(10.1-4) (24-1414) 08.22.24 Re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (B) Prefiling Investigation Regarding 42 USC 1983 (Bivens) - 1985 (2) and 1985 (3) Claims L

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

For Delivery to:
The Office of the Chief Circuit Judge, the Hon. Debra Ann Livingston
__________________________________________
United States of America, :
Respondent-Plaintiff, :
:
: Case No. 11-2151cr
: Case No. 17-2214cv
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L) (10.1-4)
: Case No. 23-865cv
Ulysses T. Ware, : Case No. 23-869cv
Appellant-Defendant. : Case No. 11-4181cv
__________________________________________:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) Prefiling Investigation re: 42 USC

1983 (Bivens), 1985(2), 1985(3), and RICO Claims.1
For immediate delivery to the Chief Circuit Judge

Livingston, John or Jane Does #1, #2, and #3, and the
Office of the Circuit Clerk, Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf.
1
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1986)
(In Press-Enterprise I, we summarized the holdings of prior cases, noting that openness in criminal trials,
including the selection of jurors, enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal [process] and the
appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.). (internal quotes omitted)
(emphasis added).
Page 1 of 97
Thursday, August 22, 2024
(10.1-4) re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) prefiling investigation regarding 42 USC 1983 (Bivens), 1985(2), 1985(3),
and RICO 18 USC 1961 et. seqs. claims.
Ulysses T. Ware’s August 22, 2024, (1) Request for Chief Circuit Judge the Hon.
Debra Ann Livingston and the Circuit Clerk (Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf) U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit Immediate Disclosure and Production of all
Judicial Public Records Related to or Associated with the Extrajudicial and Ultra
Vires Unlawful Criminal Proceedings Allegedly Conducted on August 8, 2024, in
USA v. Ware, 24-1414cr (L), Required by 28 USC § 46, 28 USC §§ 455(a), 455(b),
28 USC §§351-64, Rules 3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the First Amendment, Press
Enterprise, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Code
of Conduct for Federal Judges.2 See Ex. 1, infra.
Verified Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability
Proceedings Clear and Convincing Evidence: Criminal Judicial Misconduct of
Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack, et al.; (1) Criminal violations of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges; (2) Violations of 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1); and (3)
Numerous violations of Title 18 USCA—a “pattern of racketeering activities.”
Re: The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Sack, Hall (deceased), Cabranes), District
Court (SDNY) (Pauley, Sweet, Dolinger, Peck, Taylor-Swain, Ramos,
McMahon, and Dawson (D. NV)), Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court (Hagenau);
and the State Bar of Georgia, et al. Collusion, Racketeering to Obstruct Justice,
Conspiracy, Crimes, and Frauds with Respect to: (1) the Ongoing Suppression
and Concealment of Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts; and (2) Vindictive,
Retaliatory, and Punitive Sanctions Designed to Professionally Destroy Ulysses
T. Ware, Esq. in Retaliation for Mr. Ware’s Refusal to Issue Fraudulent and
Bogus Rule 144(k) Legal Opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Plaintiffs,
Unregistered Broker-Dealers, Section 2(a)(11) Statutory Underwriters, and 15
USC 78p(b) Statutory Insiders of the Issuer, GPMT.3
2
See JC&D Rule 13(b): Criminal Conduct. If the special committee’s investigation concerns conduct that
may be a crime, the committee must consult with the appropriate prosecutorial authorities to the extent
permitted by the Act to avoid compromising any criminal investigation. The special committee has final
authority over the timing and extent of its investigation and the formulation of its recommendations.
3
Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP and its partners, Dennis S. Meir,
John W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV knowingly aided, abetted, enabled, and facilitated a
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(b), and 1962(a-d), during the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11
proceedings; and KTS and its partners knowing, in bad faith, and recklessly lied and committed fraud on
GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the Bankruptcy Court by concealing the fact that its clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiffs, before, during, and after the time of the Chapter 11 case had never lawfully registered with the
Page 2 of 97
Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re: Jeremy
Jones’ Judicial Court Records--(10.1-2) Ongoing Judicial Conspiracy to Obstruct
Justice and Commit Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall,
Ramos, Pauley, Sweet, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, Dawson, McMahon,
and Cabranes; and the State Bar of GA) in Support of the Requested Reliefs Regarding
the May 12, 2024, and June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the Moot August 18,
2009, 07-5222cr mandate, and (2) The immediate access to all judicial court records used
in and/or part of U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its
decision in its Moot August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577
F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.) not later than Friday, May 31, 2024, time of the
essence.4
Respectfully Submitted by:

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Filed on Thursday, August 22, 2024, via email and regular mail.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
SEC or FINRA, or NYS as 15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealers, and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law
and fact KTS and its client lacked a lawful claim and thus, lacked Article III standing to have appeared in
the Chapter 11 case and obstructed GPMT’s right to reorganize and recoup +$522 million in illegal Section
16(b) short-swing profits concealed by KTS’ clients--realized from illegal insider trading in the equity
securities of GPMT—that is, the collection of criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX4,
in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B) and Grote, 921 F.3d at 115-17.
4
The August 18, 2009, purported mandate entered in 07-5222(L) (2d Cir.) as a matter of law and fact went
moot on (i) July 14, 2003, upon the SEC-DOJ filing the unsigned complaint filed in the Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s ¶33, which pleaded a binding Article II actual innocent
affirmative defense, judicial admission, which pleaded the United States out of the federal and state
courts (protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause absolute finality) subject to equitable and judicial
estoppel—binding on the United States, the real party in interest in 03-0831 (D. NV), 04cr1224 (SDNY),
and 05cr1115 (SDNY), and its agents (The State Bar of Georgia, its agents and employees), proxies,
surrogates, and alter-egos; and (ii) not later than Nov. 7, 2008, went moot upon the Government’s
voluntary termination, abandonment, and dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)
(2d Cir.) cross-appeal of the District Court (Pauley, J.) post-trial Rule 29(c) acquittal verdicts finding the
Government’s trial proof insufficient on “market efficiency” and scheduling a Fatico hearing on the issue
after the trial jury was discharged on April 30, 2007—see 05cr1115 Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-
36; and S. Tr. 73-76.
Page 3 of 97
Table of Contents
Re: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Due Diligence Investigation Regarding
Potential Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO statutes, 18 USC 1961 et.
seqs. 6
1. Good Faith Defenses to the Claims .......................................................................................... 7
2. Good Faith Immunities to the Claims...................................................................................... 8
3. Other Facts, Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Good Faith Beliefs .............................................. 9
4. Deadline for Response ............................................................................................................. 10
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 11
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 1—Ultra vires, Extrajudicial null and void ab initio alleged August 8, 2024, order of denial
entered in 24-1414 (L) (2d Cir.). ............................................................................................................. 13
Exhibit 2—(10.1-3) August 22, 2024, Second request for First Amendment disclosure and
production. ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Exhibit 3—(10.1-2) August 13, 2024, First request for First Amendment disclosure and production.
................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Exhibit 4—(10.1-1) August 9, 2024, Request for First Amendment disclosure and production. ........ 34
In re Robert D. Sack, et al. ........................................................................................................................... 37
Rule 3(c)(2) Declaration of Probable Cause by Ulysses T. Ware ................................................................. 37
A Requested relief pursuant to the Court’s Article III supervisory authority and the Brady doctrine,
373 U.S. at 87:............................................................................................................................................. 39
Exhibit A—August 8, 2024, advisory, moot, ultra vires, extrajudicial, punitive, and fraudulent judicial
document--an 18 USC 2, 156-57, 241, 242, 401(2), 401(3), 371, 924(c), 1201, 1202, 1341, 1343, 1436,
1512, 1519, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071 (a), (b) overt act in furtherance
of the ongoing since 2002 conspiracy to obstruct the orderly administration of justice, and Hobbs
Act unlawful debt collection activities in violation of U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105, 115-17 (2d Cir.
2020) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). .......................................................................... 57
Exhibit B—Draft Proposed Order and Opinion submitted in 24-1414/07-5222cr ............................... 58
Exhibit C—Rule 3(c)(2) Declarations #3.0—for Probable cause and FBI criminal referral. ................. 68
Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Declaration—“Significant Evidence,” (#3.0) for Rule 3(c)(2) Probable
Cause for Appointment of a Rule 11(f) Special Committee. ........................................................................ 72
1 JC&D Rule 11(f).................................................................................................................................... 73
2 JC&D Rule 11(b) .................................................................................................................................. 83
3 Specific allegation of 18 USC 2, 156-57, 201(b) 241, 242, 371, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1512, 1519,
1612, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962 (a-d), and 2071(a), (b)—a “pattern of racketeering
activities” used by the Federal Judges, their agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos to commit crimes
Page 4 of 97
related to (1) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (2) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (3) In re Group
Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, (4) Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management
Corp., 02cv2219 (SDNY), and (5) SEC v. Small Cap Research Group, Inc., 03-0831 (D. NV), (the
“Racketeering Crimes”). .............................................................................................................................. 84
A Analysis of Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) by Judge Sack, et al. in the Case of Ulysses T. Ware 84
4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 94
End of document ........................................................................................................................................ 97
Page 5 of 97
123 Linden Blvd, Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Via email and regular mail—time of the essence
To: Honorable Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Circuit
Clerk, Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, the Judicial Council of the Court of
Appeals, the Chairperson, District Court Committee on Lawyer Discipline, the Rule 11(f) Special
Committee, and Director of the FBI.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware

Case Nos. 07-5222cr(L) and 24-1414cr(L)
Moot, void ab initio, August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) denial order, see Ex. 1, infra.
Re: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Due Diligence

Investigation Regarding Potential Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO statutes, 18 USC 1961 et. seqs.
Dear Chief Circuit Judge Livingston, John or Janes Does ##1, 2, and 3, and Circuit Clerk
O’Hagan-Wolf:
As legal counsel representing Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-defendant, I am
conducting an in-depth prefiling investigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1-4).
This investigation is focused on potential claims against you and other involved parties—in your
individual and personal capacity, arising from the events surrounding the August 8, 2024,
Page 6 of 97
extrajudicial proceedings in United States v. Ware, Case No. 24-1414cr (L), in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.5 My client, Mr. Ware, contends that these alleged judicial
proceedings (personal meetings) were conducted in a manner that violated his constitutional rights
and statutory protections, and I am obligated to ensure that any claims filed are well-grounded in
fact and law.6
To fulfill my obligations under Rule 11(b), I am requesting your prompt disclosure of
information relevant to potential defenses, immunities, and other legal arguments that may apply
to the contemplated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO criminal
statutes, 18 USC §§ 2, 156-57, 201(b), 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1001, 1201, 1202, 1341, 1343,
1344, 1346, 1503, 1512, 1519, 1621, 1622, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and
2071(a), (b), collectively, (the “Pattern of Racketeering Activities” or “RICO Crimes”).
1. Good Faith Defenses to the Claims
Please provide a detailed disclosure of any specific defenses you intend to assert in
response to potential claims that your actions or omissions on or around August 8, 2024, during
the secretive and alleged extrajudicial proceedings, were unlawful. This should include:
• Factual Basis for the Proceedings: A comprehensive explanation of the legal and factual
grounds upon which the August 8, 2024, proceedings were conducted, including why these
proceedings were carried out without required public notice, transparency, or Plaintiff's
5
See Ex. 1, infra.
6
See Exhibits, infra.
Page 7 of 97
involvement. Identify any statutory or regulatory provisions you relied upon to justify the
decision to proceed in this manner.
• Judicial Authority: Documentation or legal arguments supporting the contention that your
and the defendants’ actions on August 8, 2024, fell within the scope of your judicial
authority. This includes any legal justification for the denial of Plaintiff’s Rule 27-1 Motion
to Recall Mandate, particularly given the absence of any published opinion, order, or other
documentation explaining the basis for the denial.
• Response to Allegations of Secrecy: A detailed account of why the identities of the
alleged Article III federal judges involved in the proceedings were not disclosed to Mr.
Ware, despite multiple formal requests citing his First Amendment rights and other legal
entitlements. See Ex. 2, Ex. 3, and Ex. 4, infra. Please clarify whether you contend that
there was any legal obligation to maintain such secrecy and, if so, the legal basis for this
position. See Id.
2. Good Faith Immunities to the Claims
Given the very serious nature of the allegations, I request a full disclosure of any
immunities you believe apply to shield you from personal and individual liability under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO statutes, 18 USC §§ 1961-65 et seqs.. Specifically, please
address:
• Judicial Immunity: An assertion of judicial immunity, if applicable, including specific
references to controlling case law, statutes, or rules that support the application of such
immunity in this context. Clarify whether you believe the immunity is absolute or qualified,
Page 8 of 97
and explain the reasoning behind this belief, particularly in light of the alleged extrajudicial
and secretive nature of the proceedings.
• Qualified Immunity: A detailed analysis of why you believe qualified immunity might
apply, especially considering that qualified immunity generally applies only where a
defendant’s (public official’s) official conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Provide
case law or other legal precedent that would support your reliance on qualified immunity,
given the specific circumstances of the August 8, 2024, proceedings.
• Absolute Immunity: If you contend that absolute immunity shields your personal and
individual conduct and actions, please provide a full legal argument, including references
to relevant case law, statutes, or rules that establish the applicability of such immunity in
cases where judges are alleged to have engaged in secretive, ultra vires, and extrajudicial
personal conduct, particularly when such actions are claimed to be outside the scope of
their lawful official judicial duties.
3. Other Facts, Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Good Faith Beliefs
I also request a comprehensive disclosure of any other facts, laws, rules, regulations, or
good faith beliefs that you intend to rely upon as a defense to the potential claims. This should
include:
• Specific Legal Standards: Identification and explanation of any legal standards, rules, or
regulations that you believe justified your actions on August 8, 2024. Include any internal
Page 9 of 97
court policies or guidelines that may have influenced the decision to conduct the
proceedings in the manner described by Plaintiff.
• Exculpatory Facts or Evidence: Any facts or evidence that you believe exonerate your
personal actions or that counter the allegations made by Mr. Ware. This may include
documentation or records demonstrating that the decisions made during the August 8,
2024, proceedings were based on legitimate judicial considerations and not intended to
obstruct justice or deprive Plaintiff of his rights.
• Legal Precedent: Any legal precedent or case law that supports your actions and decisions,
particularly with regard to the handling of judicial records, the disclosure (or non-
disclosure) of judge identities, and the conduct of proceedings in the absence of public
notice or Plaintiff’s involvement. See 28 USC §§ 2071(a), (b).
• Potential Procedural Defenses: Any procedural defenses you may raise, including
challenges to the timeliness of the potential claims, jurisdictional defenses, or other
procedural arguments that could impact the viability of Mr. Ware’s claims under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO statutes.
4. Deadline for Response
To ensure that this prefiling investigation is conducted with the rigor required by Rule
11(b), I request that you provide the requested disclosures within 7 days (August 30, 2024) of the
date (August 22, 2024) of this letter. Your response will be critical in evaluating whether there
is a sound and legally rational factual and legal basis for proceeding with the claims. Additionally,
Page 10 of 97
your cooperation will be considered as part of the overall determination regarding the potential
filing of a lawsuit.
5. Conclusion
This request is made in strict adherence to my obligations under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(b) to ensure that any pleadings, motions, or other papers filed with the courts are
well-grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not interposed for any improper purpose. I appreciate
your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your full and good faith cooperation.
If you or your legal counsel have any questions or require clarification regarding this
request, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Please be advised that failure to timely respond to this Rule 11(b)(1-4) prefiling investigation
within the specified 7-day period will be deemed and presumed as your agreement that you
have no good faith defenses, immunities, or objections to the facts and claims stated herein.
Additionally, your failure to respond may result in the application of the legal doctrine of
estoppel by acquiescence, which could preclude you from later asserting any defenses,
immunities, or objections that you might have raised in response to this inquiry. By your
silence and inaction, you would effectively be conceding the validity of the claims and
allegations, thereby waiving any right to contest them in any subsequent legal proceedings.
This presumption and potential estoppel will be considered when determining the propriety
of filing a complaint, and may significantly limit your ability to defend against the claims
should litigation be pursued.

Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Page 11 of 97
Exhibits
Page 12 of 97
Exhibit 1—Ultra vires, Extrajudicial null and void ab initio alleged August 8, 2024, order of
denial entered in 24-1414 (L) (2d Cir.).
Page 13 of 97
Exhibit 2—(10.1-3) August 22, 2024, Second request for First Amendment disclosure and
production.

For Delivery to:
The Office of the Chief Circuit Judge, the Hon. Debra Ann Livingston
_________________________________________
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L) (10.1-3)
: Case No. 23-865cv
__________________________________________:
Second Request for Immediate First Amendment

Disclosure and Production.7
For immediate delivery to the Chief Circuit Judge and Circuit Clerk.
Judicial Public Records Related to or Associated with the Extrajudicial and Ultra
Vires Unlawful Criminal Proceedings Allegedly Conducted on August 8, 2024, in
USA v. Ware, 24-1414cr (L), Required by 28 USC § 46, 28 USC §§ 455(a), 455(b),
28 USC §§351-64, Rules 3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the First Amendment, Press
7
(emphasis added).
Page 14 of 97
Enterprise, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Code
of Conduct for Federal Judges.8 See Ex. A, infra.

8
9
Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP and its partners, Dennis S. Meir,
John W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV knowingly aided, abetted, enabled, and facilitated a
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(b), and 1962(a-d), during the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11
proceedings; and KTS and its partners knowing, in bad faith, and recklessly lied and committed fraud on
GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the Bankruptcy Court by concealing the fact that its clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiffs, before, during, and after the time of the Chapter 11 case had never lawfully registered with the
SEC or FINRA, or NYS as 15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealers, and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law
and fact KTS and its client lacked a lawful claim and thus, lacked Article III standing to have appeared in
the Chapter 11 case and obstructed GPMT’s right to reorganize and recoup +$522 million in illegal Section
16(b) short-swing profits concealed by KTS’ clients--realized from illegal insider trading in the equity
securities of GPMT—that is, the collection of criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX4,
in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B) and Grote, 921 F.3d at 115-17.
Page 15 of 97
essence.10

Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
10
The August 18, 2009, purported mandate entered in 07-5222(L) (2d Cir.) as a matter of law and fact went
moot on (i) July 14, 2003, upon the SEC-DOJ filing the unsigned complaint filed in the Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s ¶33, which pleaded a binding Article II actual innocent
36; and S. Tr. 73-76.
Page 16 of 97
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Moot, void ab initio, August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) denial order, see Ex. A, infra.
Re: Immediate Request for First Amendment Disclosure of the Identities of Article III
Judges – Case Nos. 07-5222cr(L) and 24-1414cr(L)
Dear Chief Judge Livingston, the Judicial Council, the Circuit Clerk, the Special Committee, the
Director of the FBI, and the Court of Appeals:
I write to you once again on behalf of Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-Defendant in
the above-referenced cases, to follow up on my prior August 13, 2024, request for the immediate
disclosure of judicial records associated with the alleged August 8, 2024, proceeding, including
the identities of each alleged Article III judge who participated in the extrajudicial and ultra vires
meeting regarding the denial of Mr. Ware’s Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall Mandate.
To date, this Court has not responded to the request by the deadline of August 20, 2024.
As you are aware, the First Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986),
mandates transparency in judicial proceedings to ensure public confidence and the fairness of the
Page 17 of 97
judicial process. The refusal to disclose this critical information is a direct violation of Mr. Ware’s
First Amendment right of access.11
The importance of the requested information cannot be overstated. Mr. Ware has raised
substantial claims regarding the alleged August 8, 2024, extrajudicial and ultra vires
proceedings, which include assertions of serious constitutional violations and substantiated
criminal judicial misconduct. The disclosure of the identities of the alleged Article III United
States circuit judges who personally participated in this extrajudicial and ultra vires conspiracy to
obstruct justice alleged judicial proceedings is essential to assess any potential conflicts of interest,
bias, or other improprieties (violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges and 28 USC §§
361-64) that may have influenced their decision.12
Given the gravity of these issues and the clear constitutional mandate, I respectfully
demand the immediate disclosure of the identities of all judges who participated in the August 8,
2024, panel not later than Monday, August 26, 2024, time of the essence. Failure to do so not
only constitutes a continued violation of the First Amendment but also necessitates further legal
action to compel compliance and ensure that Mr. Ware's constitutional rights are fully protected.
Please provide this information without further delay. Should any additional procedures be
required to facilitate this request, kindly inform me immediately.
Hopefully, it will not be necessary to pursue 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) First
Amendment civil rights litigation regarding this matter, however, you can be sure that Mr.
Ware will protect his legal rights to the fullest extent of the law, and you can be sure that all
available legal remedies will be pursued to protect his legal rights.13
11
U.S. v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2015) quoting U.S. v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84m 86 (2d Cir. 1988)
(defendants and the public have the First Amendment right to access to judicial records in criminal
proceedings).
12
It is remarkable—though sadly unsurprising—that this Court has, to date, declined to reveal the identities
of the so-called Article III circuit judges who allegedly engaged in what appears to be a blatant conspiracy
to obstruct justice. This obfuscation is emblematic of a judiciary that increasingly operates with a disturbing
lack of transparency and accountability, perhaps confident in the mistaken belief that their robes shield
them from the same scrutiny to which they subject others. Such secrecy only fuels suspicions that these
proceedings were not just ultra vires but a deliberate act of criminal judicial misconduct, designed to
protect the interests of a select few at the expense of both the law and the Constitution. The refusal to
disclose these identities reeks of institutional corruption, raising serious concerns about whether the
judiciary is still capable of policing itself—or whether it even cares to try.
13
One would hope that the judiciary, entrusted with upholding the Constitution, would not compel a citizen
to resort to civil rights litigation under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) to vindicate such fundamental
rights as those guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, given the apparent disdain for transparency
and accountability demonstrated thus far, it seems almost inevitable. If this Court believes that stonewalling
and subverting justice will deter Mr. Ware from exercising every legal option available to him, it is gravely
Page 18 of 97
Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
Respectfully,

Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
mistaken. Rest assured, when those entrusted with protecting the rule of law instead trample upon it, they
invite litigation that will expose their actions for what they are: a gross violation of constitutional rights.
The judiciary should be wary of forcing the hand of those who are able and more than willing to fight
for their rights in the very courts that have sought to deny them.
Page 19 of 97
Exhibit A—Ultra vires, Extrajudicial null and void ab initio alleged August 8, 2024, order of denial entered
in 24-1414 (L) (2d Cir.).
Page 20 of 97
End of document
Page 21 of 97
Exhibit 3—(10.1-2) August 13, 2024, First request for First Amendment disclosure and
production.

_________________________________________
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L) (10.1-2)
: Case No. 23-865cv
__________________________________________:
Request for Immediate First Amendment

Disclosure and Production.14
For immediate delivery to the Chief Circuit Judge.
Judicial Public Records Related to or Associated with the Extrajudicial Criminal
Proceedings Allegedly Conducted on August 8, 2024, in USA v. Ware, 24-1414cr
(L), Required by 28 USC § 46, 28 USC §§ 455(a), 455(b), 28 USC §§351-64, Rules
3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the First Amendment, Press Enterprise, the Due Process
14
(emphasis added).
Page 22 of 97
Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges.15 See Ex. A, infra.

15
16
Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP and its partners, Dennis S. Meir, John W.
Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV knowingly aided, abetted, enabled, and facilitated a conspiracy to
commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(b), and 1962(a-
d), during the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 proceedings; and KTS and
its partners knowing, in bad faith, and recklessly lied and committed fraud on GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the
Bankruptcy Court by concealing the fact that its clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, before, during,
and after the time of the Chapter 11 case had never lawfully registered with the SEC or FINRA, or NYS as
15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealers, and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law and fact KTS and its client
lacked a lawful claim and thus, lacked Article III standing to have appeared in the Chapter 11 case and
obstructed GPMT’s right to reorganize and recoup +$522 million in illegal Section 16(b) short-swing profits
concealed by KTS’ clients--realized from illegal insider trading in the equity securities of GPMT—that is,
the collection of criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX4, in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
and Grote, 921 F.3d at 115-17.
Page 23 of 97
essence.17

Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Filed on Tuesday, August 13, 2024, via email and regular mail.
17
The August 18, 2009, purported mandate entered in 07-5222(L) (2d Cir.) as a matter of law and fact
went moot on (i) July 14, 2003, upon the SEC-DOJ filing the unsigned complaint filed in the Las Vegas 03-
0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s ¶33, which pleaded a binding Article II actual innocent
36; and S. Tr. 73-76.
Page 24 of 97
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Tuesday, August 13, 2024

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Moot, void ab initio, August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) denial order, see Ex. A, infra.
Dear Chief Judge Livingston, the Judicial Council, the Circuit Clerk, the Special Committee, the
Director of the FBI, and the Court of Appeals:
On behalf of Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-defendant in the above-styled case, Mr. Ware
inquires on the Court as the Appellant-Defendant, an interested party, in the matter of U.S. v. Ware,
24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.). Mr. Ware is writing to the Court under the authority of the First
Amendment and the Supreme Court’s precedent and reasoning in Press Enterprise, see n. 7, infra,
to formally and urgently request the disclosure and production of specific judicial court records
related to the alleged August 8, 2024, criminal extrajudicial proceeding, and subsequent ultra
Page 25 of 97
vires denial of the May 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the moot and void ab initio August
18, 2009, mandate entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (L) (2d Cir.), (the “Extrajudicial
Proceeding”), reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.).
This request is made pursuant to Mr. Ware’s rights under Press Enterprise, the First and
Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 46, 455(a), (b), 2071(a), (b),
JC&D Rule 3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the Due Process Clause, and the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges. Time is of the essence, and Mr. Ware requests that this information be provided no
later than Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
Legal and Factual Basis for the Request
The ultra vires, moot, and void ab initio August 8, 2024, denial order, see Ex. A, infra, (the
“Extrajudicial Order”), references the existence of an alleged “pattern of vexatious litigation”—
exactly what constituted the alleged “pattern” has never been explained by any federal judge in
any lawful proceeding, as the basis for denying the Rule 27-1 motions. However, this Extrajudicial
Order lacks transparency and specificity regarding the proceedings, evidence, and legal standards
that were allegedly employed in making such a legal and factual determination.18 Mr. Ware seeks
18
The August 8, 2024, denial order, Ex. A, infra, hereinafter referred to as the "Extrajudicial Order," is
fundamentally flawed and void ab initio due to its failure to satisfy the essential requirements of legal
transparency, specificity, and reasoned adjudication. The Order's invocation of an alleged "pattern of
vexatious litigation" as grounds for denying Mr. Ware’s Rule 27-1 motions is deeply problematic, as no
federal judge has provided a substantive legal or factual foundation for this barebone conclusion. This
omission is particularly grave given the context in which Mr. Ware’s motions were filed—namely, the
pursuit of Brady material that is both exculpatory and pivotal to his claim of actual innocence. The
material in question, which remains as of today August 13, 2024, unjustly suppressed and concealed—that
is, Jeremy Jones’ “the government’s principal witness” at trial in 05cr1115 (SDNY), the Perjury Contracts]
by the USAO (SDNY), and the actions of District Judge Edgardo Ramos in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),
as well as Circuit Judges Kearse, Sack, and Cabranes in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr/24-1414 (2d Cir.), demand
rigorous judicial scrutiny. The notion that seeking access to such critical actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence could be dismissed as vexatious litigation is patently untenable
under the law—the Brady doctrine. The absence of any judicial articulation or justification for such a
Page 26 of 97
the requested judicial public records to protect his constitutional right to due process of law, and
to ensure the integrity of the judicial process; thus, it is imperative that Mr. Ware is provided with
all relevant judicial public records to understand the basis of August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Order
and to assess any potential bias, prejudice, criminal culpability, liability, or conflicts of interest
that may have influenced the entry of the Extrajudicial Order and the outcome of the Extrajudicial
Proceeding.19
Request for Information
In light of the aforementioned concerns, Mr. Ware hereby, respectfully, requests the
immediate disclosure and production of the following judicial public information pursuant to the
28 USC §§351-64, Rule 3(c)(2), the Due Process Clause, and First Amendment right of access,
see Press Enterprise:20
mischaracterization constitutes a severe breach of due process. In a system where the government’s or
courts’ willful and bad faith actual innocent suppression of Brady material directly implicates the fairness
of the trial process, the court’s failure to provide a legally sound basis for its vexatiousness finding not only
undermines the legitimacy of the Extrajudicial Order but also strikes at the very heart of the justice system’s
commitment to fairness and impartiality. The profound deficiency in reasoned legal analysis within the
Order necessitates its invalidation as contrary to the principles of justice that must govern judicial decision-
making.
19
The August 8, 2024, denial order—referred to as the "Extrajudicial Order"—is a glaring example of
extreme judicial overreach, lacking any lawful foundation or transparency. This order purports to rest on
an alleged "pattern of vexatious litigation," yet neither the Court nor any federal judge has ever provided a
substantive explanation or evidence for what exactly constituted this so-called pattern. The Court's refusal
to clarify why Mr. Ware is not permitted to seek enforcement of District Judge Pauley’s 05cr1115 (SDNY)
May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17 (Tr. 5-11) Brady order further exacerbates the issue, raising serious concerns about
the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. The omission of any justification for barring Mr. Ware
from seeking redress or relief with respect to Brady disclosure and production matters undermines the very
principles of due process and judicial accountability as well as the Supreme Court’s well-settled Brady
doctrine. The lack of transparency and specificity in the Extrajudicial Order strongly suggests that it is ultra
vires, moot, punitive, retaliatory, vindictive, and void ab initio, calling into question the legitimacy of the
proceedings and the motivations behind the Court’s actions.
20
The Press-Enterprise decisions underscore the critical importance of public access to judicial
proceedings and records as protected by the First Amendment. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior
Page 27 of 97
1. Identity of Participating Judges:
o Please disclose the actual identity of each Article III United States Circuit Judge
who directly or indirectly participated in the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial
Proceeding. Given the significant implications of the denial order, it is critical that
Mr. Ware be informed of the identities of the judges who were involved to ensure
that no conflicts of interest, prejudices, or biases influenced their ultra vires and
extrajudicial (personal) decision-making.
2. Transcripts, Notes, and Papers:
o Mr. Ware requests the production of all transcripts, notes, recordings, and any
other papers used during or related to the alleged August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial
Proceeding. This includes any recordings, stenographic records, or handwritten
notes that capture the deliberations and discussions among the participating judges.
Such records are essential for Mr. Ware to verify that the alleged August 8, 2024,
proceeding was actually conducted, and actually conducted in accordance with
established legal standards and that no extrajudicial factors influenced the outcome.
3. Judicial Public Records, Papers, and Documents:
Court of California (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1986), the Supreme Court held that the
First Amendment guarantees the right of access to criminal proceedings, including pretrial hearings,
appeals, transcripts, pleadings, papers, recordings, etc., recognizing that transparency is essential to
ensuring fairness and public confidence in the judicial system. The Court emphasized that access to judicial
records and proceedings serves as a check on the judicial process, preventing potential abuses of power
and ensuring that justice is administered openly. In light of these principles, Mr. Ware’s request for the
immediate disclosure and production of all judicial public information aligns with the First Amendment's
purpose of facilitating informed public scrutiny of judicial actions. Denying this access not only
contravenes established legal precedent but also raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the [24-
1414 and 07-5222] proceedings in question and ipso facto, per se violates the Code of Conduct for
Federal Judges.
Page 28 of 97
o Please provide all judicial public records, papers, and documents that were used or
relied upon during the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Proceeding. This includes, but
is not limited to, briefs, exhibits, legal memoranda, and any external reports or
sources referenced by the judges. Mr. Ware needs access to these documents to
evaluate the factual and legal basis for the court’s ultra vires decision.
4. Factual and Legal Findings:
o Mr. Ware requests a detailed disclosure of all factual and legal findings made by
the judges during the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Proceeding that factually and
legally support the conclusion of a “pattern of vexatious litigation.” Specifically,
he seeks clarification on how this unsupported in the record determination was
reached and what specific actions or filings were factually and legally considered
vexatious given that Mr. Ware was the defendant in the sub judice criminal
proceeding (05cr1115), and raised actual innocent “substantial” liberty interest
Brady constitution claims in the Rule 27-1, cf., Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876
F.2d 307-08 (2d Cir. 1989) and Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 737 F.2d 1254, (2d Cir.
1984).21 Mr. Ware is entitled to know the precise legal reasoning that led to the
denial of the merits of the Rule 27-1 motion.
5. Legal Standards for Vexatiousness:
o Please disclose the legal standards and criteria that the judges used to make a factual
and legal finding of “vexatiousness” regarding the Brady disclosure claims made
21
Appellants who were defendants in the proceedings below [Mr. Ware was the defendant in U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY)] are not subject to any leave to file sanction order restrictions, and the court is required
to adjudicate the merits of all claims in the papers regardless of whether or not the claims appear to be
without merit)
Page 29 of 97
in the Rule 27-1 motion. Mr. Ware requests an explanation of how these standards
were applied in the context of Judge William H. Pauley’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17
(Tr. 5-11) Brady order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and how they
justified the blanket denial of the Rule 27-1 motion.
Justification for the Request
The disclosure and production of the requested records are mandatory under federal law
and constitutional principles for several reasons:
• First and Fifth Amendments: Mr. Ware’s has the constitutional right to petition the
government for redress and the absolute right to due process requires full access to all
judicial records that impacted the outcome of the Rule 27-1 “substantive motion.”
Withholding, suppressing, concealing, removal, or destruction of these judicial records
violates 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1951, and 2071(a), (b), and other federal laws, 42
USC 1983, 1995(2), and 1985(3), and deprives Mr. Ware of his constitutional protections.
• 28 U.S.C. §§ 46, 455(a), (b): These statutes mandate transparency and accountability in
the judiciary, particularly in matters where potential conflicts of interest, prejudices, or bias
could affect the impartiality of the judges involved. Full disclosure of identity is necessary
to ensure that the Rule 27-1 proceeding was handled with the full requirement of due
process of law, fairness, impartiality, free of any actual or the appearance of any conflict
of interest, and integrity required by law.
• JC&D Rule 3(c)(2) and Code of Conduct: The rules governing judicial conduct require
that judges maintain impartiality and avoid any appearance of impropriety. The requested
Page 30 of 97
records will allow me to assess whether these standards were upheld or whether judicial
misconduct occurred.
• Due Process Clause: Due process demands that Mr. Ware be provided with the
opportunity to understand and challenge the basis of judicial decisions that negatively
impact his legal rights. Access to the requested records is essential for Mr. Ware to exercise
this right effectively.
Conclusion
Given the serious implications of the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Order, Ex. A, infra, and
the extremely likely potential for criminal judicial misconduct, it is imperative that the requested
records be disclosed and produced without delay. I respectfully urge you to comply with this
request and provide the information no later than Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
Failure to produce these records may constitute a violation of my constitutional, legal, and
equitable rights and could necessitate further legal action to compel compliance. I trust that you
will act in accordance with your legal and ethical obligations and ensure that justice is served in
this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Ulysses T. Ware—Appellant-defendant
Signed under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts
pursuant to 28 USC §1746 on August 13, 2024, in Brooklyn, NY, in support of JC&D Rules 3(c)(2)
probable cause to appoint a Rule 11(f) Special Committee and Rule 13(b) criminal referral.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
August 13, 2024
Brooklyn, NY
Page 31 of 97
Exhibit
Page 32 of 97
Exhibit A—Ultra vires, Extrajudicial null and void ab initio alleged August 8, 2024, order of denial entered
in 24-1414 (L) (2d Cir.).
Page 33 of 97
Exhibit 4—(10.1-1) August 9, 2024, Request for First Amendment disclosure and
production.

_________________________________________
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L) (10.1.1)
: Case No. 23-865cv
__________________________________________:
Ulysses T. Ware’s August 9, 2024, (1) Request for Chief Circuit Judge’s
Article III Supervisory Authority Relief and (2) August 9, 2024,
Supplemental Declaration (#4.0) for Rule 3(c)(2) Clear and Convincing
Evidence for Probable Cause for the Chief Circuit Judge to Sua Sponte
Appoint the Rule 11(f) Special Committee and Judicial Referral to the
FBI for Criminal Investigation.22
Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack, et al.; (1) Criminal violations of the Code of Conduct
for Federal Judges; (2) Violations of 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1); and (3) Numerous
violations of Title 18 USCA—a “pattern of racketeering activities.”
22
Page 34 of 97
Re: The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Sack, Hall (deceased), Cabranes), District Court
(SDNY) (Pauley, Sweet, Dolinger, Peck, Taylor-Swain, Ramos, McMahon, and
Dawson (D. NV)), Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court (Hagenau); and the State Bar of
Georgia, et al. Collusion, Racketeering to Obstruct Justice, Conspiracy, Crimes,
and Frauds with Respect to: (1) the Ongoing Suppression and Concealment of
Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts; and (2) Vindictive, Retaliatory, and Punitive
Sanctions Designed to Professionally Destroy Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. in Retaliation
for Mr. Ware’s Refusal to Issue Fraudulent and Bogus Rule 144(k) Legal Opinions
to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Plaintiffs, Unregistered Broker-Dealers, Section 2(a)(11)
Statutory Underwriters, and 15 USC 78p(b) Statutory Insiders of the Issuer,
GPMT.23
Jones’ Judicial Court Records--Part XII (9.10.2) Ongoing Judicial Conspiracy to Obstruct
Justice and Commit Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos,
Pauley, Sweet, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, Dawson, McMahon, and Cabranes;
and the State Bar of GA) in Support of the Requested Reliefs Regarding the May 12, 2024,
and June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the Moot August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr
mandate, and (2) The immediate access to all judicial court records used in and/or part of
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its decision in its Moot
August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir.
2009) (Kearse, J.) not later than Friday, May 31, 2024, time of the essence. 24
23
24
Page 35 of 97
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Date: Filed on Friday, August 9, 2024

36; and S. Tr. 73-76, see Ex. 11, infra.
Page 36 of 97
In re Robert D. Sack, et al.25
Rule 3(c)(2) Declaration of Probable Cause by Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 9th day of August 2024, under oath, subject to the penalty
of perjury, having personal knowledge of the information and facts presented herein, pursuant
to 28 USC 1746, made this Declaration of Probable Cause, Facts, and Clear and Convincing
Evidence for the Purpose of Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability
Proceedings, (the “Rules”),26 and show the Chief Circuit Judge, Livingston, C.J., the Special
Committee, and the Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the following
facts establish “probable cause” to sua sponte initiate a Special Committee process and
investigate Circuit Judge Sack, et al.—the other federal judges named herein, and refer this
matter to the FBI for criminal investigation.
Signed this 9th day of August 2024, in Brooklyn, NY under oath subject to the penalty of perjury.
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
August 9, 2024, Brooklyn, NY
25
Including federal judges: Edgardo Ramos (02-22-90049jm 2d Cir.), Colleen McMahon (02-24-90036jm
2d Cir.), Amalya L. Kearse, Jose A. Cabranes, Katherine Polk-Failla, Margaret M. Garnett, Laura Taylor-
Swain, LaShann DeArcy-Hall, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau, and Kent J. Dawson, (the “Federal
Judges” or “Judge Sack” or “Judicial Predators”).
26
Application and Analysis of Rule 3(c)(2) with Respect to Clear and Convincing Evidence herein,
pleading 9-8.4, 9.8-4 Ex. 20, and pleading 9.6-3 (07-5222cr 2d Cir.). Rule 3(c)(2) Overview.
Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct allows for two primary methods of initiating a complaint
against a federal judge:
1. Filing a Complaint: A complaint can be filed with the judicial council of the relevant circuit,
detailing the alleged misconduct, or
2. Chief Judge’s Sua Sponte Initiation: The Chief Circuit Judge has the authority to initiate a
complaint on their own (sua sponte) upon receiving credible evidence and information indicating
potential judicial misconduct.
This rule ensures that judicial misconduct can be addressed proactively by the judiciary itself, not solely
relying on external complaints.
Page 37 of 97
123 Linden Blvd, Ste. 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Friday, August 9, 2024, 02:55:22 PM
Ulysses T. Ware’s Rule 3(c)(2) Declaration of Probable Cause to Appoint a Rule 11(f) Special
Committee to Investigate the Federal Judges identified in n. 4, supra, and the three (3)
Unidentified and Unknown Federal Judges and (2) Pursuant to JC&D Rule 13(b) immediately
Refer this Matter to the FBI with a Judicial Request to Open a Criminal Investigation of the
Crimes Alleged Herein.
The Hon. Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston

The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, Rule 11(f) Special Committee, and Director of the FBI.
40 Foley Sq.
New York, NY 10007
Re: USA v. Ware, 24-1414cr (L) previously 07-5222cr (L)

Motion to recall August 18, 2009, mandate and other reliefs
August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial and Criminal Denial of Motion to Recall mandate
Re: Ulysses T. Ware’s demand and request for the identity of each Article III United States
federal judges27 who directly and/or indirectly participated in the Court’s August 8, 2024,
ultra vires and unconstitutional proceedings where the decision was made to deny
Appellant’s Motion to Recall the August 18, 2009, mandate for: (i) newly discovered
actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence never previously
presented to any court; and (ii) “substantial monetary sanctions” and other significant
penalties imposed in the criminal proceedings (04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
where Mr. Ware was the defendant. See Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876 F.2d 307, 308 (2d
Cir. 1989) and Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984).
27
John Doe or Jane Doe #1, #2, and #3—that is, on August 8, 2024, and other times, December 4, 2023,
unnamed and unidentified alleged Article III United States circuit judges acting in moot, void ab initio,
extrajudicial, illegal, vindictive, punitive, and retaliatory meetings—overt acts in furtherance of the Hobbs
Act criminal conspiracy to obstruct and impede the orderly administration of justice in the federal court,
violate the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and to commit other crimes included in 18 USC 1961(1),
a “pattern of racketeering activities” on the property of the United States while acting and functioning in
the clear absence of all jurisdiction and acting in their personal capacity as knowingly member and
participants in an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Page 38 of 97
Dear Chief Judge Livingston:
A Requested relief pursuant to the Court’s Article III supervisory

authority and the Brady doctrine, 373 U.S. at 87:
I. Provide on the Court’s letterhead and signed by a responsible federal judge addressed to
Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant-defendant, in 24-1414cr (L) not later than Monday, August
12, 2024, 4:00 P.M. time of the essence, via email: [email protected], the full
identity, and name of each alleged Article III United States circuit judge, see 28 USC 46,28
who was a knowingly and willful participant in the alleged extrajudicial, punitive,
vindictive, and retaliatory August 8, 2024, void ab initio meeting, see Ex. A, infra,—a
deliberate and intentional overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct justice
and the orderly administration of justice—violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal
Judges, and 18 USC 2, 156-57, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1201, 1202,
1341, 1343, 1346, 1512, 1519, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and
28
This request raises significant concerns about potential judicial misconduct related to the August 8,
2024, meeting involving federal judges. Credible allegations suggest that this meeting, aimed at retaliating
against Ulysses T. Ware, violated 28 U.S.C. § 46, which mandates the proper composition and conduct of
judicial panels in the United States Courts of Appeals. Section 46 requires that cases be heard and
decided by a properly constituted panel, ensuring adherence to established legal procedures and
safeguarding the integrity of judicial actions. If the judges involved participated in this meeting outside
the scope of § 46, bypassing these procedural safeguards, they may have acted beyond their judicial
authority, raising serious questions about the legality and ethics of their conduct. Such actions, if
confirmed, would not only violate § 46 but also suggest involvement in a broader conspiracy to obstruct
justice, in clear breach of multiple federal statutes. The demand for the identification of each judge
involved is crucial for determining whether there has been a violation of § 46 and to ensure accountability.
Upholding the integrity of the judiciary requires immediate transparency and adherence to statutory
mandates to maintain public trust and the rule of law.
Page 39 of 97
2071(a, (b)29, “a pattern of racketeering activities” arranged and conducted on behalf the
continuing criminal enterprise and its willful participants, on and in property owned by
the United States of America.30
I.
Mr. Ware pursuant to Rule 3(a)(2) of the JC&D hereby this August 9, 2024, under oath,
subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC
1746, informs, provides credible “information,” and moves the Court through you, the Chief
Circuit Judge, given the official identities of the alleged Article III federal circuit judges involved
in the extra-judicial, fraudulent, moot, ultra vires, and void ab initio August 8, 2024, proceedings,
see Ex. A, infra, that allegedly took place in this Court, on and in property owned by the United
States of America,31 have not been officially identified, Mr. Ware move through you in your
official capacity as the Chief Judge of the United States Court Of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
29
Specifically, the theft, suppression, removal, and concealment, 18 USC 2071(a), (b), of Jeremy Jones’
alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts, Jencks Act statements, and all sentencing
judicial records related to Jeremy Jones, Brady evidence.
30
The criminal use of government property to commit crimes, violate the constitutional rights of Ulysses
T. Ware, and deny Mr. Ware his Brady doctrine, see 373 U.S. at 87, constitutional right to gain access to
“all” actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the Court’s and Government’s
possession—that is, the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts of “the
government’s principal witness” a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones, currently in the actual and/or
constructive possession of Damian Williams and the Federal Judges named herein.
31
The operation of the business and interest of a criminal enterprise in violation of 18 USC 1961(1) and
1961(4) in their personal capacities on property owned by the United States. Operating a criminal
enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1961(4) on property owned by the United States carries
severe legal implications. The individuals involved can face significant criminal penalties under the RICO
Act, potential civil liability, and enhanced sentencing due to the federal nature of the property. The federal
government’s ability to prosecute and seize assets associated with such activities underscores the serious
consequences of engaging in organized crime, particularly on federal property. This also reflects a broader
commitment to protecting federal interests and maintaining the integrity of government operations.
Page 40 of 97
Mr. Ware, the Appellant-defendant in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) regarding his May 12,
2024, Motion to Recall Mandate and the Court’s ultra vires and void ab initio August 8, 2024,
order, see Ex. A, infra, and brings the following “credible information” to your attention
regarding:
I. dispositive and manifest actual innocent Article III jurisdictional defects regarding
05cr1115 (SDNY) and 07-5222cr (2d Cir.),
II. fraud on the court committed by District Judge (SDNY) Edgardo Ramos, and
Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, and Jose A. Cabranes, in collusion
and conspiracy with the three (3) unknown and unnamed federal judges
criminally involved in the fraudulent and alleged August 8, 2024, extra-judicial,
punitive alleged judicial proceedings—the August 8, 2024, proceedings were not
lawful Article III judicial proceedings because the 07-5222cr Court lacked Article
III jurisdiction over the merits and the subject matter of the 05cr1115 and 07-
5222cr proceedings,
III. criminal violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and
IV. credible circumstantial and actual evidence of the operation of a criminal
enterprise and violations of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1519, 1951, 1956-57,
1958-59, 1961(6)(B), conspiracy to impede and obstruct the orderly
administration of justice in the federal courts, and
Page 41 of 97
V. credible circumstantial and actual evidence of operation of the business and
activities of an ongoing criminal enterprise on property owned by the United
States of America,
to your, the FBI, the Rule 11(f) Special Committee, and the Court’s attention pursuant to Rule
3(c)(2) of the Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) Rules to support probable cause to initiate a
Rule 11(f) special committee, and judicial referral to the FBI to criminally investigate the
unknown and unnamed federal judges, and their associates, proxies, surrogates, alter-egos, and
agent, involved in the fraudulent, ultra vires, extra-judicial, unlawful, and unconstitutional illegal
meeting which alleged took place on August 8, 2024, in New York, NY at 40 Foley Sq., Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, in and/or on the property of the United States for illegal
purposes in furtherance of the continuing criminal enterprise’s conspiracy to obstruct justice and
continue the 18 USC 1961(6)(B) collection of criminal usury unlawful debts,32 GX 1, GX 2, GX 3,
and GX 4, see 02cv2219 (SDNY) (McMahon, J.), and U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and In re
Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), Chapter 11.33
II.
32
See In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.) (complaint of objective criminal violations of the
Code of Conduct for Federal Judges—that is, violations of NYS Penal Law, section 190.40 and 15 USC
78o(a)(1), operation as unregistered broker-dealers).
33
See 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Hagenau, C.J., Dkt, 256, 258, 274, and 275, overt acts in furtherance of 18 USC
2, 156-57, 371, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d) Hobbs Act loan sharking and collection
of unlawful debts, GX 1-4, and conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP and its partners (Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV, and
others).
Page 42 of 97
First, Mr. Ware is factually and actually innocent of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY)—here’s why. Because on or about July 14, 2003, in the SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas 03-0831 D.
NV unsigned complaint in ¶33,34 the United States, the real party in interest, (i) acquitted Mr.
Ware of all charges in 05cr1115 and (ii) pleaded itself out of court by pleading actual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment Article II affirmative defenses, actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment judicial admissions, that “the press releases of INZS and SVSY’s
management did not cause any increase in the stocks’ prices” (paraphrased), actual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence—a binding Brady exculpatory and impeachment
judicial admission which pleaded the United States out of the federal courts with respect to the
INZS and SVSY press releases, the same moot and immaterial press releases the subject matter
34
Cf., the Court’s August 18, 2009, mandate and decision, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir.
2009) (Kearse, J.), see Id. at 443-46, without any Government expert testimony, expert exhibits, expert
reports, or any proof (lay or expert) beyond a reasonable doubt whatsoever or any evidence in the trial
record which countered the United States July 14, 2002, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment Article II judicial admissions that the press release did not cause any “increase in stock
prices” moreover, cf., with exculpatory 05cr1115 trial testimony of all “FBI analyst” Maria A. Font who
testified under brutal cross-examination by Mr. Ware, and in tears and under visible emotional distress—
knowing that she committed perjury on direct examination, Ms. Font testified that “I have no
information or proof that anyone ever read a press release, or that they were read at all … and I have
no evidence or information that press releases caused the stocks’ prices to rise or fall ….” (paraphrased).
The exculpatory and impeachment testimony of alleged “FBI analyst”—a law enforcement official, blew
up the government’s case in chief and trial theory of “artificial inflation of stock prices caused by press
releases”—that is, Ms. Font’s pretrial statement made to the USAO clearly are Jencks Act Brady
exculpatory and impeachment “statements” required to have been disclosed “prior to trial” as ordered
by Judge Pauley’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order; and within Mr. Ware’s constitutional rights
to seek redress and remedy from this court via the Motion to Recall Mandate to compel the disclosure
and production of Ms. Font’s Jencks Act statements, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence.
Page 43 of 97
of the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)/07-5222cr (2d Cir.) proceedings. See Hoodho v. Holder,
558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009) (Cabranes, J.).35
Second, allegedly a covert and secret meeting, an extrajudicial meeting (alleged judicial
proceeding), was held on August 8, 2024, allegedly in New York, NY at 40 Foley Sq, in the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, property of the United States—the official
identities of the individuals and knowingly participants in the criminal enterprise who allegedly
attended the secret meeting on August 8, 2024--in furtherance of the criminal activities of the
criminal enterprise have not been provided to Mr. Ware as of August 9, 2024--in the clear
absence of all lawful Article III subject matter jurisdiction over the merits over (i) 05cr1115 and
(ii) over the 07-5222cr appeal pursuant to the attachment of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s
absolute finality as soon as the late District Judge Pauley swore in the 05cr1115 jury on January
15, 2007, at 1:45:00 P.M. for this Court to review the “merits” and make a merits
35
“Facts admitted by a party "are judicial admissions that bind th[at] [party] throughout th[e]
litigation." Gibbs ex rel. Estate of Gibbs v. CIGNA Corp., 440 F.3d 571, 578 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Oscanyan
v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261, 263, 26 L.Ed. 539 (1881) ("The power of the court to act in the disposition of a
trial upon facts conceded by counsel is as plain as its power to act upon the evidence produced."); 2
McCormick on Evid. § 254 (6th ed. 2006) ("Judicial admissions are not evidence at all. Rather, they are
formal concessions in the pleadings in the case or stipulations by a party or counsel that have the effect
of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact. Thus, a
judicial admission, unless allowed by the court to be withdrawn, is conclusive in the case. . . ." (footnote
omitted)). Admissions by parties are not subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that the admissions are
fully supported by the underlying record. Cf. Gibbs, 440 F.3d at 578 ("Having agreed on a set of facts, the
parties who adopted the stipulation, and this Court, must be bound by them; we are not free to pick and
choose at will." (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). This rule of non-inquiry promotes
efficiency and judicial economy by facilitating the concession of specific issues, thereby "provid[ing] notice
to all litigants of the issues remaining in dispute, identify[ing] those that can be eliminated from the case
and those that cannot be, narrow[ing] the scope of discovery to disputed matters and thus reduc[ing] trial
time." Banks v. Yokemick, 214 F.Supp.2d 401, 405-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).” (emphasis added).
Page 44 of 97
determination—“vexatious[ness]” of Mr. Ware’s claims and issues in the May 6, 2024, Motion to
recall mandate pursuant to the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Crist v. Bretz,
437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978), United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1977) and
United States v. Lynch, 162 F.3d 732, 735-36 (2d Cir. 1998) (Sack, J.) concurring.
Third, given the January 15, 2007, 1:45:01 PM (i) attachment of Double Jeopardy to Mr.
Ware, the defendant in 05cr1115, and (ii) attachment to the defective and deficient 05cr1115
indictment’s actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment Article II affirmative
defenses and judicial admissions pleaded by the United States, the real party in interest, in the
05cr1115 and Las Vegas 2003 SEC-DOJ 03-0831 D. NV Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s unsigned
complaint’s ¶33 the holding and reasoning in Steel Co., Id. at 93-95 and Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506
(jurisdiction can be raised and challenged at “any time, even after trial and judgment by any
party or the court, sua sponte”) (paraphrased), ipso facto, Mr. Ware, the 05cr1115 defendant, a
“party to” the 05cr1115 proceedings was and is lawfully authorized to raise and challenge the
05cr1115 (SDNY) district court and this court’s Article III subject matter jurisdiction “at anytime
even after trial and entry of judgment,” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506.36
36
This fact along, a challenge to the 05cr1115 and 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) courts’ subject matter jurisdiction
is reason enough according to the Supreme Court’s, Steel Co. and Arbaugh, precedents to justify and
authorize Mr. Ware to seek relief and remedy in this court; and moreover, this court is not lawfully
authorized or permitted to make any legal or factual jurisdictional rulings first and until the plaintiff below,
the United States (see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, the plaintiff has the burden of proof and production to
establish jurisdiction) appears in the 05cr1115 district court (SDNY), and affirmatively confirms its Article
III standing, jurisdiction, and bona fide status, after July 14, 2003, as a live “real party in interest” in
05cr1115 given (I) its July 14, 2004, ¶33 judicial admission, and (II) given its Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary Article
II appellate political decision that dismissed with prejudice its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I cross-
appeal of the District Court (Pauley, J. (deceased)) Oct. 2007, post-trial Rule 29(c) resolutions in Mr. Ware’s
favor that the Government’s trial proof “on among other things including the efficiency of the market”
was insufficient, see Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-36; and S. Tr. 73-76—that is, a Martin Linen, 430
Page 45 of 97
Once jurisdiction is found to be lacking in 05cr1115 and 07-5222cr (it will be) (it is lacking
as of 1:45:01 PM on January 15, 2007), then this court on August 8, 2024, was not and is not
lawfully authorized to conduct any merit (“vexatious”) review of the claims in the Motion to Recall
Mandate, can “go no further” other than initially (“a threshold matter”) confirming its jurisdiction
to review the claims and issues in the Motion to Recall Mandate37 and “must dismiss the cause
[07-5222cr judgment, and Nov. 5, 2010, punitive, vindictive, retaliatory, and void ab initio leave
to file sanction] for lack of jurisdiction [given as a matter of law and fact the United States no
longer a bona fide plaintiff38 in the sub judice criminal proceedings (05cr1115) is prohibited by
the Double Jeopardy Clause from appearing in this Court regarding 05cr1115 and 07-5222],” Steel
Co., Id.39
U.S. at 570-71 and Lynch, 162 F.3d at 735-36 acquittal for insufficient evidence which triggered the
application of the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause protection for Mr. Ware.
37
The Court erred as a matter of law: first as a “threshold matter,” see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95, this
Court was required to have “affirmatively confirmed” not only its jurisdiction over 07-5222cr but the
jurisdiction of the 05cr1115 district court, “the court from which the record comes to this court” Steel Co.,
Id. Only then once the 05cr1115 district court confirmed its subject matter jurisdiction over the
Government’s actual innocent Brady exculpatory Article II affirmative defenses and judicial admissions—
a legal impossibility, was the Court then authorized to proceed and conduct merit review and make any
factual finding of “vexatious[ness].” In its eagerness to act punitively against Mr. Ware’s legal interest, the
Court jumped the jurisdictional gun, a false start, and is legally required to reverse and vacate the moot,
void ab initio August 8, 2024, criminal enterprise’s extrajudicial (advisory) directive as void ab initio. Id.
38
The United States July 14, 2003, 03-0831 D. NV ¶33 Article II actual innocent affirmative defense,
judicial admissions and Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (2d
Cir.) Gov-I cross-appeal terminated the United States status as a bona fide Article III plaintiff with standing
to prosecute the Government’s 05cr1115 trial theory of (i) “artificial inflation of stock prices caused by
press releases (ii) in an “inefficient market.” Ipso facto as a matter of law and fact the Government is no
longer a bona fide Article III plaintiff with respect to the 05cr1115 and appellee with respect to 07-5222cr.
39
Accordingly, given that the United States, the real party in interest, via the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY)
as the plaintiff in 05cr1115 (SDNY) sub judice, pursuant to the Court’s holding in Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-
61, Steel Co., Id, and Arbaugh, Id, read in pari materia, the United States—the plaintiff below in 05cr1115
is required to immediately appear in the this Court regarding 07-5222cr Motion for Recall of Madate and
Page 46 of 97
Fourth, on August 8, 2024, the United States was not a bona fide Article III ‘real party in
interest”—a bona fide plaintiff, with respect to the moot 05cr1115 and 07-5222cr (2d Cir.)
proceedings—that is, on August 8, 2024, this Court with respect to 05cr1115 and 07-5222 lacked
an Article III live case or controversy between the parties regarding INZS and SVSY’s immaterial
and moot press releases, and the Government’s trial theory, “fraud on the market” between Mr.
Ware and the United States, given:
(i) the United States July 14, 2003, Las Vegas 03-0831 D. NV ¶33 actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment Article II affirmative defense, judicial admission, pleaded on the
face of the SEC-DOJ’s unsigned compliant—the ¶33 actual innocent Article II affirmative defense,
judicial admission, terminated required “concrete adverseness” between the parties on all
factual elements of proof, see Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968);40
immediately appear in the district court (SDNY) 05cr1115—the court from which the record comes to this
court, and “affirmatively confirm” its 28 USC 547(2) “concern”, Article III, and 18 USC 3231 subject matter
jurisdiction regarding 05cr1115 trial theory’s factual elements of proof—“artificial inflation of stock
prices” and “fraud on the market” given indisputable evidence (i) the United States’ July 14, 2003, ¶33
actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment Article II affirmative defense, judicial admission,
pleaded on the face of the unsigned 03-0831 D. NV SEC-DOJ manifestly frivolous moot complaint, (ii) given
the United States Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)
Gov.-I cross-appeal of the 05cr1115 district court’s Oct. 2007 post-trial Rule 29(c) acquittal verdicts, (iii)
given the double jeopardy implications of District Judge Pauley’s January 15, 2007, 1:45:00 PM swearing
of the jury in the 05cr1115 proceeding, and (iv) given the late trial judge, Pauley, J.’s post-trial Oct. 2007
Rule 29(c) factual findings and “resolutions” in Mr. Ware’s favor that the Government’s trial evidence on
“market efficiency” was insufficient, see 05cr1115 (SDNY) Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-36; and S. Tr.
73-76.
40
Justiciability is itself a concept of uncertain meaning and scope. Its reach is illustrated by the various
grounds upon which questions sought to be adjudicated in federal courts have been held not to be
justiciable. Thus, no justiciable controversy is presented when the parties seek adjudication of only a
political question, when the parties are asking for an advisory opinion, when the question sought to be
adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments, and when there is no standing to maintain
the action.” (emphasis added). Ipso facto, the United States Attorney’s Office (SDNY) on behalf of the
Page 47 of 97
(ii) the 05cr1115 trial judge, Pauley, J., (deceased) Oct. 2007 post-trial Rule 29(c) factual
“resolutions” in Mr. Ware’s favor the Government’s trial evidence was insufficient on “among
other things market efficiency,” terminated the Government’s status as a live bona fide plaintiff,
real party in interest;41
(iii) the Government’s Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary Article II appellate political decision that
dismissed with prejudice its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I cross-appeal terminated all
“concrete adverseness” and justiciability between the parties regarding the Government’s
insufficient evidence concerning its trial theory “fraud on the market” and “market efficiency”
which rendered the 05cr1115 and 07-5222 proceedings moot.42
With respect to the Motion to recall mandate given the attachment of jeopardy on
January 15, 2007, at 1:45:00 PM (the swearing of the jury)—the 05cr1115 trial started on January
United States on August 8, 2024, lacked Article III, 18 USC 3231, and 28 USC 547(1), (2) standing to appear
in any court, federal or states, or agency, on behalf of the United States and its privies and make any
argument inconsistent with or contrary to: its July 14, 2003, ¶33 in the Las Vegas 03-0831 D. NV unsigned
complaint’s judicial admission, (ii) the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause and (iii) the August
18, 2009, final judgment entered in the Government’s dismissed with prejudice U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(2d Cir.), Gov-I cross-appeal mooted on Nov. 7, 2008, by the USAG’s 28 USC 516 authority over all litigation
on behalf of the United States.
41
See 2007 sentencing transcript 05cr1115, Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-36; and S. Tr. 73-76, (quoting
Pauley, J.) actual innocent rulings, factual “resolutions” in favor of Mr. Ware which triggered the absolute
finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause and terminated this Court’s Article III jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the 05cr1115 proceedings on Oct. 12, 2007.
42
On August 18, 2009, this Court entered final judgment in Mr. Ware’s favor regarding the Government’s
Gov-I cross-appeal, which was on August 8, 2024, res judicata, collateral estoppel, binding this Court as a
matter of law, see Federated Dept. Stores, 452 U.S. at 394, 401-02 (all issues and matters actually or
necessarily resolved by final judgment “absolutely binding on all courts, the parties, and their privies,” in
“all subsequent proceedings [the May 12, 2024, 07-5222cr Motion to Recall Mandate]”). (emphasis
added).
Page 48 of 97
15, 2007, at 1:45:00 PM and ended one (1) second later on January 15, 2007, at 1:45:01 PM, the
shortest trial in the history of the United States, therefore as a matter of law, pursuant to the
holding in Martin Linen, 430 U.S. at 570-71, and Lynch, 162 F.3d at 735-36 (Sack, J., concurring),
District Judge Pauley, the trial judge, pursuant to his authority under Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 29(a)
on January 15, 2007, upon swearing in the jury “resolved” all actual innocent factual Article II
affirmative defenses and Government judicial admissions in favor of Mr. Ware.
Therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of fact, and law, as of January 15, 2007, at 1:45:01 PM
this court and all other courts lacked jurisdiction over all aspects of the 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 07-
5222cr (2d Cir.) other than this court’s inherent jurisdiction to inquire of the court’s jurisdiction,
Page 49 of 97
and not more, to conduct any lawful Article III judicial review of the merits of the claims or issues.
Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95,43 a “threshold matter.”44
III.
Mr. Ware is in receipt of the Court’s punitive, retaliatory, vindictive, extra-judicial, ultra
vires, null and void ab initio August 8, 2024, “advisory” document (see Ex. A, infra), purporting
to deny—a merit determination, his Motion to Recall the 07-5222cr mandate filed based on the
“significant constitutional grounds” of newly discovered actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
43
In Steel Co., Id, the Court rejected this court’s “drive-by jurisdiction” noting: “Moreover, those statutory
arguments, since they are "jurisdictional," would have to be considered by this Court even though not
raised earlier in the litigation-indeed, this Court would have to raise them sua sponte.”
Id. at 94-95, the Court further noted rejecting this court’s hypothetical jurisdiction exercised on August 8,
2024, “We decline to endorse such an approach because it carries the courts beyond the bounds of
authorized judicial action and thus offends fundamental principles of separation of powers. This conclusion
should come as no surprise, since it is reflected in a long and venerable line of our cases. "Without
jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause [the Motion to recall Mandate]. 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).
"On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this
court, and then of the court from which the record comes [05cr1115 (SDNY)]. This question the court is
bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the
relation of the parties to it." Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement
that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R.
Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).” (emphasis added).
44
The August 8, 2024, order, a moot and ultra vires order did not make any finding of the court’s Article
III and appellate jurisdiction to conduct any review of the merits of the Motion to Recall Mandate’s merits,
thus, as a matter of law the August 8, 2009, order, Ex. A, is moot and void ab initio., Steel Co., Id., and
moreover, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506 authorizes Mr. Ware to challenge the August 8, 2024, order, “at
any time” for lack of jurisdiction.
Page 50 of 97
impeachment evidence.45 Actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
deliberately suppressed and concealed by the prosecution and Circuit Judges Cabranes, Kearse,
Sack, and Hall (deceased), and former District Judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased) during the
05cr1115 trial and the 07-5222cr appeal—that is, a meritorious matter concerning (i) a
“significant financial matter” and (ii) substantial liberty interest, actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the United State Attorney (SDNY)
and this Court’s judges which implicate due process of law liberty interest concerns, see Martin-
Trigona, 876 F.2d at 307-08.
Mr. Ware makes this request and demand pursuant to his legal and equitable rights under
(1) the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause, (2) 28 USC 351 et. seqs., (3) 28 USC 455(a)
and 455(b), (4) the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and (5) the Double Jeopardy Clause as
interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Martin Linen, 430 U.S. at 570-71, i.e.,
the law.
45
Importantly and critically to due process of law and compliance with the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges canons 1, 2, and 3, 28 USC 351 et. seqs, and 28 USC 455(a), 455(b), the August 8, 2024, alleged
judicial order did not state that Mr. Ware’s Motion to Recall Mandate was denied by the requisite “panel”
of Circuit Judge as required to adjudicate a Rule 27-1 “substantive motion” and (2) did not provide the
identities of the individual circuit judges who allegedly conducted the alleged judicial review of Mr. Ware’s
Brady disclosure and Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 claims for disclosure of actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence and legally found the Brady doctrine and the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court
order did not apply to Jeremy Jones’, “the government’s principal witness” alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule11
and USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts’ disclosure and production to Mr. Ware the defendant in the 05cr1115
criminal proceeding, see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution [or
the court—Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos, Cabranes, et al.] of [exculpatory and impeachment]
evidence [Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts] favorable to
an accused [Mr. Ware to impeach and vitiate Jones’ credibility]] upon request [see May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17,
Brady court order, Pauley, J.] violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” (emphasis added); also see
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment materials are Brady evidence).
Page 51 of 97
Mr. Ware has an unqualified First and Fifth Amendment right—as the defendant in the
criminal proceedings, to gain access to all judicial public records—actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence, related to and associated with his criminal proceeding
(05cr1115), to wit: (i) all judicial records related to the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule 11
and USSG 5k1.1 proceeding’s records, (the “Perjury Contracts”), which allegedly involved a
person claimed by this Court (without any verifiable documents or proof) and the Government
to be Jeremy Jones, “the government’s principal witness” in 05cr1115 (see Ware, 577 F.3d at
445)( Kearse, J.).46 See U.S. v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2005) citing U.S. v. Haller, 837 F.2d
84, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1988).
Palpably, until such time as this United States Article III Court of Appeals orders the United
States Attorney’s Office (SDNY) (i) state on the record that no such actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment judicial public records exist related to Jeremy Jones, or (ii) orders
the disclosure and production of the true and verifiable identity of the person—claimed to be
46
No verifiable documents or records have been produced by this Court or the Government that
definitively confirmed the identity of the person claimed to have been “Jeremy Jones” who allegedly
appeared in a United States federal court allegedly on Sept. 22, 2006, and allegedly (i) entered a null and
void ab initio Rule 11 guilty plea contract in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (S1) and (ii) also allegedly
entered into an unenforceable void ab initio USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contract with the Government to
supply known to be false and perjured testimony during the 05cr1115 trial, jointly, (the “Jeremy Jones’
Perjury Contracts”). This Court nor the USAO (SDNY) have not disclosed or produced after +50 requests
by Mr. Ware the Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts—that is, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence covered by and required to have been disclosed “before the start of [the
05cr1115] trial” as ordered by the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order, Pauley, J. (deceased). As a
matter of law, there is nothing “vexatious” by Mr. Ware requesting that this Court order the production
of Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) and
United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2005), pursuant to the Court’s Article III supervisory
authority and the All Writs Act, see United States v New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) and
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).
Page 52 of 97
Jeremy Jones, who allegedly on or about Sept. 22, 2006, appeared in a United States Article III
federal court (SDNY) and allegedly entered into a fraudulent Rule 11 plea of guilty to an
indictment and also, allegedly, entered into a fraudulent USSG 5k1.1 substantial assistance
contract, the Perjury Contracts, within this Court’s territorial supervisory authority to order, Mr.
Ware’s is well within his due process constitutional right—see Brady, Id., and will continue to
seek redress and a remedy from this Court to aid him in his constitutional due process right to
gain access—compel production on the Government, pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments, to “all” Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence related to or associated
with “the government’s principal witness” during the 05cr1115 trial, Jeremy Jones, see Brady
doctrine and civil and criminal contempt of the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order, 18 USC
401(2), 401(3).
Only after the USAO (SDNY), Andre Damian Williams, Jr. (a/k/a Damian Williams) certifies
to this Court and the 05cr1115 district court under oath as an officer of the court that (i) Jeremy
Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury contracts do not exist, or (ii) have been
disclosed and produced to Mr. Ware as ordered by District Judge Pauley’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17,
Brady court order, with a certified chain of custody, and (iii) the district court conducts Kyles
cumulative assessment evidentiary hearings of “all” the newly discovered Brady evidence, and
(iv) if necessary Mr. Ware appeals to this Court, and if necessary (v) appeals to the Supreme Court
of the United States, only then would Mr. Ware’s filing be considered, perhaps, but not with
certainty “vexatious, otherwise, as a matter of law Mr. Ware’s filing cannot be “vexatious” but
Page 53 of 97
are lawfully authorized by the Supreme Court’s Brady doctrine, see 373 U.S. at 87 and its
progenies.
Accordingly, as a matter of law, Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, Mr. Ware is legally authorized and
entitled to petition this Court of Appeals to enforce the May 19, 2006, Dkt 17, Brady court order
entered in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Pauley, J. (deceased) and order the USAO (SDNY) to
immediately disclose and product all Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and Rule 16 evidence required to
have been produced “before the start of trial” on January 15, 2007.47 The law—the Brady
doctrine, is well-settled and fundamental to the orderly administration of the criminal law and
processes in the courts (federal and state) and is not subject to rational debate—this United
States Article III federal court of appeals erred as a matter of law and fact in its extrajudicial,
vindictive, retaliatory, and punitive bogus and moot August 8, 2024, advisory order, Ex. A, infra,
denying Mr. Ware’s motion to recall the August 18, 2009, moot, ultra vires, and void ab initio
mandate.48
47
“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution [or the court—Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos,
Cabranes, et al.] of evidence favorable to an accused [Mr. Ware] upon request violates due process where
the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the
prosecution.” (emphasis added).
48
See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95 (as of January 15, 2007, upon the swearing of the jury by the late District
Judge William H. Pauley, III, (i) jeopardy attached to Mr. Ware and the S1 05cr1115 indictment’s actual
allegations, and (ii) also attached to the SEC-DOJ’s Article II affirmative defenses, judicial admissions,
pleaded in ¶33 of the July 14, 2003, Las Vegas 03-0831 D. NV Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings—judicial
admissions that the press releases of INZS and SVSY’s management “did not increase the stocks’ prices”
which is in direct contradiction to—impeachment and vitiation of, this Court’s 07-5222cr, Ware, 577 F.3d
442-446, August 18, 2009, decision and mandate (Kearse, J.). The issue went moot on July 14, 2003, upon
the United States, the real party in interest, judicially admitting in the Las Vegas 03-0831 D. NV judicial
proceedings Article II affirmative defenses which as a matter of law are binding on this court in regard to
the Motion to Recall Mandate, see Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009) (Cabranes, J.).
Page 54 of 97
IV.
On August 8, 2024, this United States Article III federal court as of District Judge Pauley
swearing the jury on January 15, 2007, at 1:45:00 PM in 05cr1115, lacked subject matter and
appellate jurisdiction over the merits of the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 and 07-5222cr (2d Cir.)
appeal—pursuant to the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause,49 to make a lawful and
valid determination of “vexatious[ness]” with respect to Mr. Ware’s meritorious and substantial
claims—that is, other than to affirmatively verify its jurisdiction over the proceedings, a
“threshold matter” this Article III federal court was precluded and strictly prohibited from any
lawful review of the merits of Mr. Ware’s claims in the Motion to Recall Mandate, see Steel Co.,
523 U.S. at 93-95.
The above analysis constitutes clear and convincing first-hand “information” which is
being provided and presented to the Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir), Livingston, C.J., pursuant to Rule
3(c)(2) of the JC&D for the purpose of establishing probable cause, and the initiation of a Rule
11(f) Special Committee and the FBI to criminally investigate50 the subject federal judges named
n. 1, supra, and unknown and unidentified John/Jane Does #1, #2, and #3 federal judges who
were directly involved and knowingly participated in the extra-judicial August 8, 2024, conspiracy
to obstruct justice and deny Mr. Ware his right to gain access to actual innocent Brady
49
Se United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1977) and United States v. Lynch,
162 F.3d 732, 735-36 (2d Cir. 1998) (Sack, J.) concurring.
50
Page 55 of 97
exculpatory and impeachment evidence, judicial court records, protected by 18 USC 2017(a),
(b), i.e., Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Perjury Contracts, and other Brady evidence.

Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Date: Filed on Friday, August 9, 2024, with Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston.
Signed under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts,
and pursuant to 28 USC 1746 on August 9, 2024.
Brooklyn, NY
August 9, 2024
Page 56 of 97
Exhibit A—August 8, 2024, advisory, moot, ultra vires, extrajudicial, punitive, and
fraudulent judicial document--an 18 USC 2, 156-57, 241, 242, 401(2), 401(3), 371, 924(c),
1201, 1202, 1341, 1343, 1436, 1512, 1519, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-
d), and 2071 (a), (b) overt act in furtherance of the ongoing since 2002 conspiracy to
obstruct the orderly administration of justice, and Hobbs Act unlawful debt collection
activities in violation of U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105, 115-17 (2d Cir. 2020) and Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
Page 57 of 97
Exhibit B—Draft Proposed Order and Opinion submitted in 24-1414/07-5222cr
No. 07-5222cr (L) and 24-1414 (L)

United States of America,

Respondent-Plaintiff,
v.
Ulysses T. Ware,
Appellant-Defendant.
DRAFT PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER
WHEREFORE this matter came before the Court on May 12, 2024, and June 10, 2024, via
appellant Ware’s Rule 27-1 motions to recall mandate and other reliefs. For the reasons,
discussion, and analysis to follow, we supplement our previous (Draft) Opinion and Order, and
we agree that Ware is entitled to relief, thus, the Court shall GRANT the requested reliefs—(1)
the 05cr1115 indictment is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, (2) the 07-5222cr (L) August
18, 2009, Mandate is forthwith RECALLED, (3) the 05cr1115 (SDNY) Conviction and Sentence are
REVERSED and VACATED nunc pro tunc, and (4) the matter is remanded to the District Court
Page 58 of 97
(SDNY) before a new District Judge for further sanctioning proceedings consistent with this Order
and Opinion.51
Supplemental Opinion on Legal Errors and Material Weaknesses in the August 18, 2009,
U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) Opinion and Identification of Violations of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges.
I. Introduction
In the matter of U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.), and the subsequent
November 5, 2010, punitive leave-to-file sanction against Mr. Ware, it is imperative to address
and correct the legal errors and weaknesses that have emerged upon further examination of the
trial record, including Paragraph 33 of the SEC-DOJ 03-0831 D. NV complaint and the trial
admissions—which we find to be deliberate perjury suborned by the Government, made by FBI
analyst Maria A. Font regarding the government’s Exhibits GX 92 and GX 93. This opinion
identifies, analyzes, and discusses these critical issues in detail, with particular emphasis on the
violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges by Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack.
II. Background
51
The Court further writes and supplements its prior decision to express its opinion regarding the judicial
conduct of our colleagues the Hon. Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack. Regrettably, the Court would be remiss
and not fulfill its judicial duties under the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges if we did not express our
opinion on their conduct. Unfortunately, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) the
Government’s trial team, prosecutors, and witnesses, and regrettably, the late District Judge Pauley
(deceased) deliberately misled and committed a fraud on this Court, and (ii) Judges Kearse and Sack, and
other judicial officers (Ramos, J., McMahon, J., Taylor-Swain, C.J., et al.) violated multiple canons of the
Code of Conduct for Federal Judges; and accordingly, we find as fact “probable cause” has been
established for the Chief Circuit Judge, Livingston, C.J., to forthwith, on an emergency basis, initiate a Rule
11(f) Special Committee and refer this matter to the Circuit’s Judicial Council for further fact-finding and
investigation.
Page 59 of 97
The 05cr1115 case against Ulysses T. Ware was predicated on dubious, and now with the
benefits of Appellant’s newly discovered Brady evidence, found to be factually and legally
unsupported allegations of a "pump and dump" scheme to “artificially inflate stock prices.”
Central to the prosecution’s case were statements and actions purportedly showing manipulative
conduct by Mr. Ware and his associates, as well as documentary evidence presented during the
trial—which the Court now finds was knowingly and in bad faith fabricated by the Government.
However, significant contradictions and evidentiary issues have come to light that undermine
and call into question the foundation of the Government’s case in chief and this Court’s August
18, 2009, opinion (mandate) in this matter.52
III. Legal Errors and Weaknesses
A. Paragraph 33 of the SEC-DOJ’s July 14, 2003, 03-0831 D. NV Complaint
1. Contradiction with Prosecution's Theory
Paragraph 33 of the SEC-DOJ complaint, filed on July 14, 2003, explicitly states that the
press releases issued did not cause any “increase” in the stock prices of Service Systems (SVSY)
and Investment Technology (IT Inc.). This judicial admission pleaded in 2003 directly contradicts
the prosecution's 2005 05cr1115 theory that INZS/SVSY’s press releases “artificially inflated stock
prices.” (emphasis added).
Analysis:
• Judicial Notice of Paragraph 33, the SEC-DOJ’s Admission: The Court, regrettably, based
on the Government’s failure and breach of its duty of candor to this Court, failed to take
52
Reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.).
Page 60 of 97
into consideration and judicial notice of this critical actual innocent judicial admission—
Brady evidence, which is a binding judicial admission that effectively negated the
prosecution’s claim of artificial stock price inflation.
• Impact on Prosecution’s Case: This contradiction severely undermined the credibility of
the prosecution’s case, as it invalidates the central allegation of a "pump and dump"—
market manipulation scheme. The Court’s failure to reconcile this judicial admission with
the prosecution's narrative constitutes a significant legal oversight.
B. Maria A. Font’s Testimony and Admissions
1. Cross-Examination Admissions
During the 05cr1115 trial, the Government’s witness FBI analyst Maria A. Font under
cross-examination by the defense admitted from the witness stand “that there was no evidence
to support the claim that the press releases issued by Mr. Ware had inflated the stock prices of
SVSY and INZS.” (paraphrased). Despite her (FBI analyst Font’s) earlier testimony under direct
examination suggesting otherwise--Font's admissions cast serious doubt on the reliability,
credibility, and integrity of the government’s evidence.
Analysis:
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Font’s admissions reveal a glaring lack of corroborative
evidence to substantiate the claim of “artificial inflation,” suggesting that the
government’s case relied on speculative, false, misleading, reckless, and unverified
assertions.
Page 61 of 97
• Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence: The prosecution had a duty under Brady v.
Maryland to disclose all exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defendant, Mr.
Ware, including Font’s admissions under cross-examination and paragraph 33 in the July
14, 2003, 03-0831 D. NB complaint, which would have materially affected the outcome
of the trial. The Court finds that the Government’s deliberate, and what we find was bad
faith failure to disclose or adequately consider this exculpatory evidence constitutes
prosecutorial misconduct requiring dismissal with prejudice of the 05cr1115 indictment,
and the reversal and vacation of the conviction and sentence, nunc pro tunc, and other
sanctions.
2. Contradiction with GX 92 and GX 93
FBI analyst Font knowingly presented perjured testimony, and we find the Government
exhibits GX 92 and GX 93, were fabricated, and were a deliberate fraud on this Court used to
show inflated stock prices. However, this bad faith, and unfortunately fabricated by the
prosecutors (Southwell and Feldman) evidence actually indicated a significant decrease in stock
prices from $0.0375 to $0.01875, which directly contradicts the prosecution's narrative of
artificial inflation.
Analysis:
• Misrepresentation of Evidence: The Court, regrettably, relied on these fabricated
Government trial exhibits, GX 92 and GX 93, without critically analyzing their content. The
exhibits showed a decrease in stock prices, contradicting the claim of inflation. This
Page 62 of 97
critical misrepresentation of evidence by the Government’s trial prosecutors is a critical
error that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
• Fabrication and Perjury: The Government’s reliance on GX 92 and GX 93 to support the
false claim of artificial inflation, despite their contradictory nature, suggests either a gross
oversight or intentional fabrication and perjury on the part of the prosecution.
IV. Violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges
A. Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
1. Lack of Integrity in Decision-Making
By issuing the August 19, 2009, 07-5222cr (L) opinion which relied on contradictory and
fabricated evidence, Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack failed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
The reliance on false evidence and the failure to acknowledge the Government’s judicial
admissions, paragraph 33, undermined the public's trust in the judicial process.
B. Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All
Activities
1. Appearance of Impropriety
The Judges’ Kearse, Sack, and Hall’s (deceased) failure to properly analyze and reconcile
critical actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, such as Paragraph 33 and
Font’s admissions, created an appearance of impropriety, in addition to actual bias and prejudice.
The imposition of the November 5, 2010, punitive leave-to-file sanction further exacerbates this
appearance, suggesting arbitrary, capricious, biased, and retaliatory motives were imposed
Page 63 of 97
against Mr. Ware for exercising his constitutional right to gain access to Brady evidence
suppressed by the prosecution.
C. Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently
1. Failure to Perform Duties Impartially
The Court’s reliance on flawed (fabricated) evidence and the imposition of the November
5, 2010, blanket, punitive, and severe leave to file sanctions without due process procedural
safeguards indicate a lack of impartiality. The judges' actions suggest a prejudiced and
predetermined approach to Mr. Ware’s case, violating the requirement to perform judicial duties
fairly and diligently.
D. Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the
Obligations of Judicial Office.
1. Impact of Judicial Conduct on Extrajudicial Activities
The conduct of Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack in this case may affect their extrajudicial
activities by casting doubt on their impartiality and integrity. Their actions in Mr. Ware's case
could influence public perception of their ability to engage in fair and unbiased judicial and
extrajudicial activities.
E. Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
1. Political Implications of Judicial Decisions
While not directly political, the Nov. 5, 2010, punitive sanctions and the flawed August
18, 2009, judicial opinion carry implications of personal and institutional bias, which can be
Page 64 of 97
perceived as politically motivated actions against Mr. Ware. This perception undermines the
nonpartisan nature of the judiciary.
V. Legal Implications and Judicial Misconduct
A. Rule 3(c)(2) Requirements
Given that the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence numerous judicial errors and
egregious prosecutorial misconduct, it is incumbent upon the Chief Circuit Judge to initiate a sua
sponte complaint under Rule 3(c)(2) to investigate the conduct of Circuit Judges involved in the
issuance of the Ware, 577 F.3d 442 opinion.
B. Impact on Judicial Integrity
The numerous errors identified herein, cumulatively and collectively, not only
undermined the specific case (05cr1115) against Mr. Ware but, regrettably, also significantly
damaged and eroded public confidence in the judicial system. The Court’s failure to properly
evaluate critical exculpatory or impeachment evidence and admissions reflects a broader issue
of the lack of judicial diligence and integrity.
C. Necessity of a Special Committee Investigation
The Court finds that the record conclusively established by clear, convincing, and
compelling evidence of egregious fraud on the court, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct
which the evidence necessitates the appointment of a Special Committee to thoroughly
investigate the judicial conduct in this case. The Court’s review included a thorough and
comprehensive review of the actions and decisions of the Circuit Judges, as well as the
prosecution’s trial decision-making conduct that led to this Court’s reliance on fabricated, flawed,
Page 65 of 97
and contradictory evidence, GX 92 and GX 93, and the testimony of the “government’s principal
witness” Jeremy Jones, see Ware, 577 F.3d at 445.
VI. Conclusion
The Court finds the Ware, 577 F.3d 442 opinion and mandate is fundamentally flawed
due to critical legal errors and the reliance on fabricated, false, misleading, contradictory and
perjured testimony and evidence. The Government’s judicial admission in Paragraph 33 of the
03-0831 D. NV SEC-DOJ complaint, combined with Maria A. Font’s admissions and the deliberate
bad faith, and perjured misrepresented exhibits GX 92 and GX 93, provide clear and convincing
evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The regrettable actions of Circuit Judges
Kearse and Sack predicated by the Government’s reckless and irresponsible prosecutorial
misconduct, in issuing both the opinion and the punitive leave-to-file sanction, violated multiple
Canons of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges. It is imperative that these issues be addressed
through a comprehensive public investigation to restore justice and uphold the integrity of the
judicial process.
Accordingly, Ware’s motion to dismiss the 05cr1115 indictment with prejudice is GRANTED, the
August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr (L) mandate of this Court is RECALLED, the 05cr1115 conviction and sentence
are REVERSED and VACATED nunc pro tunc, (4) the matter is remanded to the District Court (SDNY)
before a new District Judge for further sanctioning proceedings consistent with this Order and Opinion,
and (5) a certificate copy of this Opinion and Order is ORDERED to be forwarded to the Circuit’s Judicial
Council and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and Judiciary for appropriate action.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Page 66 of 97
SO ORDERED THIS __________ day of August 2024.
_____________________________________________________
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Page 67 of 97
Exhibit C—Rule 3(c)(2) Declarations #3.0—for Probable cause and FBI criminal referral.
Page 68 of 97
_________________________________________
:
:
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L) (09.10.4)
v. :
:
:
Ulysses T. Ware, :
Appellant-Defendant. :
__________________________________________:
Ulysses T. Ware’s August 8, 2024, Supplemental Declaration (#3.0)
and Ex. 22A for Rule 3(c)(2) Clear and Convincing Evidence for
Probable Cause for the Chief Circuit Judge to Sua Sponte Appoint the
Rule 11(f) Special Committee and Alert the FBI.
Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack, et al.; (1) Criminal violations of the Code of Conduct
for Federal Judges; (2) Violations of 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1); and (3) Numerous
violations of Title 18 USCA—a “pattern of racketeering activities.”
Re: The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Sack, Hall (deceased), Cabranes), District Court
(SDNY) (Pauley, Sweet, Dolinger, Peck, Taylor-Swain, Ramos, McMahon, and
Dawson (D. NV)), Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court (Hagenau); and the State Bar of
Georgia, et al. Collusion, Racketeering to Obstruct Justice, Conspiracy, Crimes,
and Frauds with Respect to: (1) the Ongoing Suppression and Concealment of
Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts; and (2) Vindictive, Retaliatory, and Punitive
Sanctions Designed to Professionally Destroy Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. in Retaliation
for Mr. Ware’s Refusal to Issue Fraudulent and Bogus Rule 144(k) Legal Opinions
to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Plaintiffs, Unregistered Broker-Dealers, Section 2(a)(11)
Page 69 of 97
Statutory Underwriters, and 15 USC 78p(b) Statutory Insiders of the Issuer,
GPMT.53
Jones’ Judicial Court Records--Part XII (9.10.2) Ongoing Judicial Conspiracy to Obstruct
Justice and Commit Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos,
Pauley, Sweet, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, Dawson, McMahon, and Cabranes;
and the State Bar of GA) in Support of the Requested Reliefs Regarding the May 12, 2024,
and June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the Moot August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr
mandate, and (2) The immediate access to all judicial court records used in and/or part of
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its decision in its Moot
August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir.
2009) (Kearse, J.) not later than Friday, May 31, 2024, time of the essence. 54
53
54
36; and S. Tr. 73-76, see Ex. 11, infra.
Page 70 of 97
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Date: Filed on Thursday, August 8, 2024

Page 71 of 97
Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Declaration—“Significant Evidence,”
(#3.0) for Rule 3(c)(2) Probable Cause for Appointment of a Rule 11(f)
Special Committee.
In re Robert D. Sack, et al.55

I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 8th day of August 2024, under oath, subject to the penalty
of perjury, having personal knowledge of the information and facts presented herein, pursuant
to 28 USC 1746, made this Declaration of Probable Cause, Facts, and Clear and Convincing
Evidence for the Purpose of Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability
Proceedings, (the “Rules”),56 and show the Chief Circuit Judge, Livingston, C.J., the Special
Committee, and the Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the following
facts establish “probable cause” to sua sponte initiate a Special Committee process and
investigate Circuit Judge Sack, et al.—the other federal judges named herein.
Signed this 8th day of August 2024, in Brooklyn, NY under oath subject to the penalty of perjury.
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
55
Including federal judges: Edgardo Ramos (see 02-22-90049jm 2d Cir.), Colleen McMahon (see 02-24-
90036jm 2d Cir.), Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Jose A. Cabranes, Katherine Polk-Failla, Margaret M.
Garnett, Laura Taylor-Swain (Reliable information reasonably likely to constitute judicial misconduct or
disability related to a chief district judge should be called to the attention of the chief circuit judge),
LaShann DeArcy-Hall, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau, and Kent J. Dawson, (the “Federal
Judges” or “Judge Sack” or “Judicial Predators”).
56
Application and Analysis of Rule 3(c)(2) with Respect to Clear and Convincing Evidence herein,
pleading 9-8.4, 9.8-4 Ex. 20, and pleading 9.6-3 (07-5222cr 2d Cir.). Rule 3(c)(2) Overview.
Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct allows for two primary methods of initiating a complaint
against a federal judge:
3. Filing a Complaint: A complaint can be filed with the judicial council of the relevant circuit,
detailing the alleged misconduct, or
4. Chief Judge’s Sua Sponte Initiation: The Chief Circuit Judge has the authority to initiate a
complaint on their own (sua sponte) upon receiving credible evidence and information indicating
potential judicial misconduct.
This rule ensures that judicial misconduct can be addressed proactively by the judiciary itself, not solely
relying on external complaints.
Page 72 of 97
1 JC&D Rule 11(f)
(“Before appointing a special committee, the chief judge must invite the subject judge
to respond to the complaint either orally or in writing” and “refute” [not some, but] all
allegations of alleged fact provided to the chief judge).
Overview of Judicial Conduct and Disability Rule 11(f)
Judicial Conduct and Disability Rule 11(f) mandates that:
“Before appointing a special committee, the chief judge must: (i) invite the subject judge[s] to
respond to the complaint [or information received] either orally or in writing and (ii) refute57 all
allegations of alleged fact provided to the chief judge.”
This rule is intended to ensure due process, granting the subject judge a fair opportunity
to address allegations before any further investigative steps are taken. However, the case of
Ulysses T. Ware exposes how federal judges (Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon,58 and Jose A.
57
See also Commentary to JC&D Rule 11(b) (“An allegation of fact is ordinarily not ‘refuted’ simply
because the subject judge denies it . . . . If it is the complainant’s word against the subject judge’s—in
other words, there is simply no other significant evidence of what happened or of the complainant’s
unreliability—then there must be a special-committee investigation.”).
58
See In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.) complaint of criminal judicial misconduct pending
since May 1, 2024, without any “refuting” of the factual allegations, specifically, (i) the fully supported by
clear and convincing evidence that District Judge McMahon and her spouse are currently, and have
never registered as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1) with the SEC, FINRA, and NYS as a broker-
dealer—that is, Judge McMahon and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, (i) are the proud and dubious
owners of +$22 million in predatory 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unregistered securities, and (ii) are
unregistered broker-dealers trafficking in NYS Penal Law, 190.40 and 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury
unlawful convertible promissory notes, the same subject matter as in a judicial matter (02cv2219 (SDNY))
she allegedly “inherited” in 2019 from the late District Judge Leonard B. Sand (deceased), see Dkt. 120,
137, 141, and 151 (02cv2219); note the record in 02cv2219 (SDNY) shows without any doubt or rational
dispute that Judge McMahon did not and has not filed the required Fed. R. Civ. P. 63 certification of
familiarity with the 02cv2219(SDNY) record before making frivolous, fraudulent, ultra vires, and null and
Page 73 of 97
Cabranes),59 including Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack, have allegedly manipulated this rule to shield
themselves from accountability, blatantly violating the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.
Allegations Against Judge Robert D. Sack and Others60
Ulysses T. Ware is submitting a Supplemental Declaration (#3.0) alleging serious
misconduct, including numerous criminal violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges,
violations of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1), and multiple Title 18 USCA criminal infractions. The
alleged misconduct spans across various courts and involves multiple judges and legal
professionals.61
Rule 11(f) Procedural Requirements and Violations
void ab initio rulings in 02cv2219 (SDNY) in the clear absence of all jurisdiction in violation of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(2).
59
See In re Edgardo Ramos, 02-22-90049jm (2d Cir.) complaint of criminal judicial misconduct summarily
dismissed without any adequate “refuting” the factual allegations in the complaint by District Judge
Edgardo Ramos, and (2) an egregious violation of Rule 11 by acting chief circuit judge Jose A. Cabranes
making findings of fact and “credibility determinations” a task required to be conduct by the Special
Committee not the acting chief circuit judge—that is, a per se violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges by Judge Jose A. Cabranes.
60
See Id., “If, however, the situation involves a reasonable dispute over credibility, the matter should
proceed. For example, the complainant alleges an impropriety and alleges that he or she observed it and
that there were no other witnesses; the subject judge denies that the event occurred. Unless the
complainant’s allegations are facially incredible or so lacking indicia of reliability as to warrant dismissal
under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), a special committee must be appointed because there is a material factual
question that is reasonably in dispute.” (emphasis added).
61
A federal judge’s conduct is sanctionable under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-
364, and the JC&D Rules 11 if the conduct is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration
of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a); JC&D Rule 4. JC&D Rule 4(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), (F); (2)(B);
4(a)(3); 4(a) (4); 4(a) (5); and 4(a)(6) provides that cognizable misconduct includes certain specific
behavior.
Page 74 of 97
Invitation to Respond: According to Rule 11(f), the chief judge must invite Judge Robert D. Sack,
et al., and other implicated federal judges to respond to the allegations.62 However, this
procedural step has often been reduced to a mere formality, allowing judges to evade
accountability.
Response Format: The subject judges can choose to respond either orally or in writing. Despite
the serious nature of the allegations, responses are frequently insufficient and lack the necessary
detail to refute the claims effectively.
Refutation of Allegations: The responses should specifically address and “refute” see n. 33,
supra, each allegation of fact, providing counter-evidence, sworn explanations, or other relevant
information. In practice, however, judges often provide vague and unsubstantiated responses,
undermining the process.63
Ensuring Fairness and Due Process
62
Where the allegations concern crimes committed by federal judges, or individuals or entities not
currently federal judges, the chief circuit judge is required by law to refer this matter to the FBI, the SEC,
FINRA, and other law enforcement agencies for investigation. See JC&D Rule 13(b): “If the special
committee’s investigation concerns conduct that may be a crime, the committee must consult with the
appropriate prosecutorial authorities to the extent permitted by the Act to avoid compromising any
criminal investigation. The special committee has final authority over the timing and extent of its
investigation and the formulation of its recommendations.” Also see, Rule 23(b)(8) permits disclosure of
additional information in circumstances not enumerated. For example, disclosure may be appropriate to
permit prosecution for perjury based on testimony given before a special committee, where a special
committee discovers evidence of a judge’s criminal conduct, to permit disciplinary action by a bar
association or other licensing body, or in other appropriate circumstances.
63
See In re Edgardo Ramos, 0222-90049jm (2d Cir.) and In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d
Cir.) complaints of judicial misconduct where neither federal judge has “refuted” with clear and
convincing evidence the factual allegations in the complaints—a conspiracy to adversely impact and
affect the due administration of justice.
Page 75 of 97
While Rule 11(f) aims to ensure fairness, its implementation has often been skewed in
favor of the accused judges, compromising due process and transparency.
Practical Application of Rule 11(f) in Ware's Case
Example 1: Allegation of Bias and Collusion.
Mr. Ware’s declaration alleges that Judge Sack and others engaged in numerous crimes,
conspiracy, judicial misconduct, perjury, fraud, bribery, suppression of Brady evidence, aiding
and abetting the violation of Brady disclosure court orders, civil and criminal contempt of court
orders and judgments, collusion and bias. Before forming a special committee, the chief judge
should invite Judge Sack, et al. to explain his/their decisions, provide concrete evidence and
“refute” all factual allegations in Mr. Ware’s Rule 3(c)(2) Declarations.
Example 2: Allegation of Criminal Activities Ware alleges that Judge Sack and others
participated in criminal activities, such as conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Detailed Analysis of Violations
1. Violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges
The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges establishes the standards for ethical behavior.
Specific violations by Judge Sack and others include:
Canon 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.
Judges must maintain and enforce high standards of conduct to uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
Violation by Judge Sack: Judge Sack's involvement in biased rulings and collusion with other
judges and legal professionals undermines the judiciary's integrity. For example, Ware’s
Page 76 of 97
declaration cites instances where Judge Sack allegedly conspired with other judges to obstruct
justice, a direct violation of Canon 1 regarding the 05cr1115 (SDNY)/07-5222cr (2d Cir.)
proceedings. This alleged conspiracy and collusion involved manipulating case outcomes to
protect personal and professional interests, thereby compromising judicial independence.
Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.
Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Violation by Judge Sack: Judge Sack’s actions created a clear appearance of impropriety. Ware
provides evidence that Judge Sack was involved in decisions (August 18, 2009, and Nov. 5, 2010)
that benefitted parties (Damian Williams, Michael J. Garcia, former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
Preet Bharara, LaShann DeArcy-Hall, et al.) with whom he has undisclosed relationships. For
instance, the ongoing suppression of key Brady evidence, such as the Jeremy Jones’ perjury
contracts, demonstrates a deliberate attempt to conceal misconduct, violating Canon 2.
Canon 3: Performing the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently.
Judges must perform their duties impartially and diligently.
Violation by Judge Sack: Ware's allegations include that Judge Sack failed to perform his duties
impartially. The concealment of critical Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence related to
05cr1115 (SDNY) and racially-motivated prejudicial and biased decision-making indicate a lack of
diligence and impartiality. For example, the refusal to order the disclosure of the Jeremy Jones
perjury contracts and other actual innocent Brady evidence, and refusal to order a show cause
proceeding in the District Court (SDNY) to enforce the Brady court orders entered in the 04cr1224
Page 77 of 97
and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings is clear and convincing evidence, and suggests a deliberate
effort to skew the judicial process in favor of certain parties, violating Canon 3.
Specific Examples of Code Violations
1. Concealment of Evidence (Canon 3 Violation).
In the case involving the suppression of “the government’s principal witness” (see Ware,
577 F.3d at 445) Jeremy Jones perjury contracts, Judge Sack, et al. failed to disclose and has
continued to suppress critical Brady l evidence that was and is vital to the defense, and critical to
Mr. Ware to attack continuing adverse “collateral consequences” that resulted from the unlawful
criminal convictions. This concealment and destruction of Brady evidence, 18 USC 2, 241, 242,
371, 1512, and 2071(a)(b), not only demonstrates a lack of diligence but also suggests an attempt
to manipulate the outcome of the 05cr1115 trial. By not performing his duties fairly and
impartially, Judge Sack violated Canon 3.
2. Collusion with Other Judges (Canon 1 and 2 Violations).
Ware’s declaration provides substantial and verified evidence of Judge Sack’s collusion
with other judges, such as Judge Pauley and Judge Sweet, to obstruct justice. This collusion
involved coordinating decisions and actions to protect personal and professional interests,
thereby compromising the judiciary's integrity and creating an appearance of impropriety. These
actions violated both Canons 1 and 2.
3. Biased Decision-Making (Canon 1 Violation).
Judge Sack’s racially-biased rulings (see August 18, 2009, and Nov. 5, 2010, in 07-5222cr
(2d Cir.)) in favor of certain parties demonstrate a clear violation of judicial integrity. Ware cites
Page 78 of 97
instances where Judge Sack’s decisions were influenced by undisclosed relationships and
personal penal and pecuniary interests. This bias undermines the independence of the judiciary,
violating Canon 1.
Ensuring Judicial Accountability
1. Comprehensive Responses Required.
To ensure accountability, judges must provide comprehensive responses and “refute”
with clear and convincing evidence all factual allegations made by Mr. Ware. In Ware’s case,
Judge Sack’s responses must include detail and address the specific evidence presented. Judges
are required to submit all relevant evidence that supports their refutations, including court
transcripts, rulings, and procedural documents.
2. Rigorous Review by the Chief Judge.
The chief judge must rigorously review the responses and credible evidence, if any, and
ensure they are comprehensive and substantiated. In Ware’s case given the criminal allegations,
the chief judge scrutinizes Judge Sack’s responses more critically given his current position,
demanding detailed explanations and evidence, and forward all responses to the appropriate law
enforcement agency for further investigation.
3. Formation of a Special Committee.
If the Federal Judges’ written responses are inadequate and do not affirmatively “refute”
rather than merely deny Mr. Ware’s factual allegation, the chief judge must then proceed with
forming a special committee to conduct a thorough investigation. However, Mr. Ware’s
Page 79 of 97
Declarations have facially established Rule 3(c)(2) probable cause for the initialization of the Rule
11(f) Special Committee investigations process.
Challenges and Considerations
Complexity of Allegations.
The allegations made by Ware are complex and involve multiple legal and procedural
issues. The Federal Judges’ written, sworn, and specific responses must be detailed, thorough,
and meticulously prepared to address these complexities adequately.
Time and Resources.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, the subject judges must be required to
immediately “refute” all allegations with specific sworn facts, documents, and other objective
evidence that “refute” all claims.
Overcoming Judicial Bias.
To ensure impartiality, the chief judge must remain unbiased and objective in reviewing
the allegations and responses. Any appearance of bias or partiality can undermine the integrity
of the process.
Ensuring Fairness and Due Process
Fair Hearing.
Rule 11(f) ensures that the subject judges are given a fair and adversarial evidentiary
hearing where witnesses are called. This step is crucial to maintain the transparency and integrity
of the judicial review process and protect the judges and public from unfair prejudice.
Judicial Integrity.
Page 80 of 97
By allowing the judges to respond before appointing a special committee, the rule helps
uphold judicial integrity and transparency. However, when and if Article III federal judges like
Sack provide inadequate responses, the process fails to achieve its intended purpose.
Practical Application of Rule 11(f) in Ware's Case
Example 1: Allegation of Bias and Collusion.
Ware’s declaration alleged that Judge Sack and others engaged in collusion and bias.
Before forming a special committee, the chief judge should rigorously invite Judge Sack to explain
his decisions, provide concrete evidence of his impartiality, and refute all factual allegations
made by Mr. Ware as required by Rule 11(b).
Example 2: Allegation of Criminal Activities.
Ware alleges that Judge Sack and others (i) are dangerous predatory criminals, and (ii)
each knowingly, willfully, in bad faith directly and/or indirectly participated in, aided,
abetted, enabled, assisted, or facilitated dangerous criminal activities, such as
conspiracy, money laundering, Hobbs Act murder for hire, attempted armed robbery,
mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, criminal contempt, racketeering, aiding and abetting,
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, unlawful debt collection activities, theft and
suppression of judicial public records, destruction of judicial court records, kidnapping,
honest services fraud conspiracy, 924(c) use of firearms to collect criminal usury unlawful
debts (government trial exhibits GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY)), obstruction of justice, and other racketeering offenses. Judge Sack should be
given the opportunity to respond and “refute” the allegations with clear and convincing
Page 81 of 97
concrete evidence, and in the event, he cannot “refute” the claims and provide concrete
and substantial evidence to refute these serious accusations the chief circuit judge is
required alert the (i) FBI and (ii) to appoint the Rule 11(f) Special Committee to conduct
the investigation. Judge Sack’s response must not lack detailed documentation and must
not rely on general denials (“I didn’t do that,” “I have never done that before”, “The
allegations are fantastical.” etc.), ignoring the specific evidence presented by Ware.
Judicial Conduct Procedures Context
Special Committee Formation.
If the responses from the subject judges do not satisfactorily refute the allegations with
substantial and objective evidence,--general denials are insufficient, the chief judge must then
(i) alert the FBI and (ii) proceed with appointing a special committee. This committee will conduct
a thorough investigation, considering the judges’ responses as part of their review.
Legal and Procedural Integrity.
The process outlined in Rule 11(f) ensures that any investigation into judicial conduct is
conducted with legal and procedural integrity, upholding the principles of fairness and due
process. However, the responses provided by Judge Sack and others in Ware’s case will be
factually inadequate and will not adequately “refute” the allegations and claims given the factual
record evidence64 overwhelmingly supports and establishes Mr. Ware’s allegations and claims
that will undermine this integrity, necessitating a more rigorous investigation.
64
See Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY), and Ware v. USA,
et al., 23-865, 23-869, and USA v. Ware, 07-5222cr, 09-0851cr, 11-2151, 11-4181, 17-2214, and 24-1414
(2d Cir.); 002cv2219 (SDNY); 03-0831 (D. NV), and 03-93031 (BC NDGA). Many of the judicial records have
Page 82 of 97
Conclusion
Judicial Conduct and Disability Rule 11(f) is fundamental in maintaining fairness and
integrity in the judicial conduct review process. In the case of Ulysses T. Ware’s allegations against
Judge Robert D. Sack and others, the application of Rule 11(f) demands immediate, thorough,
and detailed written, under oath responses supported by objective, clear, convincing, and
substantial evidence provided by the subject judges that “refute” all allegation.65 Therefore, it is
imperative that a special committee be appointed to conduct a thorough investigation, ensuring
that the serious allegations of judicial misconduct and criminal activities are addressed
appropriately and that the integrity of the judiciary is preserved.
2 JC&D Rule 11(b)

“In determining what action to take under Rule 11(a), the chief judge may conduct a
limited inquiry . . . . In conducting the inquiry, the chief judge must not determine any reasonably
been suppressed, concealed, and/or destroyed by Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Patricia
Sinback, Coleman Ray Mullins, Joyce Bihary, Margaret H. Murphy, Ruby Krajick, Edgardo Ramos, Jose A.
Cabranes, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, Laura Taylor-Swain,
LaShann DeArcy-Hall, Colleen McMahon, William H. Pauley, III (deceased), Robert W. Sweet (deceased),
Peter W. Hall (deceased), Leonard B. Sand, (deceased), Robert A. Katzmann (deceased), Barbara S. Jones,
Andrew J. Peck, Michael H. Dolinger, Katherine Polk-Failla, and Margaret M. Garnett.
65
See also Commentary to JC&D Rule 11(b) (“An allegation of fact is ordinarily not ‘refuted’ simply
because the subject judge denies it. . . . If it is the complainant’s word against the subject judge’s—in
other words, there is simply no other significant evidence of what happened or of the complainant’s
unreliability—then there must be a special-committee investigation.”).
Page 83 of 97
disputed issue. Any such [factual] determination must be left to a special committee appointed
under Rule 11(f) and to the judicial council that considers the committee’s report.”.66
Mr. Ware’s Declarations’ factual allegations have established a prima facie case of Rule
3(c)(2) probable cause to immediately appoint the Rule 11(f) Special Committee and initiate the
required investigation of the Federal Judges and other coconspirator individual and entities with
respect to the claims made by Mr. Ware.
3 Specific allegation of 18 USC 2, 156-57, 201(b) 241, 242, 371, 1341,

1343, 1344, 1346, 1512, 1519, 1612, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B),
1962 (a-d), and 2071(a), (b)—a “pattern of racketeering activities” used
by the Federal Judges, their agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos to
commit crimes related to (1) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (2) U.S. v.
Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (3) In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031
(BC NDGA), Chapter 11, (4) Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management
Corp., 02cv2219 (SDNY), and (5) SEC v. Small Cap Research Group, Inc.,
03-0831 (D. NV), (the “Racketeering Crimes”).
A Analysis of Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) by Judge Sack, et al. in the Case of

Ulysses T. Ware
The allegations against Judge Robert D. Sack and other federal judges, including Kearse, Hall,
Cabranes, Pauley, Sweet, Dolinger, Peck, Taylor-Swain, Ramos, McMahon, Hagenau, Thrash,
Polk-Failla, Garnett, DeArcy-Hall, and Dawson, highlight the operations of a continuing criminal
enterprise, 18 USC 1961(4), conducting its operations and business by and through, “a pattern of
racketeering activities” and criminal judicial misconduct. These actions constitute violations of
66
Id.
Page 84 of 97
multiple statutes under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and other
laws illustrating a systematic abuse of power and corruption within the judiciary. Below are 22
specific violations of federal criminal law, each explained in detail.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 2 – Aiding and Abetting
Violation: Judge Sack and others aided and abetted the obstruction of justice by knowingly
participating in the concealment of Jeremy Jones' perjury contracts.
Explanation: They facilitated the suppression of Brady exculpatory evidence that was crucial to
Ulysses T. Ware's defense, ensuring the evidence was never disclosed, thereby obstructing the
judicial process. Specifically, this involved coordinating efforts to hide documents that could
prove Ware's innocence.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 156 – Concealment of Assets; False Oaths and Claims; Bribery
Violation: Judge Sack, along with other implicated judges, concealed significant assets and
engaged in false oaths.
Explanation: During the 03-93031 (BC NDGA) bankruptcy proceedings of Group Management
Corp., Judge Sack and others directly and/or indirectly aided, abetted, assisted, facilitated, or
participated in concealing the illegal profits and assets of involved parties, thus obstructing
justice and committing fraud. They falsely declared the value and existence of certain assets to
deceive the bankruptcy court.
3. 18 U.S.C. § 157 – Bankruptcy Fraud
Violation: They committed bankruptcy fraud by aiding in the concealment of assets and false
claims in the bankruptcy proceedings of Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA)
Page 85 of 97
Explanation: Judge Sack’s actions, in collusion with other judges and legal professionals,
facilitated the submission of fraudulent claims and concealed significant assets during the
bankruptcy process. This included fabricating documents and providing false testimony to
mislead the court.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) – Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses
Violation: Judge Sack accepted and or provided bribes to influence his judicial decisions.
Explanation: Evidence indicates that Judge Sack and his associates (i.e., William H. Pauley,
Colleen McMahon, Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, et al.) received financial incentives to rule
favorably for certain parties (Alpha Capital, AG, (Anstalt), LH Financial Services, Arie Rabinowitz,
et al.), thereby undermining judicial integrity. Specific instances included payments made to
Judge Sack through intermediaries to secure favorable rulings in cases involving financial
disputes.
5. 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights
Violation: They conspired to deprive Ulysses T. Ware of his constitutional rights.
Explanation: The coordinated efforts to impose vindictive sanctions (Nov. 5, 2010, 07-5222cr (2d
Cir.)) and suppress exculpatory evidence constitute a conspiracy to deny Ware his right to a fair
trial. This involved orchestrated actions among the judges to ensure Ware’s legal arguments were
dismissed without proper consideration.
6. 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Violation: Judge Sack and others deprived Ware of his legal rights under the guise of legal
authority.
Page 86 of 97
Explanation: By manipulating judicial proceedings (22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY); 07-5222cr, 09-
0851, 11-2151, 11-4181, 17-2214, and 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.)) and imposing unjust punitive and
retaliatory sanctions (Nov. 5, 2010, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.)), they acted under color of law to deprive
Ware of his constitutional protections. Specific actions included biased rulings and ignoring legal
precedents that favored Ware.
7. 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Violation: They conspired to defraud the United States by obstructing justice and committing
judicial misconduct during 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY); 02cv2219 (SDNY); 03-93031 (BC NDGA);
and 03-0831 (D. NV).
Explanation: Judge Sack and his co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to
subvert the judicial process and protect their interests, thereby defrauding the government. This
included falsifying court records and misleading federal investigators.
8. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud
Violation: They used the postal system to execute a scheme to defraud.
Explanation: Correspondence related to the suppression of evidence and coordination of
fraudulent activities was conducted through the mail, constituting mail fraud. These mails
included false declarations and manipulated evidence sent to various legal bodies.
9. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud
Violation: They engaged in wire fraud by using electronic communications to further their
scheme.
Page 87 of 97
Explanation: Electronic communications were used to coordinate the concealment of evidence
and the obstruction of justice. These communications included emails and phone calls used to
plan and execute the fraudulent activities.
10. 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank Fraud
Violation: They participated in bank fraud during the bankruptcy proceedings.
Explanation: The concealment of assets and submission of false claims involved fraudulent
interactions with financial institutions (03-93031 (NC NDGA), 02cv2219 (SDNY)). These fraudulent
activities misled banks regarding the financial status of the parties involved.
11. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 – Scheme or Artifice to Defraud
Violation: They engaged in schemes to defraud parties involved in the legal proceedings.
Explanation: The orchestrated actions to suppress evidence and manipulate judicial outcomes
constitute a scheme to defraud. This scheme affected multiple parties and involved elaborate
methods to conceal the truth from the courts.
12. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant
Violation: They tampered with witnesses (Jeremy Jones, “the government’s principal witness” in
05cr1115 (SDNY)), alleged FBI analyst Maria A. Font regarding GX 92 and GX 93 in 05cr1115
(SDNY)) and victims to influence their testimony and actions.
Explanation: Judges and their agents coerced and intimidated witnesses to ensure favorable
testimonies, obstructing the judicial process. This included threats and bribery to ensure
witnesses provided false testimony.
Page 88 of 97
13. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal
Investigations
Violation: They destroyed and altered records to impede federal investigations.
Explanation: Evidence (Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury
contracts) was tampered with or destroyed to prevent its discovery during investigations and
trials. This involved shredding documents and altering electronic records to hide incriminating
evidence.
14. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 – Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence
Violation: They interfered with commerce through threats and coercion.
Explanation: The judges used their positions to threaten and coerce parties into compliance,
affecting commercial activities and legal proceedings. This included intimidating businesses and
individuals to conform to their demands.
15. 18 U.S.C. § 1956 – Laundering of Monetary Instruments
Violation: They engaged in money laundering by processing illegal proceeds.
Explanation: Financial transactions were conducted to conceal the origins of illicit funds gained
through judicial misconduct and fraud. This involved using shell companies and offshore accounts
to launder money.
16. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B) – Collection of Unlawful Debt67
67
See 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, also see retaliatory and racially-motivated U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
and 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal proceedings; also see In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA)
Chapter 11 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, and 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, its partners (Dennis S.
Meir, John W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV), Wendy L Hagenau, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary,
Page 89 of 97
Violation: They engaged in the collection of unlawful debt as part of their racketeering activities.
Explanation: Judge Sack and others facilitated the collection of debts that were illegal under
federal law. This included enforcing fraudulent debts in court rulings to benefit themselves and
their associates.
17. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) – Investment of Racketeering Income68
Violation: They invested income derived from racketeering activities into their legal practices and
personal assets.
Explanation: Profits from their illicit activities were reinvested into their judicial offices and
personal ventures, perpetuating their corrupt practices.
18. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) – Acquisition of Enterprise Through Racketeering
Violation: They acquired and maintained control of judicial positions through racketeering
activities.
Explanation: Judge Sack and his co-conspirators used their corrupt practices to secure and retain
their judicial positions, ensuring their ongoing influence and ability to commit further crimes.
19. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) – Conducting Enterprise’s Affairs Through Racketeering
Coleman Ray Mullins, Patricia Sinback, M. Regina Thomas, and James Morawitz; Kenneth A. Zitter,
Leonard B. Sand, Arie Rabinowitz, and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs.
68
See In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036lm (2d Cir.) complaint of criminal judicial misconduct; also see
02cv2219 (SDNY) Dkt. 139, 139-1, and 139-2 (McMahon’s +$22 million in predatory loan sharking
convertible promissory notes); also see Trailblazer Merger Corp., I, 2023 $60 million IPO to invest the
profits and proceeds earned by Arie Rabinowitz, and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff from loan sharking to
acquire interests in businesses.
Page 90 of 97
Violation: They conducted the affairs of their judicial offices through a pattern of racketeering
activity.
Explanation: Their daily operations within the judiciary were characterized by illegal activities,
including bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
20. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Conspiracy to Commit Racketeering
Violation: They conspired to commit racketeering activities as part of an ongoing criminal
enterprise.
Explanation: Judge Sack and others formed a conspiracy to engage in a continuous pattern of
illegal activities, coordinating their efforts to maximize their corrupt influence and financial gain.
21. 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a) – Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation Generally
Violation: They concealed and removed judicial records to obstruct justice.
Explanation: Judge Sack and others were involved in the deliberate removal and concealment of
court documents—Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Perjury Contracts, to hinder
investigations and judicial proceedings.
22. 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b) – Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation by Officers
Violation: They, as officers of the court, engaged in the concealment and destruction of records.
Explanation: As federal judges, they had a duty to maintain the integrity of judicial records but
instead participated in their destruction to protect their criminal activities.
Detailed Examples of Code Violations
1. Concealment of Evidence (18 U.S.C. § 2, 1512, 1519, 2071(a), (b)) Judge Sack and others
actively participated in the concealment of the Jeremy Jones perjury contracts, crucial
Page 91 of 97
exculpatory evidence that could have significantly impacted Ware's defense. This deliberate
suppression violated multiple statutes, including aiding and abetting the concealment (18 U.S.C.
§ 2), tampering with evidence (18 U.S.C. § 1512), falsifying records (18 U.S.C. § 1519), and
concealing records as officers (18 U.S.C. § 2071(a), (b)).
2. False Oaths and Claims (18 U.S.C. § 156, 157, 1962(a)) During the 03-93031 (NC NDGA)
bankruptcy proceedings of Group Management Corp., Judge Sack and his associates (Atlanta, GA
law firm KTS, et al.) facilitated the submission of false claims and concealed significant assets,
thereby engaging in bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 157) and concealment of assets (18 U.S.C. §
156). These actions were part of a larger scheme to invest racketeering income (18 U.S.C. §
1962(a)) into their legal practices and personal ventures.
3. Bribery and Corruption (18 U.S.C. § 201(b), 1962(b)) Evidence indicates that Judge Sack
accepted and/or accepted bribes to influence his judicial decisions, directly violating 18 U.S.C. §
201(b). This corruption not only undermined the integrity of the judicial system but also enabled
him to maintain control over his judicial position through racketeering activities (18 U.S.C. §
1962(b)).
4. Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. § 241, 242, 371, 1962(d)) The coordinated actions to
impose vindictive sanctions on Ware, suppress exculpatory evidence, and deny his appeals
demonstrate a conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 U.S.C. § 371) and deprive him of his
constitutional rights (18 U.S.C. § 241, 242). This was part of a broader conspiracy to commit
racketeering activities (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)).
Page 92 of 97
5. Mail and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341, 1343) The use of postal and electronic communications
to execute the scheme to defraud constitutes mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and wire fraud (18
U.S.C. § 1343). These communications were crucial in coordinating the suppression of evidence
and the orchestration of fraudulent activities.
6. Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344, 1962(c)) The fraudulent interactions with financial institutions—
see Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, and Tailwind Capital Management LLP “private equity Ponzi
scam conspiracy” money laundering through NYC and other banks; and see the bankruptcy
proceedings of Group Management Corp. involved bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344). These actions
were part of conducting the affairs of their judicial offices through a pattern of racketeering
activity (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)).
7. Scheme to Defraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346) The orchestrated actions to suppress evidence,
manipulate judicial outcomes, and engage in fraudulent activities constitute a scheme to defraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1346). This scheme affected multiple parties and involved elaborate methods to
conceal the truth from the courts.
8. Destruction and Alteration of Records (18 U.S.C. § 1519, 2071(a), (b)) The judges destroyed
and altered records—the 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial transcripts (Kearse, Sack, and Hall) to impede
federal investigations, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1519. This obstruction was further compounded by
their roles as officers of the court, making their actions a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a)
and (b).
9. Interference with Commerce (18 U.S.C. § 1951) The use of threats and coercion to interfere
with commerce and legal proceedings constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Judge Sack and
Page 93 of 97
his associates leveraged their positions to intimidate businesses and individuals,69 impacting
commercial activities and legal outcomes.
10. Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956, 1961(6)(B)) Financial transactions conducted to conceal
the origins of illicit funds gained through judicial misconduct and fraud violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
These laundering activities ensured that illegal proceeds were integrated into the legitimate
financial system, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B).
4 Conclusion
The actions of Judge Robert D. Sack and other implicated judges represent a severe
breach of federal criminal and civil laws and ethical standards. Their conduct in the cases
involving Ulysses T. Ware demonstrates a pattern of racketeering activities designed to obstruct
justice, defraud the United States, and deprive Ware of his constitutional rights. Immediate and
thorough investigation and disciplinary action are warranted to address these violations and
restore the integrity of the judiciary.
The severity of these actions cannot be overstated. The implicated judges, including Judge
Sack, engaged in a series of deliberate and coordinated activities that violated multiple statutes
under federal law. These violations included aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice,
bankruptcy fraud, bribery, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law,
69
See Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA Hobbs Act armed kidnapping, attempted armed robbery of Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq., with guns drawn, by four (4) racist, heavily armed, white men impersonating U.S. Marshals,
hired and employed by Sack, et al. to forcibly through the use of firearms, threats, and intimidation
collection criminal usury, unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B), et
seqs.
Page 94 of 97
conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, schemes to defraud,
witness tampering, destruction of records, interference with commerce, money laundering,
collection of unlawful debts, investment of racketeering income, acquisition of enterprise
through racketeering, conducting enterprise’s affairs through racketeering, and conspiracy to
commit racketeering. These actions represent a gross misuse of judicial power and a profound
betrayal of the public trust.
The impact on Ulysses T. Ware has been profound and far-reaching. The suppression of
exculpatory evidence, the manipulation of judicial proceedings, and the imposition of unjust
sanctions have denied Ware his fundamental right to a fair trial. The coordinated efforts to
conceal evidence and obstruct justice have not only affected Ware but also undermined the
integrity of the entire judicial system.
Each violation carried out by Judge Sack and his co-conspirators was part of a broader
scheme to protect their interests and maintain their positions of power. The use of bribes and
financial incentives to influence judicial decisions, the submission of false claims in bankruptcy
proceedings, and the concealment of assets were all tactics employed to perpetuate their control
and evade accountability.
The need for immediate and thorough investigation cannot be overstated. The actions of
these judges have compromised the principles of fairness and justice that are the foundation of
the legal system. A comprehensive investigation is essential to uncover the full extent of their
misconduct and to hold them accountable for their actions. This investigation must be rigorous,
Page 95 of 97
impartial, and transparent, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered and that the rights
of all parties are protected.
Disciplinary action is also crucial to restore public confidence in the judiciary. The judges
involved in these activities must face appropriate sanctions for their violations of federal law and
ethical standards. This may include removal from their positions, disbarment, and criminal
prosecution. Only through such measures can the integrity of the judiciary be restored and the
rule of law upheld.
The case of Ulysses T. Ware serves as a stark reminder of the potential for abuse of power
within the judicial system. It highlights the need for ongoing vigilance and robust mechanisms to
ensure accountability and transparency in judicial conduct. The actions of Judge Sack and the
other implicated judges have exposed significant vulnerabilities in the system, and addressing
these issues is imperative for maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary.
In conclusion, the conduct of Judge Robert D. Sack and other implicated judges represents
a flagrant violation of federal laws and ethical standards. Their pattern of racketeering activities
has obstructed justice, defrauded the United States, and deprived Ulysses T. Ware of his
constitutional rights. Immediate and thorough investigation and disciplinary action are necessary
to address these violations and restore the integrity of the judiciary. The principles of fairness,
justice, and accountability must be upheld to ensure the continued trust and confidence of the
public in the legal system.
Signed this 8th day of August 2024, in Brooklyn, NY under oath subject to the penalty of perjury,
having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746.
Page 96 of 97
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
End of document
Page 97 of 97

(10.1-4) (24-1414) 08.22.24 Re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (B) Prefiling Investigation Regarding 42 USC 1983 (Bivens) - 1985 (2) and 1985 (3) Claims L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(10.1-4) (24-1414) 08.22.24 Re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (B) Prefiling Investigation Regarding 42 USC 1983 (Bivens) - 1985 (2) and 1985 (3) Claims L

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

(10.1-4) (24-1414) 08.22.24 Re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (B) Prefiling Investigation Regarding 42 USC 1983 (Bivens) - 1985 (2) and 1985 (3) Claims L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) Prefiling Investigation re: 42 USC

For immediate delivery to the Chief Circuit Judge

Respectfully Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)

Thursday, August 22, 2024

Via email and regular mail—time of the essence

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware

Re: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Due Diligence

As legal counsel representing Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-defendant, I am

fact and law.6

To fulfill my obligations under Rule 11(b), I am requesting your prompt disclosure of

2071(a), (b), collectively, (the “Pattern of Racketeering Activities” or “RICO Crimes”).

1. Good Faith Defenses to the Claims

decision to proceed in this manner.

documentation explaining the basis for the denial.

• Response to Allegations of Secrecy: A detailed account of why the identities of the

position. See Id.

2. Good Faith Immunities to the Claims

• Judicial Immunity: An assertion of judicial immunity, if applicable, including specific

and secretive nature of the proceedings.

given the specific circumstances of the August 8, 2024, proceedings.

their lawful official judicial duties.

3. Other Facts, Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Good Faith Beliefs

proceedings in the manner described by Plaintiff.

obstruct justice or deprive Plaintiff of his rights.

notice or Plaintiff’s involvement. See 28 USC §§ 2071(a), (b).

challenges to the timeliness of the potential claims, jurisdictional defenses, or other

§§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), and the RICO statutes.

4. Deadline for Response

request, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Respectfully Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Second Request for Immediate First Amendment

Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re: Jeremy

Respectfully Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)

Thursday, August 22, 2024

Via email and regular mail—time of the essence

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Request for Immediate First Amendment

Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re: Jeremy

Respectfully Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)

Tuesday, August 13, 2024

Via email and regular mail—time of the essence

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware

Director of the FBI, and the Court of Appeals:

later than Tuesday, August 20, 2024.

Legal and Factual Basis for the Request

“Extrajudicial Order”), references the existence of an alleged “pattern of vexatious litigation”—