalf of the Brady
Court Orders and Court Judgments, moves the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, (the “USDC”), and/or the Hon. Chief District Court Judge, District Court
(SDNY), pursuant to the Court’s General Supervisory Authority and jurisdiction noted and
explained in In re Snyder7, United Stated v. Hammed8, and United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727,
735 n. 7 (1980)9 for the USDC and/or Chief District Judge the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, given the
unprecedented ethical violations, professional responsibility violations, fraud, corruption, frauds
on the court, conspiracy to obstruct justice, kidnapping, mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to
commit bankruptcy fraud, securities fraud, racketeering, money laundering, perjury, bribery,
kickbacks, knowingly and willful civil and criminal contempt of court orders by government
lawyers, officers of the court, and their agents, privies, and those acting in concert with the
Government’s Lawyers to:
1. docket this request for the District Court to invoke its General Supervisory Authority and
Jurisdiction and impose disciplinary sanctions and other remedies,
7
472 U.S. 634, 645 n. 6 (1985).
8
858 F.2d 834, 837, 841 (2d Cir. 1988) (“This restriction [DR 7-104(A)(1)] is not statutorily mandated. The
federal courts enforce professional responsibility standards pursuant to their general supervisory
authority over members of the bar.“ Id. at 841, “For half a century, the Supreme Court has recognized
that "civilized conduct of criminal trials" demands federal courts be imbued with sufficient discretion to
ensure fair proceedings. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 342 (1939). Thus, as Justice Frankfurter
observed, "[j]udicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts implies the
duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence." McNabb, 318 U.S. at
340, 63 S.Ct. at 612. Such standards constitute an exercise of the courts' supervisory authority. McNabb,
318 U.S. at 341.”). (emphasis added).
9
(supervisory power "permits federal courts to supervise the administration of criminal justice
among the parties before the bar").
Page 9 of 122
October 19, 2021
2. enter a show cause order directed to Edgardo Ramos, in his personal and individual
capacity as a lawyer10, an officer of the court;
3. enter a show cause order directed to the Government Lawyers, Marlon Kirton, Edward
T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, David Levitt, Gary G. Becker, and Michael F. Bachner,
4. to show cause why the District Court (SDNY) shall not immediately refer each to the
United States Department of Justice’s Division on Public Integrity and the Criminal
Division with a recommendation to prosecute each for criminal contempt of the Brady
Court Orders and the Court Judgments; prosecute each for conspiracy to obstruct justice;
and prosecute each aiding and abetting the Hobbs Act money laundering conspiracy run
by Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), LH Financial Services, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter,
convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., and others known
and unknown, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere;
5. for each to show cause why the District Court shall not refer each to their respective state
Bar Associations with a recommendation for disbarment;
6. for each to show cause why the District Court shall not immediately suspend each from
appearing in the District Court (SDNY) while this matter is pending;
7. and for the District Court to conduct a public, adversarial, evidentiary investigation and
adjudication of the merits of the claims and order the belligerents to show cause why
each shall not be civilly detained and incarcerated until full compliance is made of the
Court Orders, and each jointly and severally sanctioned as a civil penalty at the New York
10
Ramos conducted the 1224 and 1115 proceedings in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” and, thus,
acted in his individual and personal capacity: Ramos as a matter of law could not function as an Article
III federal judge lacking subject matter jurisdiction over the 1224 and 1115 proceedings. Ramos has
functioned as the de facto co-counsel to the Government Lawyers, and Ramos has aided, abetted, and
encouraged the Government’s Lawyers to continue to resist, avoid, hinder, frustrate, impede, and subvert
all reasonable steps of full compliance with the Brady Court Orders and the Court Judgments willfully and
knowingly. Ramos refused all requests to “affirmatively” confirm the subject matter jurisdiction of the
1224 and 1115 courts over the proceedings. Thus, the negative presumption that jurisdiction is lacking
until “affirmatively confirmed” by the Government is controlling.
Page 10 of 122
October 19, 2021
state false incarceration and restrain and loss of liberty rate of $325,000 (USD) each day11
beginning on May 19, 2006, and accruing each day until full compliance is made regarding
the requirements and obligations of the Court Orders.
Further Requested relief:
Petitioner, Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party12, moves the District Court on behalf of
the Brady Court Orders, and the Court Judgments for the USDC and/or the Hon. Chief Judge Laura
Taylor Swain, pursuant to the District Court’s inherent general supervisory authority, Local Rules
1.5(b)(5) (SDNY), and the USDC’s inherent jurisdiction13 to enforce its own orders and judgments
to enter an order directed to the United States Department of Justice’s, (the “DOJ’s”), lawyers,
their agents, their privies, and all those in active concert therewith, (the “Government’s
Lawyers”), officers of the court, who actually or constructively have appeared before the District
11
See Martinez v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19141, 2005 WL 214333, at *1, *20-22 (SDNY
Sept. 2, 2005), aff’d, 445 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006) (Circuit upheld district court’s award for 19 hours of false
incarceration of $360,000 for loss of liberty, emotional distress, and mental anguish … reputation damage
was not considered).
12
Ulysses T. Ware is the prevailing party to the Brady Court Orders and the Court Judgments, and
therefore, has the absolute legal right to seek judicial enforcement of the Brady Court Orders and
Judgments to obtain immediate compliance and monetary compensation for all actual damages caused
by the civil and criminal contempt of the court orders and judgments. See n. 7, infra.
13
In general, "the power [jurisdiction] to punish for contempt [of the Brady Court Orders and the Court
Judgments, an ethical and professional responsibility standard violation by the Government Lawyers] is
inherent in all courts." Bowens v. Atlantic Maintenance Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 55, 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)
(citations omitted). "The underlying concern is 'disobedience to the orders of the [j]udiciary,' not 'merely
the disruption of court proceedings.'" Id. (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)). As such,
an individual [i.e., the Government’s Lawyers, Edgardo Ramos, and the retained and CJA counsels, and
others that aided or abetted the contempt of the court orders] who disobeys a valid order of the court
may be subject to both civil and criminal penalties for his actions. Id. (citing United States v. Petito, 671
F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1982)). "Criminal contempt is used to punish the contemnor or vindicate the court's
authority; civil contempt seeks to coerce the contemnor into compliance with the court's orders or to
compensate the complaining party [Ulysses T. Ware] for losses [+$2.225 billion dollars] incurred as a
result of the contemnor's conduct." Id. (citing Hess v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 846 F.2d
114, 115 (2d Cir. 1988)). (emphasis added).
Page 11 of 122
October 19, 2021
Court (SDNY) in both 1224 and 111514, and thus, are subject to the District Court’s general
supervisory authority and jurisdiction to enforce and oversee ethical and professional
responsibility standards of the DOJ’s lawyers who appear before the District Court, to order the
Government’s Lawyers, as officers of the court, those lawyers that appeared in 1224 and 1115,
and those who aided and/or abetted the Government Lawyers to resist, disobey, frustrate,
undermine, and effectively void the Court Orders to undertake the following affirmative ethical
and professional responsibility acts:
1. Certify under the penalty of perjury that “all reasonable steps” have been taken
to fully comply with all terms, conditions, commands, and inherent preclusive
effects of the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments;
2. Certify under oath that all material Brady exculpatory and favorable evidence was
and has been disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware regarding the 1224 and 1115
proceedings, in particular all Brady evidence that confirmed that each of the “Civil
Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 1224 indictment15 are unregistered broker-
dealers and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT, and, accordingly,
legally ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Act’s strict-
liability registration requirements, cf., SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), see Dkt.
294 (1115);
3. Certify that all favorable and material Brady impeachment, favorable, and
exculpatory evidence was disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware “prior to trial” or “before
14
The Government’s DOJ lawyers that actually and/or constructively appeared before the District Court
in 1115 and/or 1224 were Merrick Garland, Vanita Gupta, Lisa Monaco, Jeffrey Ragsdale, Damian
Williams, Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, and Michael J. Garcia,
Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Preet Bharara, David N.
Kelley, Joon Kim, Margaret Garnett, Sarah D. Eddy, Alexander J. Wilson, Steve R. Peikin, and Edgardo
Ramos (lacked all subject matter jurisdiction and thus, appeared and functioned as a covert DOJ
government agent in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 in his individual and personal capacity).
15
See Exhibit 7, and 7-1, infra.
Page 12 of 122
October 19, 2021
the start of trial” as ordered by the Brady Court Orders regarding para. 33 of the
SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned complaint, Exhibit 22;
4. Certify that no perjured or fabricated evidence was presented to any grand jury
or petit jury during the 1224 and 1115 proceedings by the Government’s Lawyers;
5. Certify that no Government Lawyers promised, offered, or gave anything of value
to the retained counsels of Ulysses T. Ware to have the retained counsels omit to
perform or deficiently perform any adversarial method or procedure required for
the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth Amendment;
6. Certify that the Government’s Lawyers, jointly or severally, did not conspire
and/or collude with Jeremy Jones and his CJA lawyer Marlon Kirton, Esq., an
officer of the court, for Kirton to have Jones knowingly and willfully commit
perjury, suborned by the Government’s Lawyers, and testify perjuriously at trial in
1115 that Jones was involved in a conspiracy with Ulysses T. Ware in contradiction
to Jones’ SEC deposition testimony16; and that Jones “artificially inflated” the
prices of the securities of INZS and SVSY in contradiction to the July 14, 2003,
judicial admission and confession of the SEC’s lawyers involved in SEC v. Small Cap
Research Group, Inc., 03-0831 (D. NV)17 at para. 33 (i.e., “the press releases did
not have the intended effect of increasing the stock price.”)
16
See Exhibit 8, infra.
17
SEC lawyers involved in the SEC-DOJ’s commingled Las Vega 03-0831 (D. NV) lawsuit, Jeffrey B. Norris,
Spencer C. Barasch, John C. Martin, Robert Hannan, Steve Webster, and Steve Korotash all agreed there
was (i) no conspiracy between Mr. Ware, Jones, and the Government’s 1115 trial witnesses, see Exhibit
8, infra, and (ii) there was no “artificial inflation” [increase] of INZS and SVSY’s securities’ “prices”, Exhibit
22, infra. Material Brady exculpatory evidence that was required to have been disclosed to Ulysses T.
Ware and Jeremy Jones “before the start of trial.” Cf., 1115 Brady Court Order, Exhibit 3, infra. Moreover,
the judicial admission by the SEC on July 14, 2003, 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint, Dkt. 1, para. 33, bound and
estopped the United States, the real party in interest, and its privies, the Government’s Lawyers named
herein, Exhibit 22, infra, in the 03-0831 (D. NV), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and in 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings.
Para. 8 is the Government’s Lawyers’ judicial admission and confession that the press releases of INZS and
SVSY, the same subject matter of the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings, were as a matter of law and fact
immaterial and accordingly not civilly or criminally actionable in the Article III federal court. Ergo, the
05cr1115 indictment failed to charge a securities fraud offense or a conspiracy to commit a securities
Page 13 of 122
October 19, 2021
7. (quoting para. 33)18;
8. Certify that the Government’s Lawyers did not engage in any unreported ex parte
communications with District Judges Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), William H.
Pauley, III, Robert W. Sweet, Leonard B. Sand, Margaret H. Murphy (BC NDGA),
Kent J. Dawson, (D. NV), Laura Taylor-Swain, or Edgardo Ramos;
9. Certify that the Government’s Lawyers have taken all reasonable steps and
procedures to honor, obey, enforce, and respect the actual and inherent
preclusive effects of the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2)
superseding final judgment entered in Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. IVG Corp.,
a/k/a/ GPMT, et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY) (LBS), Exhibit 5; and the Government’s
lawyers have not undertaken any willful or bad faith acts or actions that effectively
and/or actually or constructively resisted, frustrated, voided, undermined,
disobeyed, aided or abetted any person with knowledge of the Rule 41(a)(2) court
order to resist, void, frustrate, impede, hinder or delay full compliance with the
actual and inherent preclusive effect of the court order;
10. Certify that the Government’s Lawyers have taken “all reasonable steps” to fully
comply with the actual and inherent preclusive effects of the United States
Attorney General, (the “USAG’s”), November 7, 2008, Article II appellate political
decision, (the “USAG’s Article II Appellate Political Decision”19), to abort,
fraud offense; and furthermore, the 05cr1115 District Court (Pauley, J., Ramos, J.) lacked the required 18
USC 3231 “offense” and accordingly lacked all subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings. Hence, as
a matter of law the alleged and purported judgment of conviction and sentence entered in 05cr1115 is
null and void ab initio and moot.
18
See Exhibit 22, infra.
19
Current USAG the Hon. Merrick Garland and the DOJ are bound absolutely by the DOJ’s November 7,
2008, decision to abandon, abort, terminate, and dismiss with prejudice the United States cross-appeal,
Gov.-I, filed in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.); and bound absolutely by res judicata,
collateral estoppel, and the finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s protections in favor of Ulysses T.
Ware, (the “Prevailing Party”). See Exhibit 6 for the DOJ’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Gov.-I on
November 7, 2008.
Page 14 of 122
October 19, 2021
abandon, terminated and dismiss with prejudice the United States v. Ware, 07-
5670cr (XAP), Gov.-I, cross-appeal; and the same in regard to Exhibit 4-1, the
August 18, 2009, final judgment of the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) entered in 07-
5670cr (XAP), that ratified the USAG’s Article II appellate political decision to
confer prevailing party status, res judicata, collateral, and the protections of the
Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality on Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Prevailing
Party”);
11. For Marlon Kirton, Esq.20 to certify that he did not direct, suborn, assist, prepare,
encourage, or suggest to his client, government 1115 trial “principal witness”
Jeremy Jones, nor did he conspire and collude with the Government’s Lawyers to
have Jones knowingly lie, commit perjury and falsely testify he (Jones) was
involved in a conspiracy with Ulysses T. Ware21, and that he (Jones) “artificially
inflated” [increased] the “prices” of the INZS and SVSY’s securities in contradiction
to Jones’ SEC deposition testimony22;
20
Marlon Kirton, Esq. appeared in 1115 under CJA appointment as the attorney of record for codefendant
Jeremy Jones, the Government’s “principal witness” (quoting Kearse, J., August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr (2d
Cir.) opinion, see Exhibit 27, infra).
21
Cf., suppressed and concealed SEC Brady exculpatory evidence, Exhibit 8, infra, that confirmed the SEC’s
lawyers did not believe that Jones and the other 1115 government trial witnesses (Epps, Williams, Sadler,
and Jackson) participated in any conspiracy with Ulysses T. Ware as the reason they were not added to
the SEC-DOJ’s commingled Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) civil lawsuit. Indisputable favorable and exculpatory
Brady evidence covered by the 1115 Brady Court Order, Exhibit 3, infra. Willful and knowing civil and
criminal contempt, i.e., a crime, committed by the Government’s Lawyers; and egregious violations of the
District Court’s ethical and professional responsibility standards for government lawyers.
22
Cf., Exhibit 22, infra: Marlon Kirton, Esq., an officer of the court, represented Jones at the fabricated
and fraudulent October 2006, 1115, Rule 11 plea proceedings before Magistrate Judge Michael H.
Dolinger. Mr. Kirton knowingly and willfully colluded and conspired with the Government’s Lawyers (i.e.,
AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, et al.) and allowed, permitted, encouraged, and suborned his client
“principal witness” codefendant Jones to knowingly and intentionally lie, commit perjury, and commit a
fraud on the courts and falsely admit he was involved in a conspiracy with Ulysses T. Ware as the
fraudulent and fabricated legal and factual basis to permit the Government’s trial lawyers, AUSAs
Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, and Michael J. Garcia, to introduce
fabricated hearsay testimony into the 1115 trial record permitted by the hearsay exception, FRE
Page 15 of 122
October 19, 2021
12. For Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Michael F. Bachner, and David
Levitt23 to certify that at all time after being retained by Ulysses T. Ware they acted
and performed as Ulysses T. Ware’s Sixth Amendment counsel; and at all time
provided the “effective” “assistance” of “counsel” as required by the Sixth
Amendment; and at all time undertook all adversarial procedures and methods to
attack the government’s theory of prosecution in 1224 and 1115; and certify at no
time was Mr. Ware pressured to plead guilty to the charges in the 1224 and 1115
indictment; and at no time was Mr. Ware informed that no motions would be filed
because, “Judge Pauley will punish me if I do that … he is not a very nice person
….” (quoting Michael G. Bachner, Esq.); at no time was Mr. Ware informed, “ …
you can’t beat Judge Sand and his people up there … It’s best that you let us work
you out a good plea deal … else Mr. Southwell said that you either plead guilty or
go to trial and be found guilty … those are your choices, but you are going to prison
….” (quoting Edward T.M. Garland, Esq.);
13. For Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Vanita Gupta, Damian
Williams, Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, and the Government
Lawyers to certify as DOJ prosecutors, officers of the court, that since May 19,
2006, all “reasonable steps” and procedures have been undertaken to comply in
full with the Brady Orders’ commands and the Court Judgments’ actual and
inherent preclusive effects; and all material Brady exculpatory, impeachment, and
favorable evidence in the actual and/or constructive possession of the USAO, FBI,
FINRA, or SEC has been disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware as required by the express
and implicit commands of the Brady Court Orders;
801(d)(2)(E), which substantially prejudiced Ulysses T. Ware and the administration of criminal justice in
the District Court (SDNY).
23
Garland, Arora, and Levitt appeared in 1224 as the retained attorneys of records for Ulysses T. Ware;
Bachner appeared in 1115 as the retained attorney of record for Ulysses T. Ware.
Page 16 of 122
October 19, 2021
14. For the Government Lawyers to certify that they did not collude, conspire, or
encourage, aid or abet, assist, help, coordinate, or enable 1115 government
witness FBI analyst Maria Font to commit a fraud on the court, and fabricate and
manufacture bogus and fraudulent chart evidence, GX 92 and GX 93; and
knowingly and willfully in bad faith knowingly suborn the perjured trial testimony
of Font regarding GX 92 and GX 9324 that claimed in contradiction to Exhibit 22,
suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence, INZS, and SVSY’s press releases increased
the price of the securities;
15. For the Government Lawyers to certify that they did not collude, conspire,
encourage, aid, or abet, assist, help, coordinate, suborn or enable FBI special agent
David Makol to knowingly and willfully submit to the magistrate court, Exhibit 23,
his perjured affidavit25, used to procure bogus and fabricated arrest warrants for
Petitioner, Ulysses T. Ware, while Makol and the Government Lawyers knew they
lacked probable cause given para. 33, a binding judicial admission and confession,
Exhibit 22, in the U.S. SEC’s Las Vegas’ 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned complaint.
III.
A. Claims
Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party, hereby this 18th day of October 2021, incorporates
by reference and included the same herein, in heac verba, as if set forth herein, the October 18,
24
See Exhibit 8-1, infra, for Mr. Ware’s brutal cross-examination of Ms. Font in 1115, who in tears threw
in the towel and confessed she had no evidence at all that any press release of INZS and SVSY were ever
read by anyone.
25
Makol’s affidavit , Exhibit 23, is perjured because Makol, AUSA Southwell, and magistrate Andrew J.
Peck all knew and were aware of para. 33 in the 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned complaint, and aware of its
legal and factual consequences on probable cause: para. 33 as a matter of law vitiated and abrogated all
probable cause to arrest or indict Petitioner and Jeremy Jones regarding the immaterial press releases of
INZS and SVSY. As a matter of law and fact the United States (the SEC or DOJ) lacked Article III standing
and the Article III federal courts lacked Article III subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the moot subject
matter of immaterial press releases. Both 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 are moot.
Page 17 of 122
October 19, 2021
2021, Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware as the factual predicates necessary to invoke the District
Court (SDNY) inherent General Supervisory Authority and Jurisdiction to impose sanctions and
other remedies.
Petitioner claims that:
1. The Government Lawyers and their supervisors knowingly, willfully, in bad faith,
conspired and colluded with each other and with Petitioner’s retained counsels26,
Edgardo Ramos, the CJA counsels, and others, and knowingly aided and abetted the willful
resistance, hindrance, avoidance, disobedience, and generally impeded and deliberately
failed to undertake all reasonable steps in full compliance of the Brady Court Orders’
lawful definitive commands and disclose “all” material Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in the actual or constructive possession of the USAO, the SEC, the
FBI, or FINRA which substantially prejudiced Petitioner and denied Petitioner the
constitutional right to due process of law and a fair trial in 1224 and 1115;
2. And the Government Lawyers have deliberately and intentionally undertaken unethical
and unlawful illegal processes and procedures in egregious violation of the DOJ’s Rules
for Professional Responsibility and the New York Bar Association Rule on Professional
Conduct; and they knowingly in bad faith plotted, planned, and willfully illegally schemed
and have resisted, hindered, frustrated, impeded, acted in concert with Edgardo Ramos,
Petitioner’s retained counsels, with CJA counsels Gary G. Becker and Marlon Kirton, and
have covered up, hid, suppressed, and concealed material Brady exculpatory evidence
required to have been disclosed to Petitioner; have knowingly and willfully lied,
committed perjury, committed fraud on the court, and violation the ethical and
professional responsibility standards required by the New York Bar Association and the
DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct in numerous court filings, see Dkt. 250 (1115) (AUSA
Melissa Childs and Audrey Strauss);
26
Garland, Arora, Bachner, Levitt, CJA stand-by counsel Gary G. Becker, and CJA counsel Marlon Kirton,
Esq., for co-defendant Jeremy Jones.
Page 18 of 122
October 19, 2021
3. Edgardo Ramos, in “the clear absence of all jurisdiction” acted in his personal and
individual capacity as a lawyer, an officer of the court, and since on or around July 12,
2021, Ramos has been aware of the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments; and Ramos
has taken deliberate and insidious, unethical steps, processes, and procedures, and
Ramos has deliberately and intentionally implemented unlawful procedures in 1224 and
1115 (see Dkt. 304, 307, and 309) designed to unlawfully aid and abet the Government
Lawyers to resist, impede, hinder, avoid, and disobey the commands of the Brady Court
Orders and Court Judgments egregious violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judge;
and Ramos knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith aided and abetted the Government
Lawyers’ violations of the ethical and professional responsibility policies expressed in the
U.S. Attorney’s Manual Sections 9-5.001-02, and other sections.27 Ramos has deliberately
and intentionally lied, commit perjury, and committed a fraud on the federal courts in
egregious violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges when Ramos refused to
enforce the Brady Court Orders’ and Court Judgments’ express commands and inherent
preclusive effects;
27
Ramos has deliberately and intentionally refused all requests from the Petitioner to “affirmative
confirm” the Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction of the district courts over the 1224
and 1115 proceedings as required by binding Supreme Court and Circuit precedents; Ramos has
deliberately and intentionally while he lacked all subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings entered
ultra vires orders, Dkt. 304, 307, and 309, willfully designed to aid and abet the Government Lawyers to
continue to resist the Brady Court Order and the Court Judgments; Ramos has knowingly and willfully
relied on null and void ab initio purported filing injunctions, Dkt. 222 (1115) and Dkt. 160 (1224) entered
in violation of due process of law, as the illegal plan and scheme to enable the Government Lawyers to
continue to resist full compliance willfully and knowingly with the Brady Court Order and the Court
Judgments. Ramos has deliberately and in bad faith refused to adjudicate any motion or application
submitted to the court by Petitioner. Ramos has sua sponte refused to recuse himself while knowing that
he is in possession of material Brady exculpatory evidence regarding Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt),
exculpatory evidence – Ramos knows that he will be subpoenaed and compelled to testify as a material
witness at any evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s pending Brady motion, thus, his refusal to conduct any
evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s motion, see Dkt. 272, 299, 300, and undocketed 51B -- Ramos learned
during the 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) proceedings. See 1115 Dkt. 263, 267, 272, 276, 291, 299, 302,
300, 302, 303, 305, and undocketed 51A, 51B, 51C, 51D, 51E, 51F, 51G, and 51H.
Page 19 of 122
October 19, 2021
4. Garland, Arora, Levitt, and Bachner knowingly and willfully colluded and conspired with
the Government Lawyers as an illegal plan and scheme to violate Petitioner’s Sixth
Amendment constitutional right to the “effective” ”assistance” of “counsel”28 and for
personal and professional benefits violated the New York Bar Association Rules for
Professional Conduct in the egregious of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, trust, singular
focus and purpose, avoidance of any conflict of interest, etc., owed to their client, the
Petitioner.
5. CJA counsels, Marlon Kirton, Esq. and Gary G. Becker, Esq., see Facts 41 and 42, infra,
knowingly, willfully, intentionally colluded, conspired, aided, and abetted the
Government Lawyers to resist, avoid, hinder, subvert, and effectively void full compliance
with the commands of the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments.
6. Kirton lied, committed a fraud on the court, and conspired with the Government Lawyers
to suborn the perjury of his client government “principal witness” Jeremy Jones in
exchange for a secret deal that Jones would receive no prison time if Jones knowingly lied,
perjured himself and fabricated trial testimony that he was involved in a conspiracy with
Ulysses T. Ware, and that he (Jones) “artificially inflated” or “increased” the “prices” of
INZS and SVSY’s securities, in complete contradiction to Jones’ SEC sworn deposition
testimony. See Exhibits 8 and 22.
7. Becker functioned as and functioned as a covert government agent on behalf of the
Government Lawyers, and acted as and functioned as the conduit for the Government
Lawyers to receive stolen confidential information concerning the trial strategy for
Ulysses T. Ware.
28
Garland, Arora, Levitt, and Bachner all refused to file any adversarial motion that challenged any aspect
of the Government’s alleged facts, theory of prosecution, and also refused to file any discovery motions
to obtain Brady, Giglio, or Rule 16 evidence to develop a coherent trial strategy to effectively defend
Petitioner in the 1224 and 1115 proceedings.
Page 20 of 122
October 19, 2021
IV.
A. The Legal standard.
"Criminal contempt [by the Government’s Lawyers’ willful and knowingly resistance to,
avoidance, hindrance, aiding and abetting the resistance to, hindrance, avoidance, and
frustration of the commands of the Brady Court Orders and the Court Judgments] is a crime [18
USC 401(2) and 401(3), and ethical, and professional responsibility violations] in the ordinary
sense," Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). (emphasis added). “Civil contempt ... consists
of a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order29 by failure to take all reasonable
steps within the party's power to comply30.” In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust
29
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are lawful and valid court orders, (the “Court Orders”). entered in favor of
Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party. The Brady Orders, Exhibits 2 and 3, expressly ordered the United
States Attorney’s Office (SDNY) to disclose to Mr. Ware all exculpatory and impeachment evidence “prior
to trial.” The USAO’s prosecutors and agents knowingly and willfully aided, abetted, resisted, disobeyed,
and obstructed the complete compliance with the terms of the court Orders. On October 28, 2007, AUSA
Steven D. Feldman, Exhibit 1, moved the District Court (Pauley, J.) to dismiss the 05cr1115 (SDNY)
indictment pursuant to Rule 48(a). That motion was granted, Dkt. 96, and the 05cr1115 indictment was
dismissed by final judgment with prejudice on October 28, 2007. On August 18, 2009, Exhibit 4, the Court
of Appeals (2d Cir.) in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov.-I, the Government’s dismissed with
prejudice Rule 28.1 cross-appeal, see Exhibit 6, infra, entered final judgment in favor of Ulysses T. Ware,
the Prevailing Party, and ratified the November 7, 2008, Article II appellate political decision, (the “USAG’s
Article II Appellate Political Decision”), by the United States Attorney General, (the “USAG”), executive
branch to terminate and dismiss with prejudice 07-5670 (2d Cir.) actually and necessarily 05cr1115 (SDNY)
as a matter of law.
30
The Government’s Lawyers to this day, September 9, 2021, have knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, and
to commit a fraud on the federal courts have continued to resist, evade, hinder, subvert, and ignore the
commands of the Brady Court Orders, a “continuing” obligation, and disclose to Mr. Ware all Brady
exculpatory evidence in their possession or in the possession of the SEC or FINRA, Alpha Capital, AG
(Anstalt), LH Financial Services, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter,
convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., and other in active concert with the
Government’s employees. Cf., Exhibit 7, May 17, 2021, FINRA certification of unregistered broker-dealer
status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment. Material Brady
exculpatory evidence required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial.” Exhibit 2.
Page 21 of 122
October 19, 2021
Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and
abetting another to violate a court order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945)
(“defendants may nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors,
although they were not parties to the original proceeding”). “The party alleging civil
contempt must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor violated the court's order by ‘clear and
convincing evidence,’ not merely a preponderance of the evidence.” Dual–Deck, 10 F.3d at
695 (citing Vertex Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1982) ).
A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to violate a
court order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (“defendants may not nullify
a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not
parties to the original proceeding”).
A party to an injunction who assists others in performing forbidden conduct may be held
in contempt, even if the court's order did not explicitly forbid his specific acts of assistance. See
NLRB v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 413 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (observing
that “[e]very affirmative order in equity carries with it the implicit command to refrain from
action designed to defeat it”); United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386, 422–23 (1909) (holding
sheriff in contempt for failing to prevent lynching and observing that he “in effect aided and
abetted it”). Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 871 (3d Cir.1990) (“The law does not permit
the instigator of contemptuous conduct to absolve himself of contempt liability by leaving the
physical performance of the forbidden conduct to others. As a result, those who have knowledge
Page 22 of 122
October 19, 2021
of a valid court order and abet others in violating it are subject to the
court's contempt powers.”)31. (emphasis added).
NLRB v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL–CIO, 882 F.2d 949, 954 (5th Cir.1989) ( “One
need not commit an unlawful act in order to be liable for conspiring to evade a judgment of a
court: it is contempt to act solely for the purpose of evading a judgment.”). (emphasis added).
United States v. Paccione, 964 F.2d 1269, 1274 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[A] person who
knowingly assists a defendant [the Contemnors] in violating an injunction subjects himself to civil
as well as criminal proceedings for contempt." (quoting Alemite, 42 F.2d at 832) (emphasis
added)); Cf. United States v. Karen Bags, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1052, 1064 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("The
elements necessary to prove aiding and abetting [criminal contempt] are ` the commission of the
underlying offense by someone, a voluntary act or omission, and a specific intent that such act or
omission promote the success of the underlying criminal offense.'" (quoting United States v.
Perry, 643 F.2d 38, 46 (2d Cir. 1981)) (emphasis added)), aff'd sub nom. United States v.
Klayminc, 780 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, sub nom. Young v. United
States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987).
31
The Government employees, DOJ, and SEC are deemed as a matter of law to have actual and/or
constructive knowledge and awareness of the Court Orders. The Government’s trial witnesses, Norris,
Zitter, and Font, are deemed to have actual knowledge of the Court Orders. The State Bar employees
obtained knowledge and awareness from Mr. Ware of the Court Orders and initiated and continued
unlawful and retaliatory disbarment proceedings against Mr. Ware in willful resistance to the Court Orders
as an over act in conspiring with the Government’s employees to steal Mr. Ware’ personal property,
license to practice law, in violation of due process of law.
Page 23 of 122
October 19, 2021
The seminal decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progenies required
the Government’s Lawyers as part of their ethical and professional responsibilities to disclose all
Brady favorable, impeachment, and exculpatory evidence to Ulysses T. Ware whether ordered
or not. In 1224, Exhibit 2 and 1115, Exhibit 3, the respective district courts entered lawful court
orders, the Brady Court Orders, which ordered the Government’s Lawyers to disclose “prior to
trial” (1224 Brady Court Order) or “before the start of trial” (1115 Brady Order) “all” Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence. The Government Lawyers, their supervisors, and
Edgardo Ramos were aware of the absolute [“shall”] commands in the Brady Court Orders,
definitive lawful court orders.
Standing professional responsibility and ethical regulatory requirements of the
Department of Justice memorialized in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual32 9-5.001, et seqs, required
the Government Lawyers in furtherance of their ethical and professional responsibility duties and
requirements to fully obey and take all reasonable steps to fully comply with the commands of
the Brady Court Orders.33
32
See Exhibit 28, infra. U.S. Attorney’s Manual Brady Ethical and Professional Responsibility Disclosure
Requirements.
33
Section 9-5.002 – Criminal Discovery (U.S. Attorney’s Manual):
“By following the steps described below and being familiar with laws and policies regarding discovery
obligations, prosecutors are more likely to meet all legal requirements, to make considered decisions
about disclosures in a particular case, and to achieve a just result in every case. Prosecutors are reminded
to consult with the designated criminal discovery coordinator in their office [i.e., AUSA John M. McEnany
(SDNY)] when they have questions about the scope of their discovery obligations. Rules of Professional
Conduct in most jurisdictions also impose ethical obligations on prosecutors regarding discovery in
criminal cases. Prosecutors are also reminded to contact the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office
when they have questions about those or any other ethical responsibilities.” (emphasis added).
Page 24 of 122
October 19, 2021
October 18, 2021, Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 18th day of October 2021 in the city of Brooklyn, in the State of New
York, while under oath, set my hand and seal, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal
knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, hereby have made this sworn Declaration in
my personal and individual capacity, and set forth the following facts that are true, correct, and
indisputable. I hereby incorporate by reference herein and make the same a part hereof as if
attached hereto, the Government’s trial exhibits, 1224 and 1115 PSIs in heac verba, briefs,
motions, memoranda, transcripts, orders, judgments, and dockets from the 02cv2219 SDNY, 03-
93031-mhm (BC NDGA), 03-0831-kjd (D. NV), 04cr1224 SDNY, 05cr1115 SDNY, and related
proceedings, jointly (the “Ware Cases”).
Fact #1.
On or about February 2, 2001, Alpha Capital, AG, (“Alpha”), Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings,
Ltd., and Amro International, S.A., LH Financial, Ari Rabinowitz, and others both known and
unknown, jointly and severally, (“Alpha” or “Unregistered Broker-Dealers” or “Brokers”)),
knowingly and willingly, while not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
(“SEC”), or the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency, (“FINRA”)34, entered into an illegal
financing agreement with Group Management Corp., (“GPMT”), (the “Illegal Financing
Agreement” or government trial exhibit in U.S. v. Ware, 04-cr-1224 SDNY (“GX-5”))35.
Fact #2
34
According to the SEC and FINRA’s public database, www.brokercheck.gov, neither Alpha, Stonestreet,
Markham, Amro, LH Financial, Ari Rabinowitz, Rhino Advisors, fugitive Thomas Badian, convicted felon
Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., nor Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., have ever been lawfully
registered pursuant to 15 USC 78o(a)(1) as brokers or dealers. Cf. Rabinowitz’s testimony at Tr. 204-06
confessing to criminal violations of Section 15(a)(1) registration requirements.
35
“GX” shall hereinafter refer to Government trial exhibits fraudulently entered in United States v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) via AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin and Maria E. Douvas through government witnesses Ari
Rabinowitz an admitted, (see Tr. 180-82, 188, 202-08) unregistered broker-dealer operating in criminal
violations of the federal securities laws, Section 15(a)(1), and Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. (an officer of the
court).
Page 25 of 122
October 19, 2021
On February 2, 2001, the Brokers, while not registered with the SEC or FINRA, entered into and
knowingly executed paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-536; and illegally purchased for immediate resale,
via an illegal public offering,37 $1.1 million of GPMT’s restricted convertible notes, (the “Notes”),
GX 1-4.
Fact #3
On March 20, 2002, Alpha, et al., through its retained counsel, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., while
recklessly lacking Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction38 and
standing, knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, and for an improper purpose39 Alpha, et al. filed their
frivolous, malicious, fraudulent and null and void ab initio complaint in Alpha Capital, AG, et al.
v. Group Management Corp, et al., case no. 02cv2219-LBS (SDNY), (“2219”), complaint, (the
“2219 Complaint”) in willful violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1-4); and 28 USC 1927.
36
Paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 conferred 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter status on each
unregistered Broker involved in the February 2, 2001, transactions: “Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters required to register all distribution of securities” (quoting SEC Release 33-7190); cf.,
Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (same); Kern, 425 F.3d at 152-56 (Pooler, J.) (same)). (emphasis added).
37
According to paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 the Brokers, jointly and severally, intended to immediately
resell GPMT’s Notes [within 135 day of 02/02/2001], rather than hold the Notes [for the Rule 144(k)
holding period requirement, i.e., 2 years] as a bona fide investment as required by 15 USC 77d(2), Section
4(2), evidenced by requiring GPMT to immediately register the conversion securities on Form SB-2 and
file the same with the SEC. See also paragraphs 12 and 13 in the Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group
Management Corp, et al., case no. 02cv2219-LBS (SDNY), (“2219”), complaint, (the “2219 Complaint”).
CF., also with the 2219 district court’s 11/25/2002 Memorandum and Opinion, (the “2219 Opinion”),
confirming the original intentions of Alpha, et al. on 02/02/2001: Alpha, et al., had no intentions of being
bona fide investors in GPMT; rather Alpha, et al., initially to immediately resell the conversion securities
of GPMT as found by the Court: Alpha, et al. intended to be unregistered statutory underwriters of
GPMT’s securities in criminal violation of 15 USC 78o(a)(1) and Id. 77x, and 78ff.
38
Unregistered broker-dealers lack Article III and diversity subject matter jurisdiction to enforce illegal
contract entered into and performed in criminal or civil violation of the federal securities laws, see 15 USC
78cc(b); cf., Regional Props., Inc. v. Fin. & Real Estate Consulting Co., 678 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1982).
(unregistered brokers not entitled to receive any damages for alleged breach of illegal contract entered
into or performed in violation of the securities laws).
39
Cf., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 11(b)(1-4) sanctions,; 28 USC 1927; and the Article III inherent power of the
courts’ to sanction frivolous, and bad faith pleadings signed and filed by Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., on behalf
of Alpha. Alpha, et al., filed the 2219 Complaint seeking to force GPMT, and its legal counsels to issue
false, fraudulent, and bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions to enable Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent 15
USC 77e(a), (c), Section 5, strict liability registration requirement before offering for sale GPMT’s Notes,
GX 1-4, see note 3 supra.
Page 26 of 122
October 19, 2021
Fact #4
From 2001 continuing to 2007 Alpha, et al., knowingly criminally violated Sections 77e, 77x and
78ff, by the knowing and willful sale of millions of unregistered shares of GPMT, see 11/25/2002
2219 Opinion, (Sand, J.); and a “good few hundred” small publicly traded companies’ shares
according to the sworn testimony of government 04cr1224 SDNY government trial witness Ari
Rabinowitz, Tr. 202-08.
Fact #5
On or about November 25, 2002, the 2219 district court (Sand, J.), while lacking all Article III and
Section 1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction over the 2219 proceeding, and to knowingly
and willfully aid, abet, and facilitate the criminal and racketeering activity of laundering of the
illegal profits, proceedings, revenues, and property extorted by Alpha, et al. issued the 2219
Opinion; and purported to enter a bogus and fraudulent void ab initio default judgment, GX-7,
against GPMT and the 2219 defendants (Elorian and Becky Landers).40 However, nevertheless, in
the 2219 Opinion Judge Sand ruled, (i) that each of the Brokers was in fact Section 2(a)(11)
statutory underwriters of GPMT restricted securities, GX 1-4; and further ruled that each of the
Brokers were in fact Section 16(a) statutory insiders not permitted to trade in the equity
securities of GPMT as of 02/02/2001.
Fact #6
In January 2003 due to the continuing and violent personal threats and extortion demands of
Alpha, et al., Zitter and Rabinowitz Elorian Landers and the board of directors of GPMT appointed
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., as chief executive officer and chairperson of the board of directors of
GPMT; notified the SEC of the change; and resigned from GPMT. Mr. Ware as of January 2003
functioned as chief executive officer and securities counsel for GPMT until falsely incarcerated in
November 2007.
Fact #7
Beginning in January 2003 and continuing to 2007 Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., an officer of the court,
and Ari Rabinowitz, on behalf of their clients LH Financial and Alpha, et al., continued to contact
and threaten Mr. Ware, via the mail and wires of the United States, as CEO of GPMT ( a publicly-
traded company); and made illegal extortion threats and demands on Mr. Ware, to wit: Zitter
demanded that Mr. Ware fraudulently issues to him (Zitter), on behalf of LH Financial and Alpha,
et al., more than 10 million free-trading shares of GPMT; and further demanded that Mr. Ware
40
The Landers had been forced to file personal bankruptcy to fend off the illegal and unethical violent extortion and
criminal contempt threats directed towards them by Alpha’s counsel Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., (an officer of the court)
in his quest to force the Landers’ and their securities counsels to issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal
opinions to enable the criminal unregistered sale of more than 15 million free-trading shares of GPMT’s stock. See
Tr. 283.
Page 27 of 122
October 19, 2021
prepare and provide to him (Zitter on behalf of Alpha, et al.) bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k)
legal opinions to enable LH Financial and Alpha, et al. to criminally circumvent Sections 77x and
78ff and conduct an illegal unregistered public offering of GPMT’s shares41. Else, Zitter stated to
Mr. Ware, “ … I will have Judge Sand throw your ass in prison, nigger, and you will never get
out … who do you think that you are fucking with … I want that stock and those opinions; else
I will have the marshals arrest your ass … you better give them to us … I’m not playing around
with you … don’t do it and see what happens to you ….”42 (emphasis in original) (quoting
Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. in March 2003; see also the transcript of the September 1, 2004, illegal
arrest (kidnapping) proceedings of Mr. Ware in Atlanta, GA, on the admitted request of Zitter and
Rabinowitz, by the U.S. Marshals (NDGA) held before District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.; cf.
Doc. #88 order in 2219 (Sand, J.) ruling Thrash and the Marshals lacked authority and jurisdiction
to have entered Mr. Ware’s law office in Atlanta, GA on September 1, 2004, demanding the
issuance of bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions and more than 10 million free-trading shares of
GPMT’s stock)43.
Fact #8
In January and March of 2003 Zitter and Rabinowitz -- to facilitate the laundering of the illegal
profits and proceeds derived from the illegal sale of GPMT’s unregistered shares sold in violation
of Sections 77x and 78ff (both sections criminalize the unregistered sale of securities) – colluded
and conspired with District Judge Leonard B. Sand, and had Sand enter bogus and fraudulent null
and void ab initio purported orders (GX-11) directed to GPMT to criminally violate the federal
securities laws by issuing fraudulent and bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions to Zitter and LH
41
See the sworn testimony of both Rabinowitz and Zitter in 04cr1224 under direct and cross examination
admitting to criminal violations of the federal securities and criminal laws of the United States in 2002-
2007 attempting to extort GPMT and Mr. Ware out of more than $500 million dollars in market
capitalization value. Both Rabinowitz and Zitter confessed under oath to aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act
extortion criminal enterprise; and both confessed to aiding and abetting a conspiracy to launder the
profits and proceeds derived from the extortion of GPMT, the Landers, and Mr. Ware regarding the shares
of GPMT.
42
Zitter testified under oath in 04cr1224 that he and Judge Sand arranged for Mr. Ware’s illegal arrest on
September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA by the U.S. Marshals (NDGA) in their attempt to extort Mr. Ware and
GPMT out of more than 10 million free-trading shares of GPMT’s stock. See Doc. #88 in 02cv2219 (SDNY)
order (Sand, J.) conceding the Marshals lacked lawful authority on September 1, 2004, to have arrested
(kidnapped) Mr. Ware in Atlanta, GA; confirming that the 2219 district court’s lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over 2219. CF., Tr. 322; Tr. 325 Zitter confessed that he received 4,026,695 unregistered
shares of GPMT [valued at more than $100 million dollars] from Mr. Ware based on his (Zitter’s and
Sand’s) continued Hobbs Act extortion threats of violence.
43
Zitter testified, Tr. 371, that Mr. Ware’s 09/01/2004 arrest in Atlanta, GA by the U.S. Marshals was in
fact illegal.
Page 28 of 122
October 19, 2021
Financial to enable Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent Section 5 of the 1933 Act, and illegally
sell GPMT’s unregistered securities in violation of Sections 77x and 78ff.
Fact #9
On or about August 13, 2003, Sand, Zitter, LH Financial, and others both known and unknown,
see Doc. #65 (2219), GX-24, entered into illegal ex parte proceedings with Judge Sand where
Alpha, et al., judicially admitted in the ex parte proceedings to actually be the “beneficial owner
of more than 9.9% of [GPMT’s] stock” (emphasis added), (quoting Sand, J.; cf., 08/13/2003 order
(Sand, J.)); thus conferring draconian statutory insider status, 15 USC 78p(b), Section 16(b), on
Alpha, et al44; and admitted ineligibility for any exemption to Section 5’s strict-liability registration
requirements.
Fact #10
Due to the continued and violent extortion threats made by Zitter and Alpha, et al. to Mr. Ware
as securities counsel for GPMT, on December 3, 2003, GPMT filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
protection, In re Group Management Corp. (BC NDGA),. Chapter 7 protection triggered 11 USC
362(a) automatic stay injunction order had the following legal effects: prohibited against any
further extortions threats by Zitter, Sand, Rabinowitz, and Alpha, et al., demands, or collection
methods of any type in regard to any lawful or unlawful alleged prepetition debt of GPMT;
prohibited David N. Kelley from any attempt to enforce via criminal contempt the collection of
any prepetition debt of GPMT; and terminated forever the 2219 court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over any aspect of the 02/02/2001 Illegal Transaction; Mr. Ware also notified the
2219 district court (Sand, J.) and Zitter of GPMT’s Chapter 7 filing and the Section 362(a)
automatic stay.45
Fact #11
On December 22, 2003, in willful and knowing violation of the December 3, 2003 Section 362(a)
automatic stay resulting from GPMT’s December 3, 2003 Chapter 7 filing; and while lacking all
44
Statutory insiders are per se ineligible for Rule 144(k); and Alpha, et al. are required to disgorge back to
GPMT all profits from the trading in GPMT’s securities from February 2, 2001; thus, ipso facto, legally
precluding Alpha, et al., from any alleged loss amount. Cf. appeal briefs of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. filed in
United States v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) for a detailed explanation of Section 5, Rule 144(K),
Section 16 and the August 13, 2003, order’s legal effects on the 02cv2219 and 04cr1224 proceedings.
45
GPMT’s December 3, 2003, Chapter 7 filing triggered the 11 USC 362(a) automatic stay against Alpha,
et al., Zitter, and the 2219 district court; and voided all post-petition orders or judgments entered in 2219
and 04cr1224 (SDNY). See Judge Sand’s December 4, 2003, bogus and null and void ab initio order
confirming actual notice of the GPMT’s 12/03/2003 Chapter 7 filing.
Page 29 of 122
October 19, 2021
jurisdiction over the 2219 proceedings, Judge Sand on the urging of Zitter, Rabinowitz, and Alpha,
et al., knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, and maliciously -- to aid and abet the continued Hobbs
Act extortion and money laundering conspiracy being run by Alpha, et al., -- entered bogus,
fraudulent null and void ab initio orders in 2219, GX-34.46
Fact #12
On or about November 17, 2004, United States Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley and others both
known and unknown, (“Kelley, et al.”), government lawyers officers of the court, using the null
and void ab initio 2219 proceeding’s orders: (1) March 13, 2003 order (Sand, J.), GX-11; (2) August
13, 2003, GX-24; and (3) November 25, 2002 judgment, GX-7, allegedly approached a federal
grand jury and knowingly and recklessly while lacking 28 USC 547(2) statutory standing and legal
probable cause for any 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense47 committed by Mr. Ware in
regard to the null and void ab initio 2219 proceedings recklessly and maliciously, presented to
the federal grand jury known to be null and void ab initio documents, known and suborned
perjured testimony of witnesses, and evidence fabricated by Kelley, et al., in criminal violation of
18 USC 241, 242, 371, 1201-02, 1951(a), 1621-23, 1956-57, and 1962(a-d) and numerous state
laws (the “RICO Acts”).
Fact #13
On November 17, 2004, in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS), regarding the null
and void proceedings, orders, and judgments entered in the void ab initio 2219 proceedings
probable cause was a legal impossibility and a nullity for U.S. Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley, et
al., to have presented any information to a federal grand jury and lawfully charged Ulysses T.
46
As of December 3, 2003, pursuant to 11 USC 362(a), et seqs. all jurisdiction over the 2219 proceedings
in regard to any alleged prepetition debts of GPMT rested exclusively in the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA):
the New York 2219 district court lacked lawful jurisdiction after December 3, 2003, to enter any order in
2219 without first the GPMT Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) lifting the Section 362(a) automatic stay
on motion and a hearing by a party having standing in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Alpha, et
al. being unregistered broker-dealers lacked lawful claims, and thus, lacked standing to appear in the
Bankruptcy Court regarding any proceedings concerning GPMT, or any successor in interest of GPMT. As
of the February 2, 2001, execution of paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 Alpha, et al., as unregistered broker-
dealers, lacked any enforceable legal rights, i.e., claim, apropos GPMT’s securities, see 15 USC 78cc(b); cf.,
Regional, 678 F.2d at 561-64.
47
It is not an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense to not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal
opinions to unregistered broker-dealers, Section 16(b) statutory insiders, and Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters to enable, aid, abet, or facilitate the criminal circumvention of Section 5 registration
requirements in violation of 15 USC 77x and 78ff; and 18 USC 2, 371, 1341, 1343, 1951(a), 1956-57, and
1962(a-d), all racketeering activities. See U.S. v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (aff’d conviction and
sentences for Section 77x violations).
Page 30 of 122
October 19, 2021
Ware, Esq., GPMT’s securities lawyer, with an alleged 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense
for refusing to aid, abet, assist, and facilitate Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent Section 5 of
the 1933 Act by the issuance of fraudulent and bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions; which Kelley
knew or was reckless in not knowing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions would have
enabled Alpha, et al. to conduct an illegal unregistered public offering of GPMT’s securities in
criminal violation of Sections 5, 10j(b), 77x, 78ff, and Rule 10b-548.
Fact #14
Lacking probable cause, and ipso facto an offense, the 04cr1224 district court (Sweet, J.) as a
matter of law lacked Article III and statutory 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the
proceedings. Therefore, the 04cr1224 proceedings were as a result ultra vires, invalid, without
any validity, and null and void an initio.
Fact #15
The 02cv2219 SDNY proceedings were ultra vires, invalid, and null and void ab initio.
Consequently, the 04cr1224 SDNY District Court (Sweet, J.) lacked jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the void 02cv2219 proceedings, orders (GX 11, GX-24, GX-34, etc.) and judgments (GX-
7, etc.) on which the factual predicate of the 04cr1224 was formed.
Fact #16
From beginning on or about 2002 and continuing to the present (August 14, 2021) and beyond
United States Attorneys David Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, and Preet Bharara; and AUSAs Katherine
Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Nicholas S. Goldin, and Maria E. Douvas, jointly and severally, (the
“USAO” of “DOJ Lawyers”) all knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, recklessly have acted in concert;
and all knew or were reckless and/or professionally negligent in not knowing the legal
consequences of their own trial exhibits on the Government’s ability to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt the factual elements of the alleged 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt charges,
to wit:
(i) GX-5 paragraph 10.1(iv) of the February 2, 2001, purported “subscription agreement” pled by
Zitter in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the March 20, 2002, 2219 complaint; however, GX-5 was in
48
Kelley knew and/or was reckless in not knowing he and the USAO lacked lawful 28 USC 547(2) statutory
standing – the USAO (Kelley, et al.) only has standing to prosecute an offense -- to have pursued any fake
and bogus criminal contempt charges against Mr. Ware in regard to not issuing bogus and fraudulent Rule
144(k) legal opinions to Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters (i.e., Alpha, et al.). According to SEC
Release 33-7190, “Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters are required to register all distribution [(public
offerings)] of securities [pursuant to Section 5 of the 1933 Act.]” (emphasis added); cf., Kern, 425 F.3d at
152-56 (Pooler, J.) (same); cf., Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (same).
Page 31 of 122
October 19, 2021
actuality an illegal null and void ab initio, cf., 15 USC 78cc(b), underwriting contract which was
explicitly adopted by the Government in its 04cr1224 indictment and argued at trial as its Article
II, §3 prosecutorial litigation strategy, by the admission into evidence by AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin,
Tr. 180-88, through unregistered broker-dealer government witness Ari Rabinowitz; and
(ii) GX-24 the August 13, 2003, order (Sand, J.), Doc. #65, ex parte proceedings in which Alpha, et
al., judicially admitted and confessed to Section 16(b) statutory insider status as of February 2,
200149; and judicially admitted by necessary implication they were required to disgorge back to
GPMT all profits (estimated at $500 million dollars in post-Chapter 11 reorganization market
capitalization) realized from the illegal insider trading in GPMT’s unregistered securities. A
statutory insider cannot suffer any legal loss as a result of statutory, 15 USC 78p(b),
disgorgement.
Fact #17
In the 2219 proceedings on or about December 20, 2007, Doc. #90, order (Sand, J.), after the
statute of limitation had run on all claims in 2219, in another ex parte proceeding (cf., with Zitter
and Sand’s August 13, 2003 ex parte proceeding referenced in GX-24) Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.
again approached District Judge Sand (2219) and demanded that Judge Sand, without notice to
Mr. Ware, the Landers, or GPMT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2), immediately reverse,
vacate, annul, and vitiate all proceedings, orders, and judgments previously entered in 2219;
and Zitter implicitly and by necessary implication demanded that Judge Sand enter a superseding
final judgment in 2219 in favor of GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the Landers; and furthermore, Zitter
implicitly demanded by necessary implication that Judge Sand confer via Rule 41(a)(2)
49
Alpha, et al., judicially admitted in the August 13, 2003 illegal and unethical ex parte proceedings to the
devastating fact of being “the beneficial owner or more than 9.9% of [GPMT’s] stock” (emphasis added)
(quoting Sand, J. in August 13, 2003 order, (GX-24), Doc. #65 in 2219); which had the draconian effect of
irrevocably conferring Section 16(b) statutory insider status on Alpha, et al. as of February 2, 2001; and
required the immediate Section 16(b) disgorgement of all profits back to GPMT realized from the illegal
trading in GPMT’s stock. Thus, precluding any and all fines, USSG §2B1.1 loss amount calculation,
assessments, or other monetary sanctions in regard to the null and void ab initio 04cr1224 proceedings.
See 04cr1224 direct examination of Ari Rabinowitz by AUSA Goldin confessing and admitting to illegal
insider trading in GPMT’s stock from 2001 to 2004. See also Mr. Ware’s appeal briefs filed in U.S. v. Ware,
09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) detailing the bankruptcy fraud conspiracy by the Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, (“KTS”), and its partners Dennis S. Meir, Esq. (Zitter testified in 04cr1224
that Meir was a classmate of Zitter at Harvard Law School), and John W. Mills, III, Esq.; hired by Zitter to
commit a bankruptcy fraud conspiracy on the 03-93031-mhm (NDGA) Bankruptcy Court, (i.e., impede,
delay, and obstruct the Section 16(b) profits disgorgement of Alpha, et al. back to GPMT); conceal the
illegal insider trading by Alpha, et al.; and disrupt and interfere in GPMT’s 2003, In re Group Management
Corp., case no. 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 reorganization. CF., Doc. #101-1 (07/15/01 filed in
02cv2219 SDNY) pgs. 3-8 for Zitter, KTS, Mills, and Meir’s bankruptcy fraud in 03-93031 (BC NDGA) to
conceal Alpha, et al. Section 16(b) insider trading in GPMT’s stock.
Page 32 of 122
October 19, 2021
superseding final judgment prevailing party status on GPMT, the Landers, and Mr. Ware for the
purpose of civil and criminal contempt enforcement proceedings against any party willfully
resisting the 12/20/2007, Doc. #90 Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment/order. See 18 USC
401(2) and 401(3).
Fact #18
On December 20, 2007, Doc. #90, order (Sand, J.), Judge Sand acquiesced to Mr. Zitter’s unethical
and improper ex parte unnoticed Rule 41(a)(2) demand; entered the superseding final
order/judgment, Doc. #90; and by operation of law reversed, vacated, annulled, and vitiated, all
prior proceedings (any purported civil or criminal contempt proceedings), all orders (GX-11, GX-
24, GX-34; and the order which dismissed GPMT’s counterclaim, Doc. #31, etc.,), all judgments
(GX-7, etc.); and dismissed with prejudice the 2219 proceedings50.
Fact #19
In 2008 long after the 2219 case had been dismissed with prejudice by District Judge Sand on
12/20/2007, Doc. #90, pursuant to the superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment, United
States Probation Office, (“USPO”), employee, an officer of the court (see 18 USC 401(2)), Thomas
J. McCarthy, knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, and to commit a fraud on a federal court by an
officer of the court, deliberately and intentionally prepared, signed, and filed in the 04cr1224
Court a known to be false, fraudulent, and completely fabricated presentence report, (the “1224
PSI”); filed by McCarthy as part of the conspiracy to conceal and cover up the Hobbs Act money
laundering extortion conspiracy run by Alpha, et al51.
Fact #20
The USAO’s lawyers, Garcia, Goldin, and Douvas; McCarthy and the USPO; Sweet; and the USAO’s
09-0851 (2d Cir.) appeal filers (Polk-Failla, Douvas, Paul, and Bharara) all either knew or were
deliberately and intentionally reckless and negligent in not knowing the legal consequences of
50
See binding circuit precedent in A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (voluntary
dismissal of lawsuit by plaintiff [Alpha, et al.] annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and
proceedings; treated the proceedings as if they had never been filed; rendered the proceedings moot;
and terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the moot proceedings).
51
McCarthy’s PSI was deliberately, intentionally, fraudulently, and negligently prepared, signed, and
knowingly filed into the 1224 Court after the 2219 case had been dismissed with prejudice by Judge Sand
on 12/20/2007, doc. #90; filed as a fabricated inaccurate judicial document to adversely affect Mr. Ware;
and prepared, signed, and filed into the records of a federal court as the illegal and criminal means and
methods to provide the fraudulent and fabricated factual basis for the USAO and District Judge Sweet to
impose a null and void conviction and sentence; and to illegally increase the sentence of Mr. Ware by the
fraudulent imposition of a consecutive sentence in violation of the Due Process and Double Jeopardy
Clauses.
Page 33 of 122
October 19, 2021
Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007, Doc. #90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment on the 2219
and, by necessary converse implication, the 04cr1224 proceedings52.
Fact #21
In the 1224 PSI prepared by McCarthy in 2008, he ostensibly had access to both the 2219 case
file and Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007 Doc. #90 superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment given
the numerous references made to the 2219 proceedings in the 1224 PSI by McCarthy, and
ostensibly had access to the 05cr1115 case file and related documents evident by the numerous
referenced to the 1115 proceedings. Rather than fulfill his lawful and ethical duty of complete
candor to the courts, as an officer of the court, in all official transactions, cf., 18 USC 401(2),
McCarthy conspired with the USAO’s lawyers, Goldin, Douvas, and Garcia to cover up and conceal
from the courts and the public the ongoing Alpha, et al., Hobbs Act money laundering criminal
conspiracy; and the fact the 2219 proceedings went moot on 12/20/2007 by Judge Sand’s Rule
41(a)(2) superseding final judgment.
Fact #22
McCarthy was and is currently a USPO employee, an officer of the court, 18 USC 401(2); McCarthy
had and was required by law to exercise a duty of complete candor to the federal courts in the
performance of his official duty and transactions with the Courts (see Federal Tort Claim Act);
and in his preparation of the 1224 PSI, an official transaction, McCarthy was required by law,
Section 401(2) to have notified the 1224 Court in 2007 that the 2219 proceedings had been
dismissed with prejudice on 12/20/2007 by Judge Sand pursuant to voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex
parte demand by government trial witness Zitter; furthermore, McCarthy was required to
exercised complete candor and notified the Court of the legal consequences of Judge Sand’s
superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment on the 1224 proceedings. That was not done by
McCarthy and the management of the USPO.
Fact #23
Since on or about 12/20/2007 continuing to the present (August 14, 2021) McCarthy and the
USPO’s executive management have knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, in bad faith, and
52
The record is indisputable: as a matter of law once Zitter and Sand annulled 2219 on 12/20/2007, ipso
facto, by converse necessary implication 1224 was also annulled. Judge Sand on 12/20/2007 acted based
on the 1224 post-trial voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte demand of Zitter and Alpha, et al. to annul, vitiate,
vacate, void, and dismiss with prejudice the 2219 proceedings; demanded after Zitter had knowingly
testified for the Government in 1224; and demanded after Zitter had knowingly committed perjury and
falsely testified at trial in 1224 regarding paragraphs 12 and 13 of the 2219 complaint; and paragraph
10.1(iv) of GX-5. Perjury knowingly suborned by the USAO’s lawyers Garcia, Douvas, and Goldin.
Page 34 of 122
October 19, 2021
recklessly, in criminal violation of 18 USC 401(3) and 401(2)53 actively “resisted” the legal
consequences on the USPO and its employees in regard to (1) Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007, Doc.
#90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment54 apropos their official court employee
transactions concerning both the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 null and void ab initio dismissed with
prejudice proceedings; and (2) knowingly and willfully actively resisted the binding legal effects
of the United States Attorney General (“USAG”), November 7, 2008 Article II, §3 Executive Branch
appellate political decision to dismiss with prejudice the Government’s cross-appeal filed in
United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I55, ratified by the Second Circuit’s
08/18/2009 superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I (07-5670) (2d Cir.). CF., (i) Judge Sand’s
53
Contempt, active resistance, in the official transactions of the USPO (officers of the court) regarding
Mr. Ware given 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction in 1224 terminated on November 17, 2004, upon
David N. Kelley filing the 1224 indictment in the record of the court containing affirmative defenses on
the face of the indictment. CF., Cammer v. United States, 399 U.S. 399, 404 (1956) (court employees,
judges, marshals, bailiffs, court clerks, probation officers, etc. are officers of the court subject to contempt
in their official transactions).
54
“A court of the United States shall have the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, …. (3)
[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful … order [i.e., the 12/20/2007 Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment
entered in 2219 (Sand, J.)].” (emphasis added).
55
On November 7, 2008 the USAG pursuant to 18 USC 3742(b), Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), and Article II, §3
exercised his exclusive Executive Branch prerogative to control all litigation in 05cr1115 and thus notified
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at page 2* in its 07-5222 (2d Cir.) government brief as follows:
“The Government filed a notice of appeal but is not pursuing a cross-appeal [of the 1115 District Court’s
October 2007 post-trial Rule 29 rulings in favor of Mr. Ware, to wit: Doc. #99, S.Tr. 31 L 18-25 (R-1); S. Tr.
35-36 (R-2); and S. Tr. 73-76 (R-3), jointly, (the “Pauley Acquittal Verdicts”)].” (the “USAG’s Appellate
Political Decision”) (emphasis added). On August 18, 2009 based on the USAG’s 11/07/2008 Appellate
Political Decision to dismiss with prejudice the Government’s 07-5670 cross-appeal the Court of Appeals
ipso facto affirmed the October 2007 Pauley Acquittal Verdicts R-1, R-2, and R-3), and entered final
judgment in Gov.-I against the United States and its privies, (i.e., the USPO, the USAO, the AOC, the BOP,
the U.S. Marshals, the FBI, the SEC, et al.); triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause’s protections for Mr.
Ware; triggered res judicata, collateral estoppel, and terminated all courts’, the United States, and the
DOJ’s and its lawyers’ subject matter jurisdiction over all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved
by the legal effects of the Gov.-I final judgment. see Federated, 452 U.S. at 398-401 (final judgment [Gov.-
I] absolutely binding on all courts [the 02-cv-2219, 03-0831 D. NV, 05cr1115, 04cr1224, 07-5222 (2d Cir.),
and Supreme Court (i.e., Ware v. United States, 10-6449)], the parties [Mr. Ware and the United States],
and their privies [i.e., the DOJ, the USPO, the SEC, the AOC, FBI, IRS, U.S. Marshals, and the BOP] in all
subsequent proceedings between the parties; all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved by
final judgment are “forever settled between the parties.”) (emphasis added); and consequently
irrevocably conferred prevailing party status on Mr. Ware for the purposes of civil and Fed. R. Crim. P.
42(a) criminal contempt sanctions and enforcement of the Gov.-I final judgment.
Page 35 of 122
October 19, 2021
12/20/2007 Doc. 90 Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment and (ii) the Second Circuit’s 08/18/2009
Gov.-I final judgment, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”)56.
Fact #24
Since December 20, 2007, continuing without interruption to the present (August 14, 2021) the
USPO (SDNY) and its employees, and the USAO and its employees, officers of the court, all privies
of the United States, and thus, therefore accordingly all bound absolutely by the Final Judgments
entered in proceedings in the federal courts in New York; and therefore consequently all are
subject to res judicata, collateral estoppel; and civil and criminal contempt enforcement
sanctions in regard to their personal57 and official transactions apropos: (1) the Judge Sand’s
12/20/2007, Doc. #90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 2219; and (2) bound
by and subject to the Second Circuit’s 08/18/2009 superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I
(07-5670) (2d Cir.).
Fact #25
The U.S. Probation Office submitted to a federal court in 1224 a materially false and fraudulent
PSR dated August 28, 2008, prepared by Thomas J. McCarthy, which was used to sentence Mr.
Ware to the illegal and unreasonable sentence as a matter of law.
McCarthy knowingly and deliberately included known false and fraudulent information in the
PSR. Paragraphs 1-4 contained the known false information that Mr. Ware was a named
defendant in 02-CV-2219(LBS); and that Ware disobeyed an order of the 2219(LBS) court.
56
Judge Sand’s 02cv2219 12/20/2007 Doc. 90 Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final order/judgment and the
second Circuit’s 08/18/2008 superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I jointly, the “Final Judgments.”
57
Clearly lacking and in the absence of all subject matter jurisdiction – it is clear, indisputable, and
axiomatic by the concepts of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the Double Jeopardy Clause’s maxims
no live Article III case or controversy can legally exist, in any proceeding, between Mr. Ware and the
United States, its privies and agents, with respect to all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved
in whole or in part by the Final Judgments entered in favor of Mr. Ware, GPMT, and the Landers – all
actions therefore taken by the United States, its agents, or its privies in willful “resistance to” [see 18 USC
401(3)] the Final Judgments were therefore taken in the personal and/or official capacity of the
individual(s) or agencies taking such ultra vires and extra-judicial actions; and accordingly the individuals
and/or agencies have already retrospective and prospectively incurred draconian personal civil monetary
and criminal contempt sanctions liability to Mr. Ware, GPMT, and the Landers. see Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 350 (1978). (no judicial immunity for ultra vires action taken “in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction.”). Hence the USPO’s employees and in particular those who prepared and signed the PSIs in
1224 and 1115, Thomas J. McCarthy and Colleen Tyler, respectively, are all personally civilly monetarily
liable to Mr. Ware for compensatory civil and penal criminal contempt sanctions. CF., Fed. R. Crim. P.
42(a), and 18 USC §§ 401(2) and 401(3).
Page 36 of 122
October 19, 2021
Paragraphs 7-24 contained the known false information that Mr. Ware willfully disobeyed orders
of the 2219(LBS) court: GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24.
Paragraphs 50-53 were known false and fraudulent information obtained from District Judge
William H. Pauley, III and U.S.P.O. Cathleen Tyler regarding INZS and SVSY which is in direct
contradiction to the position of the AUSA Feldman's statement at sentencing on October 26,
2007, S. Tr. 46, regarding SVSY.
On page 21 of the false and fraudulent 1224 PSR, the USPO recommended a “consecutive
sentence” (emphasis added) based on the fraudulent and void sentence entered in 05-CV-
1115(WHP).
Fact #26
Rabinowitz testified at trial in 1224, Tr. 228-29, that IVG/GPMT and its counsel (Mr. Ware) were
contractually authorized to “stop or impede the sale or delivery of their [GPMT’s] securities [GX
1-4]” if as Rabinowitz testified at Tr. Id., “as may be required by law [i.e., Rule 144(k); SEC Release
33-7190; Kern, 425 F.3d at 152-56].”
Fact #27
At trial in 1224 Zitter, testified under brutal and devastating cross-examination by Mr. Ware as
follows, to wit:
1. that he did not heed Ware's advice and proceeded to take additional steps to conduct the
illegal distribution of IVG/GPMT securities, including having Ware illegally arrested and
kidnapped on September 1, 2004, GX-34 (Tr. 360-61); GX-35 (Tr. 363); GX-251 (Tr. 343);
2. Tr. 371 (Zitter admits Ware's [09/01/2004 Atlanta, GA] arrest was illegal);
3. Tr. 466 (Zitter stated “his motion to punish [threats of violence on Mr. Ware] for
contempt.”);
4. Tr. 468 (Zitter stated: “I know we [he and Judge Sand] took further action ... [b]ut we did
take further actions to punish you [Ware] for contempt because there were different ....”);
5. Tr. 456 (Zitter testified that his steps were taken to compel (extort) GPMT by holding Ware
in contempt of court.
6. Zitter testified at Tr. 457 of his steps in furtherance of the illegal distribution of IVG/GPMT
securities as follows:
Mr. Ware: What were those steps?
Zitter: We [Judge Sand and the four plaintiffs] attempted to compel [extort] you [Mr. Ware] to
issue the [GPMT free-trading] stock [in violation of Section 4(1)].
Page 37 of 122
October 19, 2021
Mr. Ware: How did you attempt to compel [extort] Mr. Ware to issue the stock?
Zitter: By applying to [Judge Sand] to hold you in civil contempt [kidnapping] if you [Mr. Ware]
didn't do so.
Fact #28
At trial in 1224 the following events regarding AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin’s conspiracy to obstruct
justice took place:
1. AUSA Goldin made the binding judicial admission when in direct examination of Zitter at
Tr. 305, Goldin, ostensibly, totally ignorant to the elements of criminal securities fraud as
well as §77b(a)(11), introduced into evidence GX-9, Mr. Ware's letter dated January 28,
2003, addressed to Zitter, in regard to Zitter's Hobbs Act extortion attempts on Mr. Ware
and GPMT (GX-52, 52A, 52B, i.e., Hobbs Act extortion demands).
2. AUSA Goldin actually had Zitter read into the record at GX-9, Tr. 305 L13, Mr. Ware’s
January 28, 2003, letter: “Dear Mr. Zitter, we are in receipt of a fax originating from your
office requesting an illegal issuance of [GPMT’s] free trading shares to your clients.”
(emphasis added).
3. AUSA Goldin's faux pas is a confession by Goldin and Zitter, that the plaintiffs through
Zitter were on notice of the illegality of their actions as early as January 28, 2003, and
took “steps” to further the Hobbs Act conspiracy money laundering criminal activities.
4. At Tr. 306-07, AUSA Goldin foolishly introduced into evidence GX-10 (Zitter's letter of
January 29, 2003, addressed to Ware in reply to Ware's January 28, 2003, letter).
5. In GX-10 Zitter admits to taking “steps” necessary for the unregistered distribution of
IVG/GPMT's securities on behalf of his clients (the four plaintiffs in 02-CV-2219(LBS)) thus,
conferring §2(a)(11) statutory underwriter
status on them as well.
Fact #29
At trial in 1224 the Government via AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin and Maria E. Douvas made the
following judicial admissions, to wit:
1. The Government admitted via its indictment ¶9-10, the Notes (GX 1-4) were sold
pursuant to GX-5, the subscription agreement.
The Government introduced GX-1 and GX-5, at trial, through its own witness Rabinowitz at Tr.
182, Tr. 190 respectively; and AUSA Goldin, Tr. 252, stated as an officer of the court:
Page 38 of 122
October 19, 2021
“These are very complex areas of the law. There is no one [associated with the
Government] in this courtroom [other than Mr. Ware] qualified to discuss these
matters. The document [GX-5 (the subscription agreement)] speaks for itself.”
(emphasis added). Mr. Goldin apparently did not understand or realize exactly
what para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5 was in fact speaking. (emphasis added).
2. Therefore, the Government's judicially admitted GX-5's unredacted content -- ¶10.1(iv),

requested IVG to file a Form SB-2 registration statement within 90 days of February 7, 2001,
the purchase date of the Notes [GX 1-4], to enable the conversion shares, “to be sold on the open
market without restriction” -- ‘speaks for itself.’”
Hence, the Government admitted via the admissions contained in GX 1-4, 5 and through
Rabinowitz's testimony:
1) Alpha purchased IVG Notes (GX 1-4) and Promissory Notes, “with a view to a ‘public offering’ ”,
Cavanaugh, 445 F.3d at 111 citing Wolfson, 405 F.2d at 782; and
3. any persons (Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., (“Zitter”), Edward Grushko, Esq.,
(“Grushko”), Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., (“Mittman”), Ari Kluger, Dennis Meir, Esq., (“Meir”),
Kilpatrick & Stockton, LLP, Thomas V. Sjoblom, Esq., Prokauser & Rose, LLP, and District Judge
Sand, acting in his personal capacity without subject-matter jurisdiction, were also §2(a)(11)
principal underwriters of GPMT’s restricted securities (GX 1-4). Kern, 425 F.3d at 152; R.A.
Holman & Co., Inc., 366 F.2d at 449; Geiger, 363 F.3d at 487.
4. By “engag[ing] in steps necessary to the distribution of [IVG] securities [,]” the participants
were aiders and abettors in the distribution of [IVG] securities. SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 649
(9th Cir. 1980) (Secondarily liable for enabling the distribution); SEC v. Management Dynamics,
Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1975)(Discussing Spectrum, recklessness is sufficient to
establish negligence as an aider or abettor liability.); SEC v. Spectrum, Ltd., 489 F.2d 535, 541 (2d
Cir. 1975) (Issuer's attorney thought to be negligent for recklessly issuing legal opinion enabling
an unregistered distribution of issuer's securities.); SEC v. North American R&D Corp., 424 F.2d
63, 72 (2d Cir. 1970)(Substantial assistance will Impose secondary liability as aider and abettor).
Fact #30
At trial in 1224 Rabinowitz, an admitted Section 2(a)(11) underwriter, admitted at Tr. 199, 204;
and Zitter, Tr. 481, that 1,351,351 unregistered shares of GPMT [valued at +$22.5 million dollars]
“were sold into the open market” in June 2003 [an illegal unregistered public offering], thus
confessing to §5, 77x, 78ff, and a §15(a)(1) violations since he and Alpha were admitted
unregistered brokers and dealers, Tr. 206.
Nathan Landenberg, Esq., according to Rabinowitz's trial testimony, Tr. 219, supplied the
extortion money and laundered the profits and proceeds for his and Alpha's “private placement
business”, a “few hundred times”.
Page 39 of 122
October 19, 2021
Fact #31
At trial in 1224, Rabinowitz testified to hiring Zitter, Tr. 196; and Zitter hired Dennis S. Meir, Esq.58
in GPMT's Chap 11, Tr. 376-82, and also hired Grushko & Mittman, P.C., Tr. 493-94;
Zitter performed steps necessary to the distribution of GPMT’s securities and was a Section 2(a)
(11) underwriter, Kern, 425 P.3d at 152; and procured through Grushko & Mittman, P.C. a
fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinion, Tr. 494-95, and sent a false and fraudulent -- mail and wire
fraud -- letter (GX 52-B) to GPMT's transfer agent demanding free trading shares, Tr. 301-02;
Geiger, 363 F.3d at 487 quoting:
“It was [Zitter] who procured those [GPMT’s] certificates [Tr. 322-326]; GX-16 (June 16, 2003, ltr.
from Ware to Zitter); GX-17 (Zitter's June 3, 2003, letter sent to Rabinowitz, “I got shares
[4,026,695 unregistered shares of GPMT which were unlawfully sold pursuant to Rule 144(k) in
June 2003 in violation of Section 5 and 77x, pursuant to fraudulent legal opinion of Grushko &
Mittman, P.C., Tr. 493-94.]]”
Zitter further admitted, Tr. 368, of requesting that Mr. Ware be arrested on 09/01/2004 in
Atlanta, GA for not issuing the fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions.
Zitter testified, Tr. 370, of contacting the Marshals to arrest Mr. Ware illegally and fraudulently
on 09/01/2004 for not issuing the fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions.
Zitter, Tr. 322, went before Judge Sand on June 2, 2003, to get Sand to force the fraudulent
issuance of bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinion, GX-16, GX-17.
Zitter, Tr. 332-33, admitted he participated in a telephone conference on June 16, 2003, and July
2, 2003, to cause the illegal issuance and distribution of GPMT’s unregistered securities.
Zitter's admitted participation in steps necessary to the June 2003 illegal unregistered
distribution of GPMT’s unregistered securities, by a Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter.
Which imposed criminal liability on Zitter and Meir for taking steps in GPMT's Chapter 7 (GX-250),
Tr. 376-82; Tr. 400-01, DX-Q, to cause the illegal June 2003 issuance of GPMT’s restricted
securities.
(i) Grushko and Mittman, P.C. presented fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the court, Tr.
493-94, in an attempt to aid and abet Zitter and Judge Sand to conduct an unregistered
distribution of IVG securities.
The illegal unregistered distribution did take place by the public sale of GPMT’s shares by Alpha,
et al., in criminal violation of Section 5, 77x, and 78ff, in June 2003 of more than 4,026,695
58
Meir was employed by the Atlanta, GA law firm of Kilpatrick, Townsend, and Stockton, LLP; Zitter’s
classmate from Harvard Law School.
Page 40 of 122
October 19, 2021
unregistered shares of IVG/GPMT, [valued at +$88 million dollars] Tr. 322-25; GX-55, Tr. 480-
81;Tr. 325-333: GX-16, GX-17, GX-19;
and pursuant to Kern, 425 F.3d at 152; Geiger, 363 F.3d at 487; Murphy, 626 F.2d at 649;
Spectrum, 489 F.2d at 541; 15 U.S.C. §78ff; Wolfson, 405 F.2d at 783-84; and Abrams, 357 F.2d
at 547, imposed criminal liability on Edward Grushko, Esq. (a convicted felon for securities
fraud), and Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., for signing a fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinion as a step
in the unregistered distribution of GPMT's securities in June 2003, Tr. 493-94.
Fact #32
(a) Since on or about May 12, 2021, AUSA Melissa Childs, acting USA Audrey Strauss, AUSA
John M. McEnany, (the “USAO’s Lawyers”), former District Judge William H. Pauley, III
(deceased), District Judge Edgardo Ramos, and others both known and unknown coordinated
and orchestrated the proceedings in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) in such a manner and fashion
to delay, obstruct, hinder, and frustrate Mr. Ware’s constitutional right to due process of law;
(b). Judge Pauley and Judge Ramos knowingly and willfully colluded and conspired with the
USAO’s lawyers to cause Mr. Ware irreparable harm, injury, and damages, specifically, by refusing
to enter any order directed to the USAO to come forth and establish its Article III and statutory,
18 USC 3231, subject matter jurisdiction and standing to have filed Dkt. 250; and moreover, for
the USAO to establish the Article III and statutory subject matter jurisdiction of the 04cr1224 and
05cr1115 district courts to have conducted any Article III adjudication of the merits of the
respective proceedings in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115;
(c) Mr. Ware has suffered and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury,
and damages to his professional reputation as an attorney at law and as a businessman due to
the void ab initio, bogus and fraudulent convictions and sentences that remain on the record of
the courts unless the court immediately directs the United States to come forth and establish its
Article III and 18 USC 3231 statutory subject matter jurisdiction, initially, and currently over the
04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings, respectively ;
(d) Mr. Ware has suffered and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury,
and damages to his ability to raise capital and secure investment and employment opportunities
due to the bogus, fraudulent, void ab initio, and currently moot judgments of conviction and
sentence the USAO’s lawyers have fraudulently presented to the District Court as an overt act in
furtherance of the retaliatory Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy perpetrated
against Mr. Ware regarding and in furtherance of the criminal interests of unregistered broker-
dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and LH Financial Services;
(e) Mr. Ware has suffered and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury,
and damages from the direct conspiracy to obstruct justice and conceal Alpha Capital, AG
Page 41 of 122
October 19, 2021
(Anstalt), et al., continuing criminal enterprise aided, abetted, and facilitated by the USAO’s
lawyers, federal judges, and others involved in the cover-up of the RICO Hobbs Act money
laundering and extortion conspiracy run from, directly and/or indirectly, the Manhattan federal
courts and the Manhattan office of the United States Attorney’s (SDNY);
(f) Mr. Ware has suffered and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury,
and damages from the criminal acts of the USPO (SDNY) officers, Michael Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
McCarthy, Colleen Tyler, and David Mulcahy, (the “USPO Officers”), who all knowingly and
willfully, as overt acts in furtherance of the RICO Conspiracy, (i) materially fabricated and
manufactured, prepared, signed, and submitted to the district courts two bogus and fraudulent
PSI judicial documents, as officers of the court, in criminal violation of 18 USC 401(2); and the
illegal means and methods to have Mr. Ware falsely incarcerated to enable the RICO Conspiracy
to remail covert and unexposed;
(g) Mr. Ware has suffered and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury,
and damages caused by the illegal and fraudulent unwritten alleged “special conditions” of
supervised release fraudulently imposed by the USPO (David Mulcahy) since May 24, 2019; that
have caused Mr. Ware to lose several employment opportunities by not being permitted to enter
the federal court buildings (SDNY) without David Mulcahy permission and he following Mr. Ware
throughout the federal court buildings in violation of due process of law; when in fact no “special
conditions” of supervised release were ever imposed in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY); the
USAO and Mulcahy fraudulently fabricated and lied as officers of the court, in collusion and while
conspiring with Judge William H. Pauley, III, to obstruct justice and cause Mr. Ware extreme
injury, harm, and damages.
(h) Mr. Ware has, is, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, injury, and damages as a
result of the unethical and illegal conduct of Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F.
Samuel, and David B. Levitt, officers of the court, and his retained lawyers, who colluded,
conspired, acted in concert, and enabled the Government’s lawyers [David N. Kelley, Michael J.
Garcia, Preet Bharara, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Steve R. Peikin, Nicholas S.
Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and others] to commit “flagrant”
prosecutorial misconduct Brady exculpatory evidence violations, to commit a fraud on the
District Courts (SDNY), NDGA, and elsewhere, to commit perjury in open court, to fabricate grand
jury and trial evidence, to receive kickbacks, payoffs, bribes, illegal gratuities, and other things of
value (employment and advancement opportunities) for their involvement and participation in
the conspiracy to obstruct the due administration of justice, 18 USC 2, 4, 157, 201, 241, 242, 371,
1201, 12341, 1343, 1346, 1512, 1612, 1956-57, and 1962 (a-d), (the “Racketeering Offenses”).
(i) Mr. Ware will prevail on the merits of his Brady disclosure claims; Rule 33 Motion for a
New Trial for Flagrant Brady Violation; For Dismissal of the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 indictments
for “flagrant” prosecutorial misconduct and fraud on the court; Motion for Kordel Relief;
Motion to Immediate Brady Disclosures; and imminent claims of professional negligence by
GSL; Fraud on the Court by District Judge Edgardo Ramos; Fraud on the Court by acting U.S.
Page 42 of 122
October 19, 2021
Attorney (SDNY) Audrey Strauss, AUSAs John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, and other claims
that will be raised once the Government fully complies with its “continuing” Brady disclosure
obligations.
Fact #33
After being released from jail in Atlanta, GA on 02/11/2005 from the illegal kidnapping by the
U.S. Marshals, District Judges Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., and Leonard B. Sand, in Atlanta, GA on
September 1, 2004, and again on February 1, 2005, in Atlanta, GA, Ulysses T. Ware retained and
paid Atlanta, GA lawyer Edward T.M. Garland, Esq., (“Garland”), and his law firm, Garland,
Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., (“GSL”)59, as Sixth Amendment counsel to represent his legal interest in
United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”). Mr. Ware informed Garland that he would
not be pleading guilty to any charges and to prepare the case for trial. Mr. Garland reviewed the
1224 indictment and agreed the case was weak and would research the issues. Mr. Ware agreed.
Fact #34
After retaining GSL Mr. Ware met regularly with Garland, Donald F. Samuel, (“Samuel”), Arora,
and Janice Singer, (“Singer”), jointly, (“GSL” or “Unindicted Co-conspirators”) and explained in
detail exactly why the 1224 Indictment’s charges were fatally flawed, failed as a matter of law to
charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense, and why an immediate motion to dismiss
the indictment with prejudice should be filed.
(a). Garland hesitated and stated, “I need to do more research before we file that motion ….”
Mr. Ware explained to Garland that SEC Release 33-1790 n. 17 (1995) strictly prohibited the “Civil
Plaintiffs” in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters60 from any
59
GSL employed Manny S. Arora, Esq., (“Arora”), an attorney who eventually entered his appearance in
1224 on 03/14/2005, Dkt. 4; Garland entered his appearance on 01/06/2006, Dkt. 14; and David B. Levitt,
Esq., (“Levitt”), appeared on behalf of GSL on 04/19/2006, Dkt. 17, all subject to the disciplinary and
professional responsibility rules, duties, and obligations of the District Court (SDNY) to enforce disciplinary
and ethics rules regarding lawyers appearing before the District Court. Each of the above lawyers, officers
of the court, applied for Pro Hac Vice authorization, and were granted permission to appear in the District
Court (SDNY), and therefore all are subject to the District Court’s general supervisory authority to
supervise the ethic and professional conduct of lawyers appearing before the Court. See United States v.
Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 837 (2d Cir. 1988) (“The federal courts enforce professional responsibility
standards pursuant to their general supervisory authority over member of the bar. In re Snyder, 472 U.S.
634, 655 n. 6 (1985).”). (emphasis added).
60
See para. 12 and 13 in the Civil Plaintiffs’ 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint. A judicial admission and
confession of being 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of IVG Corp., a/k/a GPMT’s restricted
securities, GX 1-4.
Page 43 of 122
October 19, 2021
Rule 144(k) exemption to Section 5 registration requirements. Garland responded, “We will
check that out and get back to you on it ….”
(b). From the date that Mr. Ware hired GSL to the date Mr. Ware terminated GSL, 04/17/2007,
Dkt. 22, GSL filed not one single discovery motion (Brady, Giglio, Rule 16, etc.), adversarial motion
(Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice), or filed any other paper, pleading, and brief
that attacked in any way whatsoever the Government’s charges in the frivolous, null and void ab
initio 1224 indictment. See 04cr1224 (SDNY) docket report.
(c). On or about 03/17/2007 Mr. Ware during a conference with Garland and Arora informed
GSL, due to the indisputable fact GSL was not properly representing the legal interests of Mr.
Ware, to withdraw from 1224.
(d). Garland during the 03/17/2007 conference informed Mr. Ware:
“We’ve worked you out a good plea deal with AUSA Goldin and the
USAO … he will allow you to plead guilty to a misdemeanor … you won’t
have to do any jail time, but you will have to give up your license to
practice law. This is a good deal … you better take it … you can’t go up
against Judge Sand and his people up there, the case is hopeless … we
will not try the case … you need to really think about pleading guilty and
move on with your life … you are a young man you can find another
career ….” (emphasis added). The alleged Rule 11 plea was rejected by
Ulysses T. Ware.
(d). Mr. Ware never authorized GSL to negotiate any plea deal. Any “good plea deal” was none
with fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty by Garland, Arora, Samuel, and Levitt in
violation of the Rules of Ethics of the District Court (SDNY), and State Bar of GA Rule 4-102. GSL
pressured and harangued Mr. Ware to plead guilty to the 1224 Indictment or he would “end up
in federal prison for a very long time ….” (quoting Edward T.M. Garland, Esq.).
(e). Immediately after being retained GSL ceased any and All Sixth Amendment
representation as Mr. Ware's “effective” “counsel.” Rather GSL joined the prosecution and
actively worked against the legal rights and interests of their client Mr. Ware in criminal violation
of 18 USC 2, 201(d), 241, 242, 371, and obstruction of justice to have Mr. Ware surrender his
constitutional rights as an egregious and flagrant fraud on the District Court (SDNY).
(f). GSL actively worked with and assisted the Government’s lawyers, AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin
and Alexander H. Southwell, to build a case against Mr. Ware by sharing confidential client
information and strategies to defeat the Government’s frivolous 1224 indictment.
(g). GSL’s unethical and criminal professional misconduct, conspiring with the Government’s
lawyers to the detriment of their client, blatantly and flagrantly violated the District Court’s Rules
of Ethics and Professional Conduct which requires the District Court to exercise its supervisory
Page 44 of 122
October 19, 2021
authority over lawyers appearing before the District Court to immediately demand that GSL
appear before the Court and explain their unethical professional misconduct in colluding with
the Government’s lawyers against the interest of their client, Mr. Ware. See L.R. (SDNY) Rule
1.5(b)(5).
(h). Mr. Ware asserts as fact that Garland, a lawyer with “more than 40 years of experience”
(quoting Garland) knew from the initial conference on or about 02/11/2005, and after reviewing
the 1224 indictment’s61 flimsy charges, the indictment was a sham and was null and void ab initio.
Rather than providing the Sixth Amendment required “effective” “assistance” of “counsel” GSL
saw an opportunity to extort Mr. Ware out of “$1.0 million dollars” in requested attorney’s fees
to “have the case go away ….” (quoting Garland).
(i) GSL from inception never performed as “counsel.” Never provided any “assistance.” And
was never “effective” in attacking the Government’s bogus and frivolous charges in the 1224
Indictment. GSL did nothing whatsoever to expose the Government’s criminal conspiracy with
unregistered broker-dealers Alpha Capital, AG, et al. (the plaintiffs named at para. 8 of the 1224
Indictment).
(j). GSL refused to demand the Government’s lawyers provided the required Brady
exculpatory evidence (i.e., the fact that each of the entities named at para. 8 of the 1224
Indictment had never registered in the United States as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1),
with FINRA “on or around February 2001” as charged in para. 9 of the 1224 Indictment). Which
rendered the 1224 Indictment null and void ab initio; and was required as a matter of law to be
dismissed with prejudice.
Fact #35
On July 29, 2021, Dkt. 306,62 Mr. Ware filed into the record in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) a
sworn certification obtained from FINRA that verified and confirmed that each of the entities,
(the “Civil Plaintiffs”)63 named at para. 8 of the Government’s November 17, 2004, 1224
61
See Dkt. 1, November 17, 2004, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment.
62
Dkt. 306 is suppressed and concealed material Brady exculpatory and exoneration evidence required to
have been discloses to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” as ordered by District Judge Sweet (deceased) in the
August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, page 2 (04cr1224) Brady order. (“Ware has requested that the Government
provide him with all exculpatory and impeachment materia before the commencement of the trial …. In
its brief (and in prior communications to the Defendant), the Government has repeatedly consented to
this request. There being no opposition, this aspect of the motion shall be granted.”). (emphasis added).
63
Para. 8 of the 1224 Indictment characterized the plaintiffs named in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) (LBS) lawsuit
as “Civil Plaintiffs” which as a matter of law required the “Plaintiffs” to at all times possess Article III and
28 USC 1332(a) standing to appear in the District Court and be granted any judicial relief, see Lujan, 504
U.S. at 560-61.
Page 45 of 122
October 19, 2021
Indictment were then and have never lawfully registered as required by United States law, 15
USC 78o(a)(1), Section 15(a)(1), as brokers or dealers. Evidence suppressed and concealed by
Government lawyers that was material Brady exculpatory evidence required to have been
disclosed “prior to trial” pursuant to the August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32-page 2 written Brady order
(Sweet, J.). A ”flagrant” violation, disobedience, and resistance, to the Brady order, an 18 USC
401(3) criminal contempt offense by Judge Ramos and the government’s lawyers. See n. 32 and
n. 33, infra.
(a). As a matter of law and fact unregistered brokers or dealers, the “Civil Plaintiffs” named
at para. 8 of the 1224 Indictment lacked Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity standing on March
20, 2002, to enforce the February 2001 Notes, (GX 1-4) and Subscription Agreement, (GX-5),
jointly, (the “Illegal Contracts”)64, to have filed the moot 02cv2219 (SDNY) civil lawsuit against
defendants IVG Corp., a/k/a GPMT, and Elorian and Becky Landers.
(b). The “Civil Plaintiffs” lacked Article III standing to have filed the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit,
thus, the 2219 District Court (Sand, J.) lacked all Article III subject matter jurisdiction “to proceed
at all” and enter any “lawful” orders (GX-11 and GX-24) and judgment (GX-7). Accordingly, GX-7,
GX-11, and GX-24 are null and void ab initio, unlawful, invalid, advisory65, and ultra vires.
(c). On November 17, 2004, as a matter of law and fact GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24, the alleged
factual basis for Counts, I, II, and III in the 1224 Indictment, were null and void ab initio, and
therefore were not “lawful” orders or judgments within the scope of 18 USC 401(3). Accordingly,
64
See 15 USC 78cc(b) contracts made in or performed in violation of the federal securities laws are not
enforceable by the party that violated the federal securities laws. When the Illegal Contract were made
and entered into “on or around February 2001” as alleged at para. 9 of the 1224 Indictment, the “Civil
Plaintiffs” were then and thereafter lawfully registered with FINRA as broker-dealers; and therefore, were
in civil and criminal violation of the federal securities laws and prohibited from any enforcement of the
Illegal Contracts.
65
Advisory orders and judgments, GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24, are unenforceable, moot, null and void ab
initio, and do not and cannot provide the factual basis for any probable cause for former United States
Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley on November 17, 2004, to have procured the 1224 Indictment. Lacking
probable cause Kelley, et al., acted in their personal and individual capacities and all are personally and
individually monetarily liable to Mr. Ware in the sum certain amount of $2.25 billion dollars, jointly and
severally. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 ("Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause
[02cv2219, 04cr1224, or 05cr1115]. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist,
the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause."). Ex
parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). (emphasis added).
Page 46 of 122
October 19, 2021
the 1224 Indictment’s alleged charges failed to and were fatally flawed as a matter of law to
charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense.”66
(d). It is not an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense” for Mr. Ware, GPMT’s securities
counsel, to refuse to draft, sign, and issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the
Civil Plaintiffs, confirmed unregistered broker-dealers and Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters of GPMT’s restricted securities, (GX 1-4), and enable an illegal unregistered public
offering of GPMT’s securities in civil and criminal violation the United States federal securities
law, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff.67
(e) As of “on or around February 2001” as alleged in para. 9 of the 1224 Indictment given the
unregistered broker-dealer legal status of each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the
Indictment, the Article III federal court as a matter of law lacked a live Article III case or
controversy over which to exercise their Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction.
66
18 USC 401(3): A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both,
at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(3). Disobedience or resistance to its lawful [i.e., the issuing court had subject matter jurisdiction over
its proceedings, or the commands of the order or judgment are unlawful] writ, process, order, rule,
decree, or command.
67
See SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) para. 86-87 of the SEC’s complaint, 02cv2219 (SDNY)
“Civil Plaintiff[]” Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) was charged by the SEC with securities fraud for obtaining a
false and bogus Rule 144 legal opinion from an unnamed lawyer; and then Alpha and others engaged in
an illegal and unregistered public offering of restricted securities of “Company A” according to SEC lawyer
Nancy Brown, Esq. Judge Ramos, the judge assigned to 18cv08175, himself, therefore possesses material
Brady exculpatory evidence required to currently be disclosed to Mr. Ware pursuant to Judge Sweet’s
August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, page 2, Brady order. Obviously, Judge Ramos has an actual and apparent conflict
of interest as a material witness in the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) matters and the judge assigned to
both; and thus, Judge Ramos is judicially disqualified regarding 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 as of 2018. Judge
Ramos’ July 28, 2021, Dkt. 304 and August 5, 2021, Dkt. 307, orders are null and void ab initio due to his
concealed and undisclosed actual conflicts of interest, and is a material interest in the outcome of the
04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings as a material witness possessing suppressed Brady material
exculpatory evidence. Judge Ramos will be subpoenaed and called as a Brady exculpatory evidence
material witness at the required evidentiary hearing in the event the Government or GSL denies any fact
herein, or denies by acquiescence, estoppel by acquiescence or silence. Judge Ramos has adamantly
refused to enforce the court’s Brady Orders, Dkt. 32 (04cr1224) and Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9 (05cr1115), and
demand that the Government’s lawyers and privies disclose all Brady exculpatory evidence to Mr.
Ware, for the obvious reason he (Judge Ramos) would be required to come forth and give material
Brady exculpatory testimony as a material witness regarding the SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY)
(Ramos, J.) proceedings that concern unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriter, “Civil Plaintiff[]” Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt).
Page 47 of 122
October 19, 2021
Therefore, all judicial proceedings that involved the Civil Plaintiffs’ criminal attempts to
enforce the Illegal Contracts, GX 1-4 and GX-5,68 and null and void ab initio; and all orders and
judgments entered in any such moot judicial proceedings are themselves moot, null and void ab
initio, and invalid.
Fact #36
(a) District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY) is hereby this 14th day of August 2021, designated
as a Brady exculpatory evidence material witness, and identified as an UNINDICTED CO-
CONSPIRATOR. See n. 35 supra.
(b) Judge Ramos, an Unindicted Co-conspirator, has adamantly refused all requests by Mr.
Ware to have the Brady Orders enforced. See Dkt. 260, 263, 267, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 283,
287, 291, 293, 294, 295, 299, 302, 305, and unfiled, concealed, and suppressed filings by Mr.
Ware, 51A, 51B, 51C, 51D, and 51E, jointly, (the “Ware Brady Exculpatory Evidence”).
Fact #37
GSL has adamantly, egregiously, and flagrantly violated the Rule of Professional Conduct and
Ethics of the District Court (SDNY), (see L.R. (D. Ct SDNY), Rule 1.5(b)(5))69 and despite numerous
requests from their former client, Mr. Ware, GSL, has refused to (i) immediately turn over all
client files70 and (ii) provide a full escrow accounting of all attorney’s fees paid by Mr. Ware for
68
See In re Group Management Corp., no. 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), GPMT’s 11 Chapter reorganization
proceedings.; cf., Dkt. 261 (05cr1115), Mr. Ware’s brief dated December 19, 2011, to the Civil Plaintiffs’
Chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel, Atlanta, GA lawyer Dennis S. Meir, Esq.
69
Local Civil Rule 1.5. Discipline of Attorneys: (b) Grounds for Discipline or Other Relief. Discipline or
other relief, of the types set forth in paragraph (c) below, may be imposed, by the Committee on
Grievances, after notice and opportunity to respond as set forth in paragraph (d) below, if any of the
following grounds is found by clear and convincing evidence:
(5) In connection with activities in this Court [04cr1224 and 05cr1115 SDNY], any attorney [Edward T.M.
Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, and David B. Levitt, and the Government’s lawyers] is
found to have engaged in conduct violative of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct as
adopted from time to time by the Appellate Divisions of the State of New York. In interpreting the Code,
in the absence of binding authority from the United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, this Court, in the interests of comity and predictability, will give due regard
to decisions of the New York Court of Appeals and other New York State courts, absent significant federal
interests.
70
What does the ABA have to say about releasing client files?
Page 48 of 122
October 19, 2021
GSL’s Sixth Amendment representation in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY).71 See unfiled and
undocketed August 13, 2021, pleading 51E; and see GSL’s April 30, 2019, letter to Mr. Ware
(Exhibit #1 attached hereto). See also August 11, 2021, State Bar of GA Bar grievances filed
against GSL by Mr. Ware (in the possession of the Office of the General Counsel, Paula Fredrick,
Esq.).72
Fact #38
In July 2015, the American Bar Association (ABA) provided further guidance on the return of client files
in Formal Opinion 471, Ethical Obligations of Lawyer to Surrender Papers and Property to which Former
Client is Entitled. The ABA noted that the lawyer must, at a minimum, turn over materials that would
likely harm the client’s interest if not provided.
Applying Model Rule 1.15, the ABA determined that the lawyer must return all property that came into
his possession in connection with the representation. This includes tangible personal property; items with
intrinsic value or that affect valuable rights, such as securities, negotiable instruments, wills, or deeds; and
any documents provided by the client.
Applying Model Rule 1.16(d), the ABA determined that the lawyer must surrender any materials
provided by the client; legal documents filed with a tribunal (or those completed and ready to be filed);
executed instruments like contracts; orders or other records of a tribunal; correspondence in
connection with the representation (including emails retained according to the lawyer’s document
retention policy); discovery or evidentiary exhibits (including interrogatories and their answers,
deposition transcripts, expert witness reports and witness statements, and exhibits); legal opinions
issued at the client’s request; and third-party evaluations or records paid for by the client.
71
Implicit in the attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary and ethical obligation to the client to properly
manage client and third-party funds by establishing and maintaining an attorney trust or escrow account.
This duty is governed by specific ethics rules. Avoiding the commingling of client funds is only one of the
many duties under those rules. New York’s Rule 1.15 contains strict and strongly enforced rules for escrow
accounts. In addition to prohibiting commingling client or third-party funds with the lawyers’ funds (or, of
course, misappropriating them), it requires: separate and specially designated accounts for escrow funds;
• notification to a client or third person upon the receipt of escrow funds; • prompt payment from escrow
accounts on proper request; • complete and accurate record-keeping procedures; • disbursements to be
made only by New York-admitted lawyers; and • account withdrawals to be made only to a named payee
and not to cash.
72
The Office of the General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, Paula Fredrick, Esq., et al., deliberately,
intentionally, willfully, and in bad faith has aided, abetted, and enabled GSL to escape punishment for
their unethical and illegal criminal conduct committed against their client, Mr. Ware, by colluding and
conspiring with GSL and the “Civil Plaintiffs” lawyers involved in In re Group Management Corp., 03-
93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11 reorg., Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP. Dennis, S. Meir, John
W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV, jointly, (“KTS”), see Dkt. 261 (05cr1115), cf., GX 250, 251, 252, and
253 (04cr1224) to whitewash any claim or allegations made against GSL or KTS.
Page 49 of 122
October 19, 2021
GSL has violated L.R. (D. Ct SDNY) 1.5(b)(5) by the adamant and continued refusal (see Dkt. 51E
August 13, 2021, unfiled and undocketed pleading submitted to District Judge Edgardo Ramos
and Chief Judge (SDNY) the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain) to return all requested client files and
provide a full escrow accounting of all fees paid for Sixth Amendment representation in 04cr1224
and 05cr1115 (SDNY) and is therefore subject to the District Court’s general supervisory authority
to discipline lawyer to appear before the District Court (SDNY).
Fact #39
(a) The Unindicted Co-conspirators individually, jointly, severally, as an illegal association in

fact, a continuing criminal enterprise, knowingly, willfully, with malice aforethought, have
willfully resisted, disobeyed, aided, abetted, and orchestrated the resistance of and disobedience
to lawful court orders and final judgment, the Ware Court Orders, in willful violation of 18 USC
401(2) and 401(3), criminal contempt;
(b) Edgardo Ramos, has since on or about July 12, 2021, in the “clear absence of all
jurisdiction” acted in his personal and individual capacity, and had knowingly and willfully
resisted, disobeyed, and has knowingly aided, abetted, colluded, conspired, and racketeered with
Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, and the Unindicted Co-conspirators to
continue to resist and disobey the written Brady Orders, Exhibit 2 and 3, resisted Exhibits 3, 4,
and 5, and Ramos has knowingly rigged and fixed the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings,
claiming to rely of null and void ab initio “leave to file” orders, Dkt 160 (04cr1224) and Dkt. 220
(05cr1115), entered in violation of Circuit precedent, and entered in violation of all due process
of law, without any notice or opportunity to be heard;
(c) Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, current AUSAs employed by the DOJ’s
USAO (SDNY) currently have in their possession material Brady exculpatory evidence, the official
DOJ emails of Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Steven D. Feldman,
Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara,
Andrew L. Fish, FBO analyst Maria Font, former FBI special agent David Makol, all ex parte
communications between the USAO and Robert W. Sweet, William H. Pauley, III, Leonard B. Sand,
Kenneth A. Zitter, Ari Rabinowitz, and the SEC that contain material Brady exculpatory evidence
required to be immediately disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware pursuant to the express commands of
the Brady court orders;
(d) Strauss, Childs, McEnany and the Unindicted Co-conspirators have colluded, conspired,
and racketeered with Ramos to delay, hinder, impede, frustrate, and obstruct “all reasonable
efforts” to fully comply with the terms and commands of the Ware Court Orders in violation of
18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), and civil contempt.
Page 50 of 122
October 19, 2021
(e) Ulysses T. Ware, the Petitioner, Prevailing Party to the Ware Court Orders, has suffered,
is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harms, injuries, and damages as a direct and
indirect result of the Unindicted Co-conspirators’ continued willful and knowing resistance and
disobedience of the Ware Court Orders in the sum certain amount of $2.25 billion dollars.
Fact 40
(a) The Unindicted Co-conspirators are judicial, prosecutorial, and lay criminal and
dangerous predators that are a current and present danger to the community;
(b) On September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA, the Unindicted Co-conspirators arranged and
orchestrated the kidnapping of Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, see Exhibits 13, and 15, infra,
by the U.S. Marshals, District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. the USAO, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.,
Leonard B. Sand, and others known and unknown;
(c) on September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA during the kidnapping73, 18 USC 1201 and 1202 of
Ulysses T. Ware, the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn, threatened to murder Mr. Ware unless Mr.
73
18 USC 1201, 1202: Kidnapping.
(a)Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for
ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person
was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign
commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in
committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as
defined in section 46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms
are defined in section 1116(b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and any such
act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official
duties,
shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results,
shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.
(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours
after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried
away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign
commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has
not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before
the 24-hour period has ended.
Page 51 of 122
October 19, 2021
Ware, right then, drafted and issued bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the
unregistered broker-dealers, the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY)
indictment, Exhibits 7 and 8, infra;
(d) The Unindicted Co-conspirators are dangerous predatory criminals, and will not hesitate
to use and cause bodily harm, injury, damages, including murder, see Exhibit 21, infra, to any
individual who attempts to hold them accountable for their crimes; the predators are a current
and present danger to any community in which they inhabit or reside to such an extent given
prior violent acts of kidnapping, threats of murder, extortion money laundering, and, bribery,
conspiracy, racketeering, bankruptcy fraud, securities frauds, and other racketeering activities,
no amount of bail or conditions will safely secure the community from the predatory Unindicted
Co-conspirators; and therefore,
(e) after arrest on charges of criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), sui generis74, each of the
Unindicted Co-conspirators are required by law to be denied all bail and arrested in the
jurisdictional district where they currently reside.
Criminal and Civil Contempt and high crimes and misdemeanors of Crimes of Edgardo Ramos,
and civil and criminal contempts of DOJ prosecutors Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, and John
M. McEnany.
Fact 41.
Beginning from around July 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere
Edgardo Ramos, (“Ramos”), in his personal and individual capacity, “in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction”75 knowingly, willfully, acted in concert, aided, abetted, assisted, in bad faith, as an
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt
act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years
or for life.
(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than
twenty years.
74
The legal equivalent crime associated with the criminal contempt of the Ware Court Orders is 18 USC
1201 and 1202, kidnapping, and conspiracy to kidnap, violent crimes, which are not bailable.
75
Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdictions have not been “affirmatively established” (i.e.,
“jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings
inferences favorable to the party asserting it." APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 2003) (emphasis
added)) by the United States [the USAO] in regard to Dkt. 250:05cr1115 (SDNY), and thus, the legal
presumption is that jurisdiction is absent. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Page 52 of 122
October 19, 2021
overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy to resist, avoid, hinder, frustrate, obstruct, evade,
and disobey the express and inherent preclusive effects of the Court Orders willfully and
knowingly in violation of 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), criminal contempt.
Ramos intentionally, deliberately, with malice aforethought, colluded and conspired with
the Unindicted Co-conspirators and coordinated and arranged the 1224 and 1115 proceedings in
such a way that he and Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, (the “USAO”), and
other Unindicted Co-conspirators were positioned and enabled to willfully and knowingly resist,
avoid, evade, hinder, frustrate, and refuse to take all “reasonable steps” 76 necessary to fully
comply with the express and inherent terms and commands of the Ware Court Orders, in
Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U. S. 131, 136-137 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport
Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, American Fire
& Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause [Dkt 250:05cr1115] lies
outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dall. 8, 11 (1799), and the burden
of establishing the contrary rests upon the party [the USAO] asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General
Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 182-183 (1936)). (1994) (emphasis added).
A federal judge, Ramos, is civilly monetarily liable to Ulysses T. Ware for money damages (+$2.225
billion dollars) when he or she “acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 357-58 (1978). Clearly Ramos has a disqualifying financial interest in the outcome of the contempt
proceedings, and is therefore constitutionally and statutorily disqualified, 28 USC 455(a), 455 (b)(1-5),
from any and all judicial function regarding any aspect of the contempt motions.
Ramos is strictly prohibited by the Constitution from being a judge in his own case or in a case
where he has a financial interest. See Tumey v. Ohio, 270 U.S. 510, 523 (1927) (“But it certainly violates
the Fourteenth Amendment, and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law, to subject
his liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge [Ramos, J.] of which has a direct, personal,
substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.”) (emphasis added); and
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1952) (“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due
process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law
has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end, no man [Edgardo
Ramos] can be a judge in his own case, and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest
in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must
be considered.”) (emphasis added), respectively.
76
The government’s prosecutors were ordered by District Judge Pauley, Exhibit 3 (“This Court will direct
the government to produce no later than the Thursday before the start of trial [05cr1115] that
exculpatory material ….”) (emphasis added) and District Judge Sweet, Exhibit 2 (“The Government shall
produce all Brady material prior to trial.”) (emphasis added) to disclose all Brady evidence prior to trial
to then defendant Ulysses T. Ware, which the government’s prosecutors acknowledged was a
“continuing” obligation.
Page 53 of 122
October 19, 2021
particular the Brady Orders, Exhibits 2 and Exhibits 3, and Ramos knowingly and willfully
committed the following criminal and civil contempts of the Ware Court Orders, to wit77:
(a) Ramos, a purported United States District Court Judge (SDNY), knew or was recklessly
ignorant of the law, and/or turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the truth and the law, since July
12, 2021, orchestrated and coordinated a criminal conspiracy, (the “Ramos Conspiracy”) with
AUSAs Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, acting U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Audrey Strauss, the USAO,
and the Unindicted Co-conspirators, and Ramos willfully and knowingly manipulated and
perfidiously arranged and coordinated the 1224 and 1115 proceedings in such a way that the
USAO and its privies, and those acting in concert with the USAO, were and are permitted and
able to continue to knowingly resist, evade, avoid, impede, obstruct, and disobey the Brady
Orders, Exhibits 2 and 3; suppress and conceal material Brady exculpatory evidence78 required to
77
“Civil contempt ... consists of a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to
take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply.” In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder
Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and
abetting another to violate a court order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945)
(“defendants may nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although
they were not parties to the original proceeding”).
78
See Exhibits 7 to 15 in 51H (August 29, 2021, Rule 42(a) submission); see also Exhibit 22, infra, para. 33
of the unsigned SEC-DOJ commingled Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint: material Brady exculpatory
evidence that confirmed, impeached, and vitiated the USAO’s trial theory in 05cr1115 that the “prices” of
INZS and SVSY securities “were artificially inflated” by press releases attributed to Ulysses T. Ware, see
1115 indictment, Exhibit 23, and Exhibit 26, infra, the moot August 18, 2009, opinion, (Kearse, J.), United
States v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir. 2009), Ware-I; Cf., Exhibits 4 and 6, August 18, 2009, final judgment
entered in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir. 2009), Gov.-I (final judgment on the November
7, 2008, irrevocable USAG’s Article II Appellate Political Decision to terminate, abort, abandon, and
dismiss with prejudice the Government’s Rule 28.1 “cross-appeal” 07-5670).
Para. 33 is a binding judicial admission and confession, judicial and equitable estoppel, by the United
States, the real party in interest, in 03-0831, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115 INZS and SVSY’s share “prices” did
not “increase” and therefore did not “artificially inflate” caused by any press release of INZS and SVSY
fraudulently attributed to Ulysses T. Ware by the USAO’s bogus and fraudulent 05cr1115 indictment,
Exhibit 23. The legal consequence of judicial and equitable estoppel of para. 33 on the 03-0831 and
05cr1115 proceedings is that (i) the 03-0831 unsigned complaint (Brady exculpatory evidence) was null
and void ab initio, failed to state a claim, and lacks any preclusive effect; (ii) para. 33 on July 14, 2003,
vitiated and annulled all probable cause for the USAO to have sought arrest warrants and the 05cr1115
indictment based on the “artificial inflation” of INZS and SVSY’s stock prices prosecutorial trial theory as
charged in the null and void ab initio moot 05cr1115 indictment. Accordingly, the 05cr1115 indictment
was fatally flawed, failed to charge an “offense” (immaterial disclosures are not civilly [03-0831 D. NV)
or criminally [05cr1115 SDNY] actionable in a federal court); and (iii) the 1115 district court (Pauley, J.,
and Ramos, J.) lacked an “offense” and currently lacks all 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the
1115 proceedings, and the 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) court of appeals lacked all Article III subject matter
Page 54 of 122
October 19, 2021
be disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware; and resist, avoid, delay, and hinder, specifically the disclosure of
Exhibit 22, para. 33, infra, a judicial admission, and confession, in the unsigned null and void ab
initio, moot SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint.79
(b) Ramos knowingly and willfully has colluded and conspired with the USAO and the
Unindicted Coconspirators since July 12, 2021, and Ramos maliciously and insidiously
orchestrated and coordinated the 1224 and 1115 proceedings and utilized a fraudulent scheme
predicated on two null and void ab initio, purported “leave-to-file” injunctions, Dkt. 222:1115
(Pauley, J.), Exhibit 24, and Dkt 160:1224 (Sweet, J.), Exhibit 25, both entered in egregious
violation of Circuit precedent80 and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United
jurisdiction over the moot 05cr1115 proceedings. Therefore, Dkt. 96, 10/30/2007, Exhibit 17-5, alleged
judgment is null and void ab initio, and the State Bar of Georgia, the USAO, Orinda D. Evans, Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr., and others are all guilty of willful resistance and disobedience of the Ware Court Orders.
79
CF., Exhibit 22, para. 33 taken from the SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas litigation’s unsigned complaint with Exhibit
26, infra, the August 18, 2009, risible opinion of Circuit Judge Kearse entered in United States v. Ware,
075222-cr (2d Cir. 2009), Ware-I: Judge Kearse in numerous places in the 07-5222 opinion, Exhibit 26-1,
claimed that the INZS and SVSY’s securities’ “prices” were “inflated” “increased” or “artificially inflated”
which is completely impeached and vitiated, (A) by para. 33, Exhibit 22, (i.e., “ … did not have the intended
effect of increasing the company’s [INZS and SVSY’s] stock price.”). Indisputably material Brady
exculpatory evidence willfully and deliberately suppressed by the SEC, the USAO, Ramos, Pauley, Sweet,
and the USPO; and (B) impeached and vitiated by the teary testimony of FBI analyst Maria Font under
brutal cross-examination by Ulysses T. Ware at trial in 05cr1115, Exhibit 8-1. The Unindicted
Coconspirators’ criminal willful contempt of the Brady Orders.
80
See Viola v. United States, 481 Fed. Appx. 30, 31 (2d Cir. 2012) ("[T]he procedure for imposing leave-
to-file sanctions involves three stages: (1) the court [Pauley, Sweet, and Ramos first] notifies the litigant
that future frivolous filings might result in sanctions; (2) if the litigant continues this behavior, the court
orders the litigant to show cause as to why a leave-to-file sanction order should not issue; and (3) if the
litigant's response does not show why sanctions are not appropriate, the court issues a sanctions
order.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). (emphasis added). No required “show cause”
order was ever entered in 1224 and 1115 according to the certified dockets in both proceedings. Nor was
Ulysses T. Ware ever given any opportunity to be heard why any such sanction was not appropriate.
Accordingly, Dkt. 222 and Dkt. 160 are null and void ab initio and have no lawful preclusive effects to
prohibit Ramos from adjudicating Mr. Ware’s Rule 33 motion for a New Trial predicated on “Flagrant”
Brady violation; Motion to Dismiss the 05cr1115 and 04cr1224 (SDNY) Indictments; Motion to Enforce the
Brady Orders; Motion for Kordel Relief, Motion Challenging the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the 1224
and 1115 District Court, and other pending Emergency Motions. Ramos, Pauley, and Sweet designed and
entered the ultra vires purported “leave-to-file” injunctions as the illegal and fraudulent scheme to cover
up, hide, suppress, and conceal their crimes in aiding and abetting the willful resistance, avoidance, and
disobedience of the Brady Orders and the Court Orders done to violate the constitutional and legal rights
of Ulysses T. Ware.
Page 55 of 122
October 19, 2021
States, (the “Fraudulent Scheme”), to willfully avoid, evade, resist, obstruct, hinder, frustrate,
and disobey the Ware Court Orders;
(c) Ramos maliciously, willfully, and knowingly, acted in concert with the USAO, as an overt
act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to obstruct the due administration of justice in the
District Court (SDNY), within the purview of the “general supervisory authority” of the Hon.
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain to prevent81, and Ramos used the Fraudulent Scheme as
the illegal means and method for him, the USAO, and the Unindicted Co-conspirators to willfully
and knowingly evade, resist, obstruct, delay, impede, hinder, disobey, and avoid their legal
obligations imposed by the terms and commands of the Ware Court Orders to take every
“reasonable step” in full compliance of the Ware Court Order’s terms and conditions. Else
willfully violate 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3).82
(d) Ramos and the USAO knew it was “reasonable” for Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party
to the Brady Orders and the Ware Court Orders, to exercise his legal right of enforcement of the
Ware Court Orders and petition the Court for enforcement.83 Thus, the fraudulent concoction of
the Ramos Fraudulent Scheme was designed and fabricated as an illegal device to evade, resist,
hinder, delay, and avoid all “reasonable steps” for full compliance of the Ware Court Orders84 as
81
The federal courts enforce professional responsibility [judicial, the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges,
and prosecutorial] standards pursuant to their general supervisory authority over members of the bar.
In Re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645 n. 6 (1985). (emphasis added).
82
A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to violate a court
order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (“defendants may not nullify a decree by
carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original
proceeding”). The USAO, a party to the Brady and Ware Court Orders, conducted its willful and knowing
resistance to the Court Orders through Ramos’ conspiratorial Fraudulent Scheme to obstruct justice and
in willful criminal contempt of the Ware Court Orders.
83
In general, "the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts." Bowens v. Atlantic
Maintenance Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 55, 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (citations omitted). "The underlying concern is
'disobedience to the orders of the [j]udiciary,' not 'merely the disruption of court proceedings.'" Id. (citing
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)). As such, an individual [Edgardo Ramos and the
Unindicted Co-conspirators] who disobeys a valid order of the court may be subject to both civil and
criminal penalties for his actions. Id. (citing United States v. Petito, 671 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1982)).
"Criminal contempt is used to punish the contemnor or vindicate the court's authority; civil
contempt seeks to coerce the contemnor into compliance with the court's orders or to compensate the
complaining party [Ulysses T. Ware] for losses [+$2.225 billion dollars] incurred as a result of the
contemnor's conduct." Id. (citing Hess v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 846 F.2d 114, 115 (2d
Cir. 1988)). (emphasis added).
84
Sacco v. Burke, 764 F. Supp. 918, 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ("The only defenses to civil contempt are (1) that
the order claimed to be violated is vague and indefinite as to whether particular action is required or . . .;
Page 56 of 122
October 19, 2021
an overt act in a racially-motivated Jim Crow retaliatory hate crime conspiracy to “punish” Mr.
Ware for not issuing fraudulent and bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the “Civil Plaintiffs”
named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 indictment, Exhibit 7, (i) unregistered broker-dealer and (ii) 15
USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters legally ineligible for Rule 144(k). See SEC Release 33-7190
n. 17 (1995) (Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters required to register all distribution of
securities with the SEC).
Fact 42
Retained counsels, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, David Levitt, and Michael F.
Bachner, officers of the court, appeared in 1224 and 1115, respectively, as purported Sixth
Amendment counsel on behalf of the legal interests of Ulysses T. Ware. See Exhibits 18, 18-1.
(a) From entry of appearance the retained counsels refused and failed to provide the Sixth
Amendment required “effective” “assistance” of “counsel” and all failed to advance any cogent
or coherent defense strategy, failed to undertake any investigation of the alleged facts and
Government’s theory of prosecution, and all failed to file any adversarial motion that challenged
the Government’s case in any way.
(b) From entry of appearance the retained counsels aligned themselves with the interests of
the Government Lawyers and all knowingly, willfully, in bad faith colluded, conspired, acted in
concert, and assisted the Government Lawyers to resist, conceal, suppress, and cover-up material
Brady exculpatory evidence that would have required the 1224 and 1115 indictments be
dismissed with prejudice. See Exhibits 7, 8, 8-1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13-1, 14-1, 15, and 22.
(c) From entry of appearance the retained counsels refused to adequately and properly
research the law regarding the acts claimed in the Government’s 1224 and 1115 indictments. All
refused to assist Ulysses T. Ware as “counsel” prepare strategy or a viable defense, and all
refused to act and function as “counsel,” all were deliberately ineffective, all performed and
functioned in a deficient and subpar manner, and all acted in concert with the Government
Lawyers to breach their fiduciary duties owed to their client Ulysses T. Ware.
(d) From entry of appearance the retained counsels have refused and failed to provide any
escrow accounting of all retainers received from Ulysses T. Ware in violation of the ABA and New
York State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct.
(e) From entry of appearance the retained counsels deliberately, intentionally, and in bad
faith, deceived, misrepresented, lied, committed fraud, and misinformed their client Ulysses T.
Ware as overt acts in furtherance of the collusion and conspiracy entered into with the
(2) that the disobedient party lacked actual knowledge of the terms of the order; or (3) that proof of the
party's noncompliance is not clear and convincing." (internal citation omitted)).
Page 57 of 122
October 19, 2021
Government Lawyers to have Ulysses T. Ware falsely and fraudulently convicted and unlawfully
sentenced to prison for alleged crimes that he did not commit. The retained counsels all
pressured and badgered Ulysses T. Ware to plead guilty to the non-offense charges in the 1224
and 1115 indictments. All lied and committed a fraud on their client by mispresenting the facts
and the law while colluding and acting in concert with the Government Lawyers to violate the
Sixth Amendment right to non-conflicted counsel.
Fact 43
CJA counsel Gary G. Becker, Esq., an officer of the court, from entry of appearance in 1115
acted and functioned in collusion and conspired with the trial judge, William H. Pauley, III
(deceased) and the Government Lawyers as a mole and government agent to convey confidential
information Becker learned from the close association to Ulysses T. Ware at trial at the defense
table.85
(a) Becker, over the objections of Ulysses T. Ware sat at the defense table through the 1115
trial and sought to and did convey a pejorative posture to the trial jury by reading a book during
the trial as part of his assigned duties to subvert the judicial process and due process of law.86
Fact 44
CJA counsel for codefendant government 1115 trial witness Jeremy Jones, see Exhibit 27,
Marlon Kirton, Esq., an officer of the court, knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith colluded,
conspired, and aided and abetted the Government Lawyers to commit a fraud on the 1115 trial
(Pauley, J.) and magistrate courts (Dolinger, J.) by actively and knowingly aided and abetted the
Government Lawyers to conceal and suppress Brady exculpatory evidence in possession of the
USAO (SDNY), the FBI, and the SEC in civil and criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders and
the Court Judgments. See Exhibits 2, 2-1, 3, 3-1, 8, 8-1, 9, 10, 13, 13-1, and 22.
85
Gary G. Becker, Esq., was appointed by the 1115 Court (Pauley, J), as CJA “stand-by” counsel over the
objections of Ulysses T. Ware, who appeared in 1115 as pro se counsel after retained counsel Michael F.
Bachner, Esq. was caught and terminated for transmitting trial strategy and confidential information to
AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, and for Bachner’s refusal to file a motion to suppress the government’s
evidence. See Dkt. 30, 31, and 33 in 1115. Becker was not paid for any services performed as CJA “counsel”
but was paid by District Judge William H. Pauley, IIII as a kickback, a bribe, and as an illegal gratuity for his
unlawful services as a government agents, a mole, and a spy in violation of the New York Bar Association
Rule on Professional Conduct.
86
Becker functioned as and functioned as a covert government agent, a mole, and a spy, as the conduit
for the trial judge, Pauley, J., and the Government Lawyers to receive confidential information and learn
of the defense’s trial strategy.
Page 58 of 122
October 19, 2021
(a) Kirton functioned as a covert government agent from entry of appearance, and Kirton
agreed, colluded, conspired, coordinated, and suborned the known perjury of his client, Jeremy
Jones, in collusion and while conspiring with Government Lawyers AUSAs Alexander H.
Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, and Michael
J. Garcia.
(b) Kirton arranged, coordinated, and suborned the known perjury of Jeremy Jones as the
overt act for the Government Lawyers to commit a fraud on the 1115 trial jury and court by the
introduction and subornation of perjured testimony by Jones that he was involved in a criminal
conspiracy that he was unaware of, and a conspiracy that he testified before the 03-0831 (D. NV)
SEC lawyers that he was unaware of any conspiracy, and had he been aware be would not have
joined and participated.87
(c) Kirton knew that Jones intended to lie and commit perjury at trial in 1115. Kirton
arranged, coordinated, conspired, and colluded with the Government Lawyers to have Jones
enter into a secret deal with the Government Lawyers that Jones would not receive any prison
time if he (Jones) lied and committed perjury that he was involved in a conspiracy with Ulysses
T. Ware, and “artificially inflated” the prices of INZS and SVSY’s securities, which in direct
contradiction to his sworn SEC deposition testimony88, which would enable the Government to
admit into evidence known fabricated and manufactured hearsay testimony and evidence
pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2)(E).
(d) Kirton falsely and fraudulently prepared and submitted bogus and fraudulent CJA
payment requests to the District Court (SDNY) while knowing that he acted and functioned not
as “counsel” but as a covert government agent to commit a fraud on the court and knowingly
suborn the lies and perjury of his client government “principal witness” Jeremy Jones,89 and
Kirton knew that he aided and abetted the Government Lawyers to suppress and conceal
87
See the suppressed and concealed SEC Brady Email, Exhibit 8: The contents of the official SEC email
sent to Jones by SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, cf., Exhibits 9, 10, 13, 13-1, and 14-1, material Brady
exculpatory evidence in the possession of the SEC and constructive possession of the Government
Lawyers. Jones and the 1115 government trial witnesses were not added to the SEC’s Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) civil lawsuit because the SEC’s lawyers did not believe there was any conspiracy between Ulysses
T. Ware, Jones, and the government’s 1115 trial witnesses. Exculpatory evidence that was knowingly and
willfully suppressed and concealed by District Judge William H. Pauley, III and the Government Lawyers’
willful conspiracy to obstruct justice, see Pauley, J., January 8, 2007, Order, Dkt. 35, that prohibited Ulysses
T. Ware from exercising his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to present a “complete defense to the
government’s charges” and subpoena and compel the SEC’s Las Vegas litigation, 03-0831 (D. NV), lawyers
in possession of the Brady exculpatory evidence to testify on his behalf at trial in 1115.
88
Cf., Exhibit 8.
89
See Exhibits 23 and 26-1.
Page 59 of 122
October 19, 2021
material Brady exculpatory evidence that Jones was not involved in any conspiracy, not did Jones
“artificially inflate” or “increase” the “prices” of INZS and SVSY’s securities. See Exhibit 22.
End of Document
I Ulysses T. Ware have this October 18, 2021 in Brooklyn, NY set my hand and seal, under oath,
subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, and pursuant to 28 USC
1746 have made the foregoing statements of fact and certify each Fact is true and correct and
signed this Declaration.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

__________________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
October 18, 2021
Brooklyn, NY
Page 60 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibits
1-28
Clear and convincing evidence of
civil and criminal contempt of the Court Orders, and evidence
of other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Page 61 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 1
Gov’t Oct. 2007 Rule 48 dismissal of the 05cr1115
(SDNY) indictment
Page 62 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 2
04cr1224 (SDNY) Dkt. 32 Brady Order
Page 63 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 2-1
Page 64 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 3
05cr1115 (SDNY) Dkt. 17 Brady Order
Page 65 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 3-1
Page 66 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 4
August 19, 2009, Final judgment entered in 07-5670cr
(XAP) (2d Cir), Dkt. 113 (05cr1115), see Ex. 4-1.
Page 67 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 4-1
Gov.-I, 07-5670 (2d Cir) Aug. 18, 2009, final judgment.
Page 68 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 5
December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final
judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY) after the statute of limitation
had run on all claims.
Page 69 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 6
Nov. 7, 2008, USAG’s Article II Appellate Political Decision that
dismissed with prejudice 07-5670 (XAP) and triggered the Double
Jeopardy Clause’s and res judicata protection in favor of Ulysses T.
Ware, the Prevailing Party. Cf., Exhibit 4, supra.
Page 70 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 7
Suppressed Material Brady exculpatory evidence
FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each
of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 indictment.
Page 71 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 7-1
Page 72 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 8
Page 73 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 8-1
Suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence:
05cr1115 trial testimony of FBI analyst Maria Font under brutal cross-examination by Mr.
Ware. In tears Ms. Font confessed that she had not evidence that anyone ever read a press
release of INZS or SVSY.
Page 74 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 9
Page 75 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 10
Page 76 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 11
Page 77 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 12
Page 78 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 13
Suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence concealed by AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven
D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara,
Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, Wm. H. Pauley, III, Edgardo Ramos, and the
SEC in willful resistance to the Brady Order, Dkt. 17, Exhibit 2.
Former AUSA Southwell
Page 79 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 13-1
Suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence of the illegal collusion and
conspiracy between the SEC and the USAO (SDNY) lawyers, which
AUSA Southwell lied and committed perjury, twice, a fraud on the
court, that “there are no emails between my office and the SEC ….”
Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9; and Dkt. 44.
Page 80 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 14
Perjured declaration of AUSA Maria E. Douvas, knowingly and willfully lied and
committed a fraud on the court of appeals where she suppressed the Brady
evidence below regarding gov’t trial witness SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris.
Page 81 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 14-1
Suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence suppressed by AUSAs Douvas, Nicholas
S. Goldin, Michael J. Garcia, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E> Paul, Southwell,
Bharara, Kim, Strauss, Childs, McEnany, Ramos, Sweet, Jones, Katzmann, Hall,
Thrash, Feldman, Peikin, and other Unindicted Co-conspirators.
Page 82 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 15
Sept. 1, 2004, kidnapping by District Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr., the SEC, the USAO, and the US Marshals.
Exhibit 16
Page 83 of 122
October 19, 2021
Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court’s employees willful resistance to the Court Orders.
Exhibit 16-1
Page 84 of 122
October 19, 2021
Page 85 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-2
Page 86 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-3
Page 87 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-4
Page 88 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-5
Page 89 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-6
Page 90 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 16-7
Page 91 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17
State Bar of GA willful resistance to Court Orders
Page 92 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-1
Page 93 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-2
Page 94 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-3
Page 95 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-4
Page 96 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-5
Used by the State Bar to initiate bogus and unlawful
disbarment proceedings against Mr. Ware.
Page 97 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 17-6
Mr. Ware did not self-surrender at the MDC federal prison until November 27, 2007. It is a
factual impossibility that Mr. Ware was served on January 15, 2007, as required by law. A
knowingly and willful complete fabrication by Willian A. Myers, Jonathan Hewitt, and the State
Bar of Georgia as a conspiracy to obstruct justice. A forgery and fabricated document
fraudulently submitted to the Supreme Court of Georgia, as a fraud on the court by the State
Bar, its employees, and agents.
Page 98 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 18
Page 99 of 122
October 19, 2021
Exhibit 18-1
Page 100 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 19
Page 101 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 20
Page 102 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21
Page 103 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-1
Page 104 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-2
Solomon Obstfeld was the Upper Boss of unregistered broker-dealer, LH Financial Services,
see Exhibit 7, supra, who was allegedly murdered for his activities that involved the “Civil
Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, see Exhibit 7-1, supra.
Page 105 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-3
Page 106 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-4
Page 107 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-5
Page 108 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 21-6
Page 109 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibits
22-26
Clear and convincing evidence of civil and
criminal contempts, ethical, and
professional responsibility violations by
Edgardo Ramos, an Unindicted Co-
conspirator, acting in his personal and
individual capacity as a lawyer, an officer
of the court, i.e., in the “clear absence of
all jurisdiction.”
Page 110 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 22
Suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory evidence
Para. 33 in the SEC-DOJ’s 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned
complaint.
Page 111 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 23
05cr1115 indictment fabricated by AUSA Southwell and
FBI special agent David Makol
Page 112 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 24
Dkt. 222 (WHP) sua sponte entered without any notice
or opportunity to be heard.
Page 113 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 25
Dkt 160 (RWS) sua sponte entered without any notice
or opportunity to be heard.
Page 114 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 26
August 18, 2009, Kearse, J., bogus and fraudulent opinion in United States v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d
Cir. 2009). Kearse, risibly, relied on the Gov’t false narrative without having access to para. 33,
Exhibit 22, supra, which confirmed there was no “artificial inflation” of the “prices” of INZS and
SVSY’s securities. A fraud on the Court of Appeals by the USAO’s lawyers, AUSAs Nicholas S.
Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, and Katherine Polk-Failla.
Page 115 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 26-1
CF., Exhibit 22, para. 33 in the suppressed and concealed SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned
complaint. On July 14, 2003, the SEC and DOJ judicially admitted and confessed there was not
“increase”, i.e., “artificial inflation” in the “prices” of INZS and SVSY’s securities. Material Brady
exculpatory evidence. Brady exculpatory evidence suppressed by AUSAs Southwell, Feldman,
Goldin, Douvas, Fish, Polk-Failla, Garcia, Kim, Bharara, Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, John M.
McEnany, and Edgardo Ramos as a conspiracy to resist and disobey the Brady Orders.
Page 116 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 26-2
Page 117 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 26-3
Page 118 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 26-4
Page 119 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 27
Page 120 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 28-1
Page 121 of 122

October 19, 2021
Exhibit 28-2
Page 122 of 122

October 19, 2021

IRNewswires Special Reports Re Emergency Motion For Leave For DOJ To Show Cause For Criminal and Civil Contempt of Court Orders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRNewswires Special Reports Re Emergency Motion For Leave For DOJ To Show Cause For Criminal and Civil Contempt of Court Orders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRNewswires Special Reports Re Emergency Motion For Leave For DOJ To Show Cause For Criminal and Civil Contempt of Court Orders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRNewswires Breaking News:

New U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams and USAG Merrick

U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams

“And Brutus and Cassius were honorable men.” (Julius Caesar).

IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigative Group

IRN’s lawyers have received a copy of Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware’s

IRN’s lawyers and investigators will continue to investigate and provide

Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain

Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved

In the United States District Court

In re Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments.1

1. Opening statement …………………………………….. 3

8. Exhibits 1 thru 28 ………………………………. 58

Further Requested relief:

Petitioner claims that:

A. The Legal standard.

convincing evidence,’ not merely a preponderance of the evidence.” Dual–Deck, 10 F.3d at

parties to the original proceeding”).

court's contempt powers.”)31. (emphasis added).

States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987).

definitive lawful court orders.

Standing professional responsibility and ethical regulatory requirements of the

the Brady Court Orders.33

Mr. Ware: What were those steps?

2. Therefore, the Government's judicially admitted GX-5's unredacted content -- ¶10.1(iv),

(d). Garland during the 03/17/2007 conference informed Mr. Ware:

(a) The Unindicted Co-conspirators individually, jointly, severally, as an illegal association in

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Former AUSA Southwell

Page 100 of 122

Page 101 of 122

Page 102 of 122

Page 103 of 122

Page 104 of 122

Page 105 of 122

Page 106 of 122

Page 107 of 122

Page 108 of 122

Page 109 of 122

Page 110 of 122

Page 111 of 122

Page 112 of 122

Page 113 of 122

Page 114 of 122

Page 115 of 122

Page 116 of 122

Page 117 of 122

Page 118 of 122

Page 119 of 122

Page 120 of 122

Page 121 of 122

Page 122 of 122

You might also like