(01RA) 04.16.23 Re Appendices E Thru T

Dockets 07-5222cr (Ware-I)/09-0851cr/11-4181 (01RA)
In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Second Circuit
Filed on 4/16/2023 7:41:50 PM via email.
__________________
Respondents United States of America, Appellee, cross-appellant, Andre Damian

Williams, Jr., and Edgardo Ramos, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora,
Donald F. Samuel, Gary G. Becker, Michael F. Bachner, Marlon G. Kirton, and
Jeremy Jones; Alpha Capital, AG, Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd, Amro
International, S.A., LH Financial Services, and Ari Rabinowitz1,
v.
Applicant Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant, cross-appellee.
________________
Omnibus Appendices E thru T.
In support of
OMNIBUS ACTUAL INNOCENT, FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF

JUSTICE, VERIFIED, LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION TO RECALL MANDATE,
and APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF PETITION.
1
Rabinowitz, a hostile, adverse, material fact witness along with LH Financial Services, and Trailblazer
Merger Corp. I, Wendy L. Hagenau, J. Henry Walker, IV, Kenneth A. Zitter, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III,
Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management, LLP, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP,
the State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia, Ruby Krajick, M. Regina Thomas, Margaret H.
Murphy, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, and others will be subpoenaed, and compelled to produce
documents and give sworn testimony at the Kyles materiality evidentiary hearing(s)—that is, is it material
that Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services are (i) unregistered broker-dealers, and (ii) unregistered
investment advisors, among other things, involved in RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) loan sharking and money
laundering criminal enterprises, i.e., LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and Trailblazer
Merger Corp. I?
Page 1 of 198
Sunday, April 16, 2023
(01RA) re Appendices E thru T in support of emergency relief.
Submitted by Applicant-Appellant:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 2 of 198
Table of Contents
Supplemental Appendices—Clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court, newly discovered
suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, and supplemental authority
for emergency relief. .................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix E—Supplemental authority in support of Emergency Reliefs, In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887
(D. C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (held the gov’t has a duty to search for, and produce Brady evidence to
the defense, an evidentiary hearing was required to assess the materiality of newly discovered Brady
evidence). ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Certificate of service............................................................................................................................... 19
Ex. A, EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, confession the USAO (SDNY) had not fulfilled its “duty to search” for
all Brady materials, and attempting to charge Ulysses T. Ware, “$520.00” to conduct the
constitutionally required Brady search. ................................................................................................ 20
In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999). ............................. 20
Appendix F—Supplemental authority in support of the Emergency Reliefs, U.S. v. Brooks, 966 F.2d
1500, 02-03 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Government has a duty and is required to search for Brady evidence and
produce all that is found to the defense, and the district court is required to conduct materiality
assessments of newly discovered Brady evidence. ................................................................................... 32
Appendix F (con’t). ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix G—Government witness Ari Rabinowitz testimony in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) where
Rabinowitz blew up the government’s indictment’s charges, trial theory, and case in chief—Rabinowitz
admitted and confessed to unregistered broker-dealer and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter
status; and therefore, admitted the government’s indictment failed to charge an 18 USC 401(3)
criminal contempt offense. Which annulled and mooted the 04cr1224 proceedings/ ........................... 34
Appx. G (con’t): The SEC found Arie Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services to be “unregistered
investment advisors”—relevant Brady favorable evidence required to have been searched for and
disclosed to Applicant. ............................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix H: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent, dispositive Brady exculpatory certified finding that
each plaintiff in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) litigation (the “Plaintiffs”)—the alleged factual basis for the
government’s U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment’s charges—that is, each had never registered
as required by federal law, 15 USC 77b(a)(11), and therefore, each was an unregistered broker-dealer,
each lacked Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) standing, and implicitly found that SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17
(1995) strictly prohibited an exemption to 15 USC 77e strict-liability registration requirement for each
of the Plaintiffs. .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Page 3 of 198
Appendix I—Brady evidence suppressed by the Respondents—Norris v. SEC, 675 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (Norris admitted that he abused his SEC email account, admitted he was under the care of a
psychiatrist, and also admitted that he was required to take drugs which affected his mental state)... 37
Appx. I (con’t), Dkt. 84 (22cv3409) ............................................................................................................ 41
Appx. I (con’t). ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix J: Official SEC-DOJ email to and from AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and government 1224 trial
witness Jeffrey B. Norris, who was involved in the SEC-DOJ commingled Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings,
SEC v. Investment Technology, Inc., 03-0831 (D. NV). AUSA Southwell admitted that Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.
on Sept. 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA was “improperly arrested” in an illegal attempt by the U.S. Marshals and
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) to collect the USAO’s and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) unregistered
broker-dealers’ criminal usury unlawful debt, GX 1-4 (04cr1224)—see Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28
F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) (criminal usury debt contracts are ipso facto unenforceable, illegal contracts that
violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony). ...................................... 43
Appendix K: U.S. Probation Office (SDNY) confirmation Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., September 1, 2004,
Atlanta, GA kidnapping by the U.S. Marshals—an overt act in furtherance of the 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
RICO unlawful debt collection activities regarding 04cr1224 trial exhibits GX 1-4 (the “Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt”). See U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and RICO
+$3.0 billion unlawful debt collection forfeiture judgment). ................................................................... 45
Appendix L: Perjured Declaration of former AUSA Maria E. Douvas regarding suppressed and
concealed Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence—Douvas was the USAO’s line prosecutor in
04cr1224 and was aware of her suppression of Norris’ professional misconduct referenced in Appx. I,
supra. Douvas and the USAO did not file a response to Applicant’s Brady Motion. ............................... 46
Appendix M—IRNewswires’s article on former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell’s crimes, frauds on the
court, and prosecutorial misconduct in 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY). ................................... 47
See attachment for Appx. M .................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix N—Affidavit of Ulysses T. Ware’s 12.10.2019 filed with USPO (SDNY) regarding judicial and
prosecutorial misconduct........................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix O—U.S. Attorney’s Manual’s Brady disclosure requirements. ................................................. 65
Introduction: Applicant includes the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) proceedings in the Emergency
Petition’s request for Emergency Relief. ...................................................................................................... 68
National U.S. Attorney’s Office Brady disclosure requirement policy regarding exculpatory and
impeachment evidence. .............................................................................................................................. 68
Appendix O: Section 9-5.001 DOJ prosecutor’s discovery obligations and duty to “search” for exculpatory
and impeachment evidence. ....................................................................................................................... 70
DOJ prosecutors’ duty to search for exculpatory and impeachment evidence. .......................................... 73
The USAO was required to have produced and discloses all exculpatory and impeachment evidence
uncovered during the 2003 Las Vegas SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional Bootleg Grand
Jury Proceedings.......................................................................................................................................... 75
Page 4 of 198
The USAO was required to have produced and disclosed all benefits offered, or received by all involved in
its investigations—“principal witness” Jeremy Jones’ benefits, the alleged Rule 11 plea and cooperation
contracts, money, free plane tickets, food reimbursements, or other benefits have never been disclosed.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Certificate of service. ................................................................................................................................... 77
End of document. ........................................................................................................................................ 78
Appendix P—Declaration of Fraud on the court undisputed material facts by Ulysses T. Ware. ............ 79
Omitted ................................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix Q—Letter to Andre Damian Williams, 04.13.23 re clear and convincing evidence of criminal
prosecutorial misconduct, fraud on the court, and a fundamental miscarriage of justice committed by
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr. as a DOJ racially-motivated Jim Crow hate crime
conspiracy. .................................................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix 02-Suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence—willfully and deliberately concealed and suppressed by the DOJ CCE as overt acts in
furtherance of the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activities associated with 04cr1224
(SDNY) trial exhibits GX 1-4 and GX 4, (the “RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt Contracts”). ............... 86
Exhibit 3-4—Concealed and suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence—an official SEC internal email
which confirmed the 2003 SEC-DOJ Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional bootleg
grand jury proceedings, are admitted by disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris to be illegal
and unconstitutional, and violated the Due Process rights of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. ........................... 88
B Norris’ actual innocent Brady exculpatory official SEC email to the government’s “principal
witness” trial witness Jeremy Jones—prior to trial in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), the SEC’s lawyers
involved in the commingled SEC-DOJ unconstitutional Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) litigation, SEC v.
Investment Tech, Ware, et al., the SEC’s lawyers had concluded there was no conspiracy between Jones,
Ware, and the government’s 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial witnesses. The USAO deliberately and intentionally
suppressed and concealed this evidence as a fraud on the court, and a willful violation of the Brady
Court Order, 18 USC 401(3) criminal and civil contempt. ........................................................................ 89
C CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. Brady letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.) which admitted and
confessed that the government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 criminal proceedings, Jeremy Jones,
had in fact entered a concealed and suppressed Rule 11 plea and cooperation agreement, and that
Jones had “cooperated” with the USAO and had received a “5k letter” from the government at his
sentencing for substantial assistance to the government by knowingly and deliberately committing
perjury during the 05cr1115 trial with the consent and knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors, AUSA
Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, Preet
Bharara, and others. ................................................................................................................................ 90
D-1 Suppressed and concealed alleged September 2006 Rule 11 proceedings of government
“principal witness” the person alleged to have been “Jeremy Jones. The Government and the 05cr1115
district court (Ramos, J.) both have maliciously refused to produce or disclose any judicial public records
related to Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 or sentencing proceedings..................................................... 91
Page 5 of 198
D-2 Alleged September 2006 Rule 11 proceedings of government “principal witness” the person
alleged to have been “Jeremy Jones. Apparently a person who the government claimed without any
proof in the record was “Jeremy Jones” signed a Rule 11 plea agreement dated “September 15, 2006,”
prior to trial in 05cr1115 that started on January 16, 2007. Jones’ Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio materials
were ordered by The Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, to have been disclosed “prior to the start of trial.” ... 92
E The suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory Executive Branch’s July 14, 2003,
¶33, affirmative defense and acquittal of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) made in the SEC-
DOJ’s 03-0831 (D. NV) SEC v. Investment Technology, et al., suppressed and concealed actual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence complaint—that is, a binding stipulation, judicial
admission, and confession by the United States and its privies—which vitiated all probable cause to
arrest and prosecute, an Executive Branch affirmative defense to all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY), that
INZS and SVSY’s disclosures had “no effect”—no alleged “artificial” “inflation,” no “increase,” no
“pumped up” or other material effect on the stocks “prices”—in contradiction to and impeachment of
the Government’s U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial theory, and impeachment of the decision of the
Court of Appeal entered in its August 18, 2009, opinion (Kearse, J.) entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr
(2d Cir. 2010). .......................................................................................................................................... 93
................................................................................................................................................................ 93
Enlargement of Ex. C—Kirton’s Brady letter to the 05cr1115 District Court ........................................... 94
F. 02cv2219 (SDNY) post-trial Brady Rule 41(a)(2) December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, voluntarily, ex parte,
after the statute of limitation had run on all claims, the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice the 02cv2219
(SDNY) lawsuit which annulled the government’s 04cr1224 indictment, trial evidence (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX
7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34), and voided the 04cr1224 conviction. ........................................................ 95
G. Former SEC lawyer, government 04cr1224 FRE 404(b) witness, Jeffrey B. Norris’ Brady
impeachment bad acts evidence—suppressed by the USAO’s prosecutors during the 2007 04cr1224
trial. Excerpts from Norris v. SEC, 675 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 2012). ............................................................ 96
H. November 2007, 04cr1224 Brady trial testimony of government witness Ari Rabinowitz—admitted
and confessed to unregistered broker-dealer and Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter status which
annulled and vitiated the government’s indictment and trial theory—Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters are legally ineligible for Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC 77e registration requirements, see
SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995). .......................................................................................................... 97
H (con’t)—Rabinowitz’s Brady trial testimony vitiated the government’s case in chief and trial theory.
Rabinowitz testified that he, LH Financial Services, and Alpha Capital, AG were unregistered broker,
dealer, and investment advisors which the government was required to have disclosed “prior to trial” in
accordance with the 04cr1224 August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Brady order (Sweet, J.). ................................. 98
I Excerpt of 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaints Brady judicial admission and confession of 15 USC
77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter status for each 2219 plaintiff, pleaded before the grand jury, and
admitted into evidence by the government during the 2007 04cr1224 trial , via GX 5 (the Criminal
Usury Subscription Agreement) and Ari Rabinowitz. ............................................................................... 99
J EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, Brady FOIA response—admitted and confessed “over 15 boxes of
materials” in the possession of the USAO (SDNY) have not been searched for Brady evidence regarding
Page 6 of 198
04cr1224 and 05cr1115. Requires a remand to the district courts to conduct Brady materiality
assessments. ......................................................................................................................................... 100
K September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA kidnapping—Brady evidence of fraud on the court and
conspiracy, of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.—18 USC 1961(B)(6) RICO unlawful debt collection activities by the
U.S. Marshals, District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Leonard B. Sand, Kenneth A. Zitter, the SEC, the
USAO (SDNY), Ari Rabinowitz and others. ............................................................................................. 101
L FINRA’s May 17, 2021, Brady unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiff—annulled and vitiated the factual predicate for the government’s 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment
and trial theory. The FINRA certification annulled the entire 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA),
04cr1224 (SDNY), 09-0851cr (2d Cir.),11-4181cv (2d Cir.), and 22cv10566 (SDNY) proceedings. ........ 102
.............................................................................................................................................................. 102
Appendix R—the SEC’s public disclosures regarding Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) settlement in SEC v.
Honig, et al., 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.), securities fraud, and market manipulation of securities—
criminal usury convertible promissory notes. ......................................................................................... 103
Ari Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services are the unnamed unregistered investment advisers. Why
would the SEC not name Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services? A very important question the SEC
must answer. ..................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix S—Clear and convincing evidence: Declaration of Fraud on the court by Ulysses T. Ware—the
Government’s fake, fraudulent, and bogus alleged U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) probable cause was a legal and factual impossibility. ................................................ 109
Petitioners’ Declaration in support of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, injunctive relief, Civil Contempt, Fed. R. Crim. P.
Rule 42(a) criminal contempt, and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court enforcement of the
December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ........................ 114
I. ................................................................................................................................................................ 114
A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit civil and criminal contempts,
frauds, and frauds on the court, and RICO loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal
enterprise. ................................................................................................................................................. 114
The February 2002 $1.1M criminal usury unlawful debt, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt”), made by
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., (OTCBB: GPMT),
(“GPMT”), the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, (the “Criminal Usury Collection Lawsuit”). ...... 114
B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for the unlawful purpose and
criminal objective to create and collect RICO criminal usury unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), provide
protection for the participants, and launder the profits and proceeds derived therefrom, the RICO
Unlawful Debt loan sharking conspiracy. ................................................................................................... 117
C. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, racketeering activities, and frauds committed by
Leonard B. Sand......................................................................................................................................... 122
D. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by
Kenneth A. Zitter related to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation. .............. 124
Page 7 of 198
E. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, frauds, and racketeering activities committed by
the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court, its judges, and employees related to 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule 41 Final
Judgment in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, related to the
02cv2219 lawsuit, and 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation, and the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus proceedings.
127
F. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, obstruction of justice, and frauds
committed by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP., in In re Group Management
Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11. ........................................................................................ 130
G. Willful contempts, racketeering activities, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and frauds committed by
the State Bar of Georgia and its employees. ............................................................................................. 131
H. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the
District Court (NDGA) regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
proceedings ............................................................................................................................................... 133
I. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the District Court (SDNY) regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY),
and 22cv3409 (SDNY). ............................................................................................................................... 134
J. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”) in regard to 02cv2219 (SDNY),
04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY). .................................................................................................. 135
K. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by
Colleen McMahon in regard to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and 04cr1224 (SDNY). ............................... 137
L. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY), (the “USPO”). ................................................................ 138
Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Tyler......................................... 138
M. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Laura Taylor-Swain. ............................................................................................................. 139
N. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston regarding Edgardo Ramos’ crimes, civil
and criminal contempts, and frauds on the court. .................................................................................... 140
O. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick. ...................................................................................... 142
P. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) panel: Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and
Barbara S. Jones (retired). ......................................................................................................................... 143
Q. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the USAO’s 09-0851 appeals team (Bharara, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and Maria
E. Douvas, the “Appeal Team”). ................................................................................................................ 144
Page 8 of 198
R. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Edgardo Ramos................................................................................................................... 145
S. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, 03-
0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY). ....................... 146
T. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by U.S. Bureau of Prisons. ....................................................................................................... 148
U. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. ...................................................................... 148
V. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Department of Justice. .......................................................................................... 149
W. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”). .............................................. 151
Jeffrey B. Norris, Joan E. McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Stephen Webster, et al. .................................. 151
X. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by William H. Pauley, III. .......................................................................................................... 153
Y. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Robert W. Sweet. ................................................................................................................ 155
Z. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan)
apropos 02cv2219 vis-à-vis 03-93031 (BC NDGA). .................................................................................... 156
Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 158
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/22 and sum certain
compensatory actual damages claim calculation. ................................................................................. 159
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ...................................... 160
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.). ... 161
End of document. ...................................................................................................................................... 162
Appendix T—Clear and convincing evidence: Declaration of 2003-06 SEC-DOJ Las Vegas Bootleg Grand
Jury collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice by Ulysses T. Ware—the alleged “scheme to
defraud” was a legal and factual impossibility. ....................................................................................... 163
Requested reliefs. ................................................................................................................................. 167
Preliminary statement. ........................................................................................................................ 169
The legal standard, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and its progeny. ................................. 171
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware—the relevant facts in support of the Franks evidentiary hearing. .. 176
The reasons why relief is required to be granted Discussion and analysis. ....................................... 180
Summary and conclusions. ........................................................................................................................ 181
Page 9 of 198
Certificate of service. ................................................................................................................................. 182
Exhibit 1: 1115 indictment---2005 Perjured, bogus, fabricated, and fraudulent U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) indictment’s alleged “scheme to defraud” regarding the Las Vegas DOJ-SEC Bootleg Grand Jury
Proceedings: the DOJ’s and District Court’s intentionally perjured and materially false allegations of (i)
“engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of and market demand for INZS stock” and
(ii) “artificially pumping up the price and volume of the INZS stock ….” Required to be proved at trial
beyond a reasonable doubt via expert testimony, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Fraudulent Indictment”). ...... 183
Exhibit 2-1: FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony in 05cr1115 under brutal cross-examination by
Ulysses T. Ware, in tears, capitulated, confessed, and admitted there was no evidence that anyone ever
read any “press releases” or that the volume or price was “artificially inflated” or affected by “press
releases”—Brady exculpatory and impeachment actual innocent evidence—Jencks Act and Giglio
evidence. ............................................................................................................................................... 184
Exhibit 2-2: Regarding GX 92 and GX 93—the government’s counterfeit, Fugazi, fabricated, and
fraudulent U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial exhibits entered via AUSA Alexander H. Southwell
through FBI analyst Maria A. Font. ........................................................................................................ 185
Exhibit 2-3 (Con’t) from Ex. 2-2 regarding FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony regarding GX 92 and
GX 93, the alleged proof of “artificial” “inflation” of INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ “prices” “caused by” “press
releases” disseminated by INZS and SVSY. ............................................................................................. 186
Exhibit 3: Para. 33 (03-0831)--Concealed and suppressed Brady exculpatory actual innocent evidence--
2003 Las Vega 03-0831 (D. NV) DOJ-SEC illegal and unconstitutional Boot Leg Grand Jury proceedings
bogus and fabricated complaint’s para. 33, a binding judicial confession and admission—collateral
estoppel on the United States and its privies in the 03-0831 (D. NV), U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and In re Ware, State Bar of GA proceedings (2008). ................................. 187
Exhibit 4-1: FBI’s and DOJ’s Fraudulent and bogus affidavit for the 2005 Complaint for arrest warrants.
Intentionally perjured and materially misleading affidavit of FBI special agent David Makol, Andrew J.
Peck, Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the SEC, and AUSA Alexander H. Southwell—perjured and
fabricated probable cause for arrest warrants for Ulysses T. Ware and Jeremy Jones, (the “DOJ’s Jim
Crow Kidnapping Warrants”) based on the SEC and DOJ’s unconstitutional and illegal conspiratorial Las
Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings to fraudulent convict Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.—a retaliatory SEC-
DOJ Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy. ....................................................................... 188
Exhibit 4-2 (con’t). ................................................................................................................................. 188
Exhibit 4-3 (con’t) .................................................................................................................................. 190
Exhibit 4-4 (con’t) .................................................................................................................................. 191
Exhibit 4-5 (Con’t): FBI special agent David Makol’s deliberate and intentional perjury, lies, material
misrepresentations, and fraud committed with the consent of the SEC, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the SEC, and magistrate judge Andrew J.
Peck. Makol asserted that he “reviewed” the SEC’s 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint’s ¶33, see Ex. 3, supra,
and nevertheless lied and committed perjury in the affidavit as a retaliatory Jim Crow racially-motivated
DOJ-SEC hate crime conspiracy.............................................................................................................. 192
Page 10 of 198
Exhibit 5: Fraudulent and fabricate “scheme to defraud” manufactured by AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, and FBI special agent David Makol’s known and intentionally perjured, and materially false,
and fraudulent testimony before the grand jury for 2005 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment for Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq. in contradiction to ¶33 in the SEC-DOJ’s illegal and unconstitutional Las Vegas 2003 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings complaint. Contradicted and impeachment by, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3,
supra—concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence. .. 193
Exhibit 6: Gov’t’s 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) perjured appeals brief prepared by AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin,
Andrew L. Fish, with the consent and approval of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia, and their supervisors,
excerpt regarding alleged “artificial” “inflation” of “increase” of stocks’ “prices” and “volume” allegedly
“caused by” “press releases.” The trial testimony of FBI analyst Maria A. Font, Ex. 2, and the United
States binding judicial admissions and confession in ¶33, Ex. 3, supra, supra, vitiated, and impeached
the gov’t bogus and fraudulent assertions in its 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) trivially frivolous and fraudulent
appeal brief. ........................................................................................................................................... 194
Exhibit 7: Southwell (DOJ) and Norris’ (SEC) official email evidence dated October 6, 2004--actual
innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence of the SEC and DOJ’s USAO (SDNY) illegal
communications, contact, and commingling of the 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury
proceedings and the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, and 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings. ............................... 195
Exhibit 8: Concealed and suppressed SEC and DOJ’s Brady actual innocent exculpatory and
impeachment evidence the SEC and DOJ concealed from the magistrate court, the grand jury, the
defense, and the trial jury in violation of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17 (Pauley, J.). ........................... 196
End of Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 198
Page 11 of 198
Supplemental Appendices—Clear and convincing evidence of fraud on
the court, newly discovered suppressed and concealed actual innocent
Brady exculpatory evidence, and supplemental authority for emergency
relief.
Page 12 of 198
Appendix E—Supplemental authority in support of Emergency Reliefs, In
re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D. C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (held the gov’t
has a duty to search for, and produce Brady evidence to the defense, an
evidentiary hearing was required to assess the materiality of newly
discovered Brady evidence).
Page 13 of 198
Docket 07-5222cr/07-5670cr (XAP) (03)
Filed on 4/7/2023 8:13:19 AM via email.
__________________
Respondents United States of America, Appellee, cross-appellant, and Edgardo

Ramos, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Gary G.
Becker, Michael F. Bachner, Marlon G. Kirton, and Jeremy Jones,
v.
________________
VERIFIED LEAVE TO FILE and APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

PETITION—Supplemental Authority in Support of Emergency Relief.
Applicant-Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s, emergency application and leave to file petition to the
Court of Appeals regarding recently discovered intentionally, willfully, and in bad faith
undisclosed, suppressed, and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence that was deliberately and intentionally concealed, suppressed, and hidden by the Office
of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”), Andre Damian Williams, Jr., the Appellee, (the
“Government”), and the District Court ( Ramos, J.) (i) to commit a bad faith fraud on the court,
(ii) to maliciously violate Appellant’s constitutional rights, and (iii) to willfully violate the District
Court’s (Pauley, J.) May 19, 2007, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10, Brady court order, (the “Brady Court Order”),
in violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, the DOJ’s and the District Court’s Rules on
Ethics and Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunal.
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Page 14 of 198
Table of Contents
Introduction. ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Ex. A, EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, confession the USAO (SDNY) had not fulfilled its “duty to search” for all
Brady materials, and attempting to charge Ulysses T. Ware, “$520.00” to conduct the constitutionally
required Brady search. ............................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix E In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999). .............. 20
Page 15 of 198
Introduction.
Applicant Ulysses T. Ware has uncovered the 1999 D.C. Circuit of Appeals opinion
authored by the current USAG Merrick Garland, then a circuit judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999). See Appx. E, infra. In that case, then
Circuit Judge Garland’s opinion for the Court reasoned and held:
“Accordingly, such information [cooperation agreements between law enforcement

and trial witness, ironically named Jones] comes within the scope of the government's
Brady obligations. Because the government concedes that it has not searched to
determine whether the requested information exists,2 we grant the defendant's request
that the case be remanded to the district court. The government must first search to
determine whether the information sought by defendant exists and, if it does3, the district
court must then determine whether that information is "material" within the meaning
of Brady and its progeny.” (emphasis added).
2
See EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response to Applicant’s FOIA request, Ex. A, infra—the DOJ’s EOUSA
conceded and confessed the USAO (SDNY) had not conducted the required Brady search of the “over 15
boxes” of materials. According to the reasoning by Circuit Judge Garland violated the Government’s “duty
to search” Brady obligation, and required a remand to the district court (SDNY) to conduct an evidentiary
hearing to make the required Brady materiality assessment of each item and assess the cumulative
effect of the Brady materials produced by the government’s search of the “over 15 boxes” of unsearched
materials.
3
It is not debatable whether or not the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones cooperated with
the Government in 05cr1115 (SDNY). Jones’ CJA lawyer, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s April 30, 2008, letter to
the trial judge District Judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased) confirmed that Jones “cooperated” and
received a “5k” letter from the Government for his known perjured testimony in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY). Thus, disclosure of Jones’ USSG 5K cooperation agreements, any and all benefits offered and/or
received, and all leniency granted to Jones for his known and suborned perjured trial testimony is
required to have been disclosed pursuant to the District Court’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9, Brady Court
Order (Pauley, J.). Therefore, the District Court (Ramos, J.) and the Government’s prosecutors [USAG
Merrick Garland, Damian Williams, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, Alexander H.
Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Steve R. Peikin, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Andrew F. Fish,
Katherine Polk-Failla, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, and others] both are aware of Jones’
concealed and suppressed Rule 11 plea, transcript, cooperation agreement, benefits received, USSG 5K
letter, and agreement to testify for the Government in 05cr1115.
Page 16 of 198
Obviously, in the required evidentiary hearing Judge Garland ordered (“If the government
finds that such agreements exist,4 the district court [a new district judge5 is required to be
assigned] must then determine whether there is "a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence6 been disclosed to the defense [and presented to the jury during Jones’ cross-
examination], the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickler, 119 S. Ct. at
1948 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682).” (emphasis added)).
The Government’s prosecutors, the Respondents, and Judge Ramos all will be required
to file sworn affidavits or declarations regarding their individual roles in the Government’s
decision to have willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith7 not complied with the written
commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-6 (May 19, 2006) (Pauley, J.).
4
Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., Jeremy Jones’ CJA lawyer’s April 30, 2008, letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.)
confirmed the existence of Jones’ “cooperation” with the Government and Jones’ receipt of a “5k” letter.
5
In July 2021, District Judge William H. Pauley, III was announced deceased. District Judge Edgardo Ramos
was purportedly randomly assigned to 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY). However, according to
court filings, Mr. Ware will call Judge Ramos as a hostile, adverse, material fact witness at the required
evidentiary hearing. According to Mr. Ware Judge Ramos is in possession of suppressed and concealed
judicial public records regarding Jeremy Jones, and other matter, and also in possession of material
exculpatory and impeachment evidence learned in SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) regarding
unregistered broker-dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), and evidence of the SEC and DOJ’s conspiracy to
obstruct justice and violate Mr. Ware’s right to compel as trial witnesses the SEC employees involved in
the SEC’s 03-0831 (D. NV) proceedings with knowledge of Jones’ known perjured testimony.
6
See n.1, supra.
7
All factual issues that only can be resolved in an evidentiary hearing. According to court filings Mr. Ware
intends to call as material fact witnesses all Government prosecutors, SEC employees, and judges involved
in the 05cr1115 (SDNY), 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031-mhm (BD NDGA), Office of the
General Counsel, The State Bar of Georgia, 04-cr1224 (SDNY), and other related proceedings; including
Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Michael F. Bachner, Gary G. Becker, and the
Government’s trial witnesses, Carlton Epps, Myron Williams, Rick Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, and FBI
analyst Maria Font.
Page 17 of 198
Obviously, the evidentiary hearing is required to be conducted in the district court where
Mr. Ware can cross-exam witnesses under oath, the Government’s prosecutors, Judge Ramos,
and the Respondents, as hostile, adverse, material fact witnesses according to the reasoning by
now U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s reasoning.
Conclusion.
According to the current Attorney General of the United States, Merrick B. Garland, the
USAO (SDNY) had a constitutional “duty to search [without costs to Applicant]” for all materials
that could be considered Brady materials—which has not been done according to the DOJ’s
EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response to Applicant’s FOIA request.8
This matter is required to be remanded to the district court (SDNY), U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) with a directive to order the Government
to immediately (i) conduct the required Brady search of the “over 15 boxes” and any other source
which has not been previously searched, (ii) file a certified inventory of the result of the searches
with the district court and Applicant, see Appx. E, pages 16-17, infra, and (iii) conduct the required
evidentiary hearing on the matter.
Respectfully submitted by:

Applicant Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
April 7, 2023
8
See Ex. A, attached hereto, infra.
Page 18 of 198
Certificate of service.
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on April 7, , 2023.
cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

Office of the Director of the FBI
Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Judicial Congress of the United
States
Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY)
Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY), Laura Taylor-Swain, personally.
District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY), personally
Office of the U.S. Attorney General
Office of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge (NDGA), Wendy L. Hagenau, personally
The State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel
Office of the United States Attorney (EDNY)
U.S. Bureau of Prisons (Warden, MDC, Brooklyn, NY)
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
J. Henry Walker, IV (representative of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs)
John W. Mills, III
Edward T. M. Garland for Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Michael F. Bachner, Esq.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
The Conviction Integrity Committee of the Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY).
Daniel Gitner, and Margaret M. Garnett, personally
Andre Damian Williams, Jr, personally
Colleen McMahon, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Debra Ann Livingston, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Office of the Solicitor General of the United States
Baker & McKenzie, LLP
Lawrence B. Mandala, Esq.
London Fisher, LLP
Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
US DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
Gary G. Becker and Michael F. Bachner
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 19 of 198
Ex. A, EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, confession the USAO (SDNY) had not fulfilled its “duty to
search” for all Brady materials, and attempting to charge Ulysses T. Ware, “$520.00” to
conduct the constitutionally required Brady search.
In Re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Page 20 of 198
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Argued September
1, 1998. Decided July 21, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Evelina J. Norwinski, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the
briefs was A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender. Reita P. Pendry, Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender,
entered an appearance.
Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were
Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney, and John R. Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Henderson and Garland, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Garland.
Garland, Circuit Judge:
The defendant in this criminal case contends that the government improperly denied his repeated
requests for information to which he was entitled under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The
government responds that because the information, if it exists, would relate to the impeachment of a
defense witness, it falls outside the obligations imposed by Brady. Defendant replies that impeachment
information always comes within the ambit of Brady, regardless whether the witness testifies for the
defense or the prosecution.
We need not accept either of these broad claims to resolve this case. The information defendant seeks
would not merely be impeaching in the sense that it would weaken the credibility of his own witness.
Rather, it would be exculpatory in the sense that it would be affirmatively favorable to his assertion of
innocence.
Accordingly, such information comes within the scope of the government's Brady obligations. Because
the government concedes that it has not searched to determine whether the requested information
exists, we grant the defendant's request that the case be remanded to the district court. The government
must first search to determine whether the information sought by defendant exists and, if it does, the
district court must then determine whether that information is "material" within the meaning of Brady
and its progeny.
* In September 1996, an officer of the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)
applied for a warrant to search the home of John Doe1 for a handgun and ammunition. The officer
submitted an affidavit stating that an unidentified informant had observed the gun and ammunition there
within the last 48 hours. The affidavit continued: "The source that provided this information has ... given
information which has led to the arrests of several subjects for narcotics violations, the recovery of one
assault weapon, the arrests of subjects wanted on warrants and the issuance of two search warrants."
Def. App. 11. A judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted the application.
Page 21 of 198
The police executed the warrant the following morning. The officers found one semi-automatic handgun
under the mattress in Doe's basement bedroom, and a second gun, along with ammunition, in a shoe box
under the basement stairwell. Doe was arrested and questioned. He denied the guns were his, and denied
knowing that they were in the house. He said he had seen one of the guns in the possession of a friend,
Thomas Jones, a couple of days earlier. Def. App., Tab A at 51. Doe's girlfriend later testified that Doe and
Jones had picked her up at the hospital the day before the search, and that after returning to Doe's house,
Jones had spent some time in the basement alone. Id., Tab D at 29-30.
Doe was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In a pretrial motion filed in October 1996, Doe sought disclosure of the identity of
the government's informant. Pursuant to Brady, he also sought production of information concerning,
inter alia: (1) "the amount of money ... paid to the source," and whether it was "paid in exchange for
information or otherwise"; (2) "other consideration provided to the source, including ... assistance in
avoiding or minimizing harm from pending or threatened charges"; (3) "all benefits, promises of benefits,
or statements that the source would not benefit absent cooperation ... in connection with this case"; (4)
"the nature of assistance that the source has provided in the past"; and (5) "the source's prior record,
pending cases, and parole and probation status." Def. App. 21. The court denied the request, ruling that
defendant had not met the burden for piercing the government's informant privilege set forth in Roviaro
v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), because "it is basically a position of speculation as to how the
informer in this case might be helpful to the defendant ... as [the case] stands before the Court now...."Def.
App., Tab A at 83.
Shortly before Doe's trial was scheduled to begin, Thomas Jones called Doe's attorney, told her that he
had helpful information, and asked to meet with her. In January 1997, the attorney, her investigator, and
Jones met in a restaurant parking lot. According to the investigator's file memorandum, Jones told them
that he was the government informant in Doe's case and that "he wanted to clear his conscience." Def.
App. 29. He said that "he had a big gun and drug case in [District of Columbia] Superior Court and he had
to work it off," and identified three detectives with whom he was cooperating. Jones said the guns found
in Doe's apartment were his (Jones'). He said that the day before the execution of the search warrant, he
and Doe had gone to pick up Doe's girlfriend at the hospital. When they returned to the house, Jones
continued, he "hid the guns, one under the mattress and one in a box under the stairs." He did not tell
Doe he was hiding the guns, and Doe did not know what he had done. Jones assured Doe's attorney that
he would testify at Doe's trial. At the same time, he asked for assistance with his own legal problems:
there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest, and Jones feared that the police would incarcerate
him at the District of Columbia's correctional facility at Lorton, Virginia. "I can't go back to Lorton," he said,
"because I snitched on so many people." Id.
Doe's trial began a week later. In her opening statement, Doe's attorney told the jury the evidence would
show that Doe was innocent, and that Jones had planted the guns and ammunition in the house without
Doe's knowledge. Def. App., Tab C at 12. Thereafter, Doe's attorney learned from the attorney in Jones'
Superior Court case that Jones intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination
and would refuse to testify at Doe's trial. The next morning, Doe's attorney advised the court that, in order
to get Jones' prior statements before the jury, she planned to introduce them through the testimony of
Page 22 of 198
her investigator as statements against Jones' penal interest, see Fed. R. Evid. 804(b) (3). Def. App., Tab D
at 3-4.
At this point, the prosecutor questioned whether Jones really did have a Fifth Amendment privilege. After
the court appointed a lawyer to advise Jones, Jones formally asserted his right not to testify. The
prosecutor then asked "to speak with [Jones' lawyer] over the luncheon recess to see if we can reach
some sort of accommodation ... which would permit him [Jones] to testify." Id. at 68. Doe's counsel then
made a Brady request for Jones' "agreements with the government" in what she understood to be his
"sealed" cases in Superior Court. Id. The prosecutor protested that "I don't have access to that information
readily. I would have to go back to my office and try to pull out the old files and everything else." Id. The
district court denied Doe's request as "premature," indicating that it did not want to decide the issue until
it was determined that Jones would testify. Id. at 6869.
After the luncheon recess, Jones agreed to testify and the government advised the court that it had agreed
to make arrangements for his safety. Suspecting that Jones had become an adverse witness during the
break, defense counsel again requested production of Jones' "prior agreements with the government"
and "sealed" case records. The court again put off decision, this time indicating it would not consider the
issue until after Jones testified. Def. App., Tab E at 11.
Jones was then called to the witness stand by Doe's counsel. Although he denied that he had told her the
names of police officers with whom he was cooperating or that he was "working off" a conviction in
Superior Court, id. at 22, 27, Jones admitted that he had told her he was the confidential informant in
Doe's case, id. at 19. He also admitted to confessing that, while he was alone in the basement, he had
planted the guns under the mattress and stairwell without Doe's knowledge. Id. at 19-21.
On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Jones' story changed dramatically. He testified that his pre-trial
statements to Doe's counsel were lies. The guns, Jones said, were Doe's. The day before the search, Doe
had taken them out from underneath the mattress and stairwell to show to him. Id. at 33-38. Jones had
lied about planting the weapons, he said, because "some dudes" had "threatened, if I didn't call his lawyer,
and tell the guns was mine some bodily harm would be done to me." Id. at 27-28. After hearing Jones'
testimony, defense counsel asked the court to declare him a hostile witness and to permit her to cross-
examine him. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(c). The court agreed. Def. App., Tab E at 39.
At the same time, however, the court rejected defendant's renewed request for "information regarding
[Jones'] sealed cases" and "agreements he's made with the government regarding those cases." Id. The
court denied the request regarding the sealed cases saying, "I'm not going to at this late juncture make
any effort to get those sealed records from the Superior Court." Besides, the court said, any agreements
reflected in the records of those cases "don't have anything to do with this case anyway." Id. at 42.
Persistently, but tactfully, defense counsel asked that the court at least direct the government to turn
over its own agreements with Jones, noting " [t]hat doesn't require anything from Superior Court." Id.
The prosecutor replied that there was no agreement in the instant case, but made no representation
about agreements in other cases.2 She did state, however, that "I think there may be some records that
the police might have [although] I certainly don't have anything right now." More important, she
continued, "I don't think the government has an obligation to produce them to the defense in connection
with a defense witness." Id. The court agreed, ruling that the government was not required to produce
Page 23 of 198
records "in regard to a defense witness." Id. at 43.The court advised defense counsel that she was free,
however, to question Jones about any agreements he might have. Id.
Doe's counsel proceeded to do so, but Jones denied being a "snitch," id. at 50, said "I haven't told on
anybody," id. at 53, and denied having "an agreement with the government," id. at 57-58. Doe's counsel
did not impeach Jones or otherwise offer affirmative evidence of prior agreements or government
cooperation. The jury convicted Doe of the offenses charged in the indictment, and the court sentenced
him to 92 months in prison.
II
In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause imposes upon the prosecution
an obligation to disclose "evidence favorable to the accused ... where the evidence is material either to
guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87; see
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57 (1987). In Giglio v. United States and United States v. Bagley, the
Court held that "impeachment evidence ... as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule."
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985) (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154
(1972)). And in Kyles v. Whitley, the Court held that the rule includes evidence "known only to police
investigators and not to the prosecutor." 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995). Hence, to comply with Brady, "the
individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the
government's behalf in the case, including the police." Id. at 437.
As the Supreme Court recently noted in Strickler v. Greene, courts have used the term "Brady violation"
to cover a multitude of prosecutorial sins involving breach of "the broad obligation to disclose exculpatory
evidence," often called "Brady material." 119 S. Ct. 1936, 1948 (1999). These include both the failure to
search for Brady material and the failure to produce it. " [S]trictly speaking," however, "there is never a
real 'Brady violation' unless the non-disclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that
the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict."Id. As the Court explained, a "true
Brady violation" has three components: "The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either
because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the
State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued." Id. To satisfy the prejudice
component, the withheld evidence must be "material"; that is, there must be "a reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
different." Id. (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676);see also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-34. If the undisclosed
evidence is material, a new trial is required. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 421-22.9
9
According to the Court of Appeals opinion in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir. 2009) government trial
witness alleged co-conspirator Jeremy Jones was labelled as the government’s “principal witness” at trial.
Thus, Jones’s testimony was “material” to the verdict; and thus, Jones’ credibility was subject to attack and
challenge by any agreement he had with the Government or any other entity to provide testimony in
05cr1115 (SDNY). Jones’ motive to commit known perjury was permissible impeachment evidence for the
jury to hear to determine whether or not Jones was biased and had any motive to testify falsely. Jones’
known perjury was the key component, the lynch pin, in the government’s risible conspiracy trial theory
which prejudiced Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by the jury irrationally finding Mr. Ware guilty
on the indictment’s charges.
Page 24 of 198
It appears from the parties' briefs that, contrary to Doe's original understanding, the records of Jones'
Superior Court cases3 were not sealed. Gov't Br. at 36 n.21; Oral Arg. Tr. 14-15. Hence, Doe's request for
access to those records is effectively moot. His request for the disclosure of agreements between Jones
and the government, however, remains very much alive. The government's appellate brief advises us
that Jones did "provid[e] information to the police as a paid special employee," Gov't Br. at 34 n.17, and
its appendix discloses that Jones was required, as a condition of probation in one of his Superior Court
cases, to cooperate with the police, see Gov't App., Tab C, at 3-4. At oral argument, the government also
advised that "in candor with the court, it might involve the FBI, it might involve the DEA and other law
enforcement agencies" as well. Oral Arg. Tr. at 29.
We therefore proceed to examine the arguments asserted by the government in support of its
contention that, even if cooperation agreements exist, it has no Brady obligation to produce them. We
conduct this examination de novo, since whether the government has breached its obligations under
Brady is a question of law. United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514, 517 (D.C. Cir. 1996); United States v. Lloyd,
71 F.3d 408, 411 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
* At trial, the prosecutor argued and the court agreed that Brady did not apply because Jones was a
defense witness. In response, the defendant points out that the Supreme Court's description of the
government's Brady obligations encompasses evidence that can be used to impeach the credibility of a
witness, and does not on its face distinguish between impeachment of a prosecution witness and
impeachment of a witness for the defense.4 The government replies that the Court's references to
impeachment in Bagley and Giglio involved prosecution witnesses (the same was true in Strickler), and
that Brady and its progeny therefore do not require disclosure of impeachment evidence concerning a
defense witness. "The Due Process Clause," the government notes, "does not provide 'a general
constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one.' " Gov't Br. at 17 (quoting
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977)). To require disclosure of potential impeachment
regarding defense witnesses, the government argues, would effectively "displace the adversary system as
the primary means by which the truth is uncovered"--a result not intended by Brady. See Bagley, 473 U.S.
at 675; see also United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109, 112 n.20 (1976).
In the usual case there is a conceptual difference between the impeachment of a government witness
and the impeachment of a defense witness. Evidence that impeaches the former is almost invariably
"favorable" to the accused, because by making the government's case less credible it enhances the
defendant's chances of acquittal. Evidence that impeaches a defense witness, by contrast, is not generally
favorable to the accused; by reducing the credibility of the defendant's own witness, such impeachment
reduces the probability that he will obtain a not guilty verdict. It is ordinarily the prosecutor rather than
defense counsel who wants to use the latter kind of evidence--although she may prefer to delay its use
(and disclosure) until after the witness testifies, both to prevent tailoring of the testimony in expectation
of the cross-examination and to employ the element of surprise to expose the witness' mendacity.
But Doe's is not the usual case involving impeachment of a defense witness. First, although it is true that
defense counsel's original plan was to put Jones on the stand as her own witness (either directly or
through the testimony of the investigator), had things gone as planned she would have had no reason to
impeach Jones' credibility. It was only after Jones "flipped" and started testifying against Doe that
defense counsel wanted to impeach him, hoping that evidence of a cooperation agreement would help
Page 25 of 198
her do so by showing that Jones lied when he said he had never "snitched" on anyone. Hence, even if
we were to accept the proposition that only the impeachment of a government witness falls within Brady,
by the time Jones flipped he had effectively become a government witness--as the court recognized by
declaring him hostile. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46 (ordering new trial where defense could have called
informant as adverse witness and effectively used undisclosed evidence as impeachment).
Second, and more important, the underlying reason Doe sought information about Jones' relationship
with the government was not to impeach Jones' statement, but to use it as affirmative evidence of Doe's
own innocence. Indeed, if all had gone as planned, Doe would not have used evidence of a cooperation
agreement to impeach Jones' statement that he planted the guns, but rather to corroborate it by
exposing his motive for doing so. With the testimony of Doe's girlfriend that Jones had been alone in the
basement, Doe had corroboration of Jones' opportunity to plant the weapons. What he needed was
evidence of motive, and any of several kinds of cooperation agreements might have provided it. See
Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683 (stating that where "the possibility of a reward had been held out" to witnesses
for providing useful information, " [t]his possibility ... gave [the witnesses] a direct, personal stake in
respondent's conviction").5 For example, if there were an agreement that the prosecution would seek
the reduction of Jones' Superior Court sentences if he provided "substantial assistance in investigating or
prosecuting another person," see Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), that agreement might have given him a motive
to plant the guns. Similarly, if cooperation with the police were a condition of Jones' continued probation
on his Superior Court convictions, that might have provided an incentive. And Jones might also have had
a motive if the police had agreed to pay him in return for information leading to successful arrests.6 As
noted above, there is evidence in the record that at least the latter two kinds of agreements may exist.
See Gov't App., Tab C at 3-4 (Superior Court hearing transcript indicating cooperation with police was
condition of Jones' probation);Gov't Br. at 34 n.17 (noting that Jones "provided information to the police
as a paid special employee"); Oral Arg. Tr. at 29 (noting that Jones may also have had arrangements with
the FBI and DEA). By providing evidence of motive, such agreements would have been relevant to Doe's
defense independent of any impeachment value they might also have had once Jones turned on him.
Finally, as the government conceded at oral argument, in the circumstances of this case an agreement
that gave Jones a motive to plant the guns would be Brady material even if Jones never appeared as a
witness for either side. Oral Arg. Tr. at 21, 27; see Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446; United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d
348, 351 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Indeed, in that respect this case is similar to Kyles, where the Supreme Court
found that the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose evidence that an informant who never
testified might have planted the murder weapon in defendant's apartment, 514 U.S. at 453, including
evidence of the informant's motive. See id. at 429 (noting defense theory that informant planted gun for
purposes of "removing an impediment to romance with [Kyles' common-law wife] ... and obtaining reward
money" from police). That kind of evidence is exculpatory in the purest sense, and its relevance does
not depend on who sponsors its admission. Indeed, once Doe's girlfriend testified that Jones had been
alone in the basement, evidence of an agreement giving Jones a motive to plant the guns would have
been admissible (assuming authentication) even if Jones had never entered the courtroom. Accordingly,
the fact that Jones was originally proffered as a defense witness has no consequence for the scope of the
government's Brady obligations here.
Page 26 of 198
The potpourri of other objections to disclosure argued by the trial prosecutor and sustained by the trial
court are also unpersuasive. The court's original rejection of the defendant's pretrial Brady motion
correctly rested on the ground that, as matters then stood, the informant's identity was confidential and
"how the informer in this case might be helpful to the defendant" was speculative. Def. App., Tab A at 83.
See United States v. Mangum, 100 F.3d 164, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding non-disclosure of confidential
informant's identity where defendant's assertion that informant planted gun in knapsack was "purely
speculative" and there was no evidence informant had access to knapsack); United States v. Warren, 42
F.3d 647, 654 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("Speculation as to the information the informant may provide is
insufficient."). By the time the case went to trial, however, those factors no longer applied. Jones had
voluntarily revealed himself to defense counsel, and had told her he planted the evidence in Doe's
basement. He had also told her that he was cooperating with the police in order to work off the gun and
drug case he had in Superior Court. This, together with the statement in the affidavit for the search
warrant that the informant had previously "given information which has led to the arrests of several
subjects," Def. App. 11, moved the possibility that a materially relevant cooperation agreement existed
far beyond the realm of speculation. See generally Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60-65.
Nor is there any basis for the rulings that production of the requested information was "premature," first
until it was clear Jones would testify, and then until after Jones actually did testify. Contrary to the
prosecution's contention, the information did not become relevant only after Jones changed his story,
giving the defense reason to impeach him. As noted above, evidence of Jones' motive was relevant
independent of when or whether he testified. Similarly, we reject the government's suggestion that
ordering a Brady search before Jones testified would somehow have been inconsistent with our
admonitions in United States v. Marshall (made with reference to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16), that " [t]o give rise
to a disclosure obligation, the evidence's materiality must, of course, be evident to a reasonable
prosecutor," and that the "prosecutor need not guess that evidence may become material as a
consequence of a defendant's not-yet-revealed strategic decisions." 132 F.3d. 63, 69 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
At least from the moment defense counsel made the claim in her opening statement that Jones planted
the guns, it was clear that any motive Jones might have had to do so was relevant to the case. No
clairvoyance on the part of the prosecutor was required.
We also reject the government's Catch-22 rationale that once Jones did testify, it was by then too late to
compel production of the information, since doing so would have required a continuance to gather the
materials. The government protests that "in the midst of the trial" it should not have been required to
"scamper" about searching for the requested evidence. Gov't Br. at 32. But that problem could have been
avoided had the government gathered the material earlier. In light of the defendant's opening statement,
it was no excuse the next morning that the prosecutor did not "have access to that information readily"
and "would have to go back to my office and try to pull out old files and everything else." Def. App., Tab
D at 68. The same was true that afternoon, when she said, "I think there may be some records that the
police might have [but] I certainly don't have anything right now." Id., Tab E at 42. And we do not
understand the basis for the government's argument that "appellant cannot credibly complain because
he failed to assert a timely demand for this impeachment material." Gov't Br. at 40. To the contrary,
defendant made his demands known early, often, insistently, and with specificity--only to be met with
the government's claims that they were first premature, and then too late. If by the time Jones testified
Page 27 of 198
the government still needed to "scamper" to collect the requested Brady material, it had no one to blame
but itself.7
We find equally unfounded the argument that any agreements Jones may have had in his Superior Court
cases "don't have anything to do with this case." Def. App., Tab E at 42. Defendant's whole point was that
Jones may have planted the gun in this case in order to "work off" obligations that arose in those Superior
Court cases. Hence, agreements in the other cases have everything to do with this case. Nor does it
matter that agreements in other cases may have involved other prosecutors. The United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia prosecutes cases in both the federal District Court and the local Superior
Court, and the prosecutor is responsible (at a minimum) for all Brady information in the possession of that
office. See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154 (holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another
is irrelevant since " [t]he prosecutor's office is an entity and ... [a] promise made by one attorney must be
attributed, for these purposes, to the Government").
For a similar reason, we reject as irrelevant the contention that the requested records may have been in
the possession of the Metropolitan Police Department, or the FBI or DEA, rather than the U.S. Attorney's
Office. As the Supreme Court held in Kyles, " [t]he individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any
favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the
police." 514 U.S. at 437. Anticipating Kyles, we specifically held in United States v. Brooks that prosecutors
in this District are responsible for disclosing Brady information contained in MPD files, " [g]iven the close
working relationship between the Washington metropolitan police and the U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia (who prosecutes both federal and District crimes, in both the federal and Superior
courts)."966 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The same is true for files of the FBI and DEA which, like the
U.S. Attorney's Office, are components of the U.S. Department of Justice. See id. (noting that Brady
requires prosecutors to search FBI records).
C.
Next, we consider the government's appellate argument that it did not breach a disclosure obligation with
respect to Jones' cooperation agreements because that information was otherwise available through
"reasonable pre-trial preparation by the defense." Xydas v. United States, 445 F.2d 660, 668 (D.C. Cir.
1971). We note at the start that we find this argument somewhat surprising. The government concedes
that it has not yet conducted a full Brady search of its own, and hence does not know the details of any
agreements Jones may have had. See Oral Arg. Tr. at 22-24, 29-30, 38-39. In particular, the government
advises that it knows nothing of his arrangements with the MPD other than that Jones was a "paid special
employee," Gov't Br. at 34 n.17; Oral Arg. Tr. at 29, and nothing at all of any arrangements he may have
with the FBI or DEA, Oral Arg. Tr. at 38-39. We do not understand how the government can confidently
assert that defense counsel could have learned the contents of Jones' agreements when the
government concedes that it has no idea what those contents are.
According to the U.S. Attorney, the first place the defendant should have turned for information about
Jones' agreements was Jones himself. Jones, the government points out, voluntarily contacted defense
counsel and "was, for a time, cooperative with the defense." Gov't Br. at 32. "Since defense counsel had
an opportunity to probe [Jones'] relationship with the government ... during their January ... conversation
[in the restaurant parking lot], appellant cannot now use Brady as a vehicle to get answers to questions
Page 28 of 198
left unasked at that time." Id. at 33. Again, we find this argument surprising. The government's position
at trial was that virtually everything Jones said to defense counsel at the January meeting was a lie, a
position the government maintains on appeal. Oral Arg. Tr. at 26-27. Surely information obtained from a
government-certified liar cannot substitute for information obtained from the government itself--
particularly not when the defense was seeking information from a more trustworthy source in order to
corroborate (or, as became necessary, impeach) that individual.
Second, the government contends that if Doe wanted to learn of Jones' agreements with the MPD, he
should have subpoenaed the involved officers themselves. Gov't Br. at 33. This argument, too, is
unpersuasive. As we have noted above, "the prosecutor is responsible for 'any favorable evidence
known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police,' " Strickler, 119
S. Ct. at 1945 n.12 (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437), and particularly including the MPD, see Brooks, 966
F.2d at 1503. Accordingly, defense counsel was no more required to subpoena the officers to learn of their
agreements, than she was to subpoena the prosecutor to learn of hers. The appropriate way for defense
counsel to obtain such information was to make a Brady request of the prosecutor, just as she did. See
United States v. Iverson, 648 F.2d 737, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding that "the primary obligation for the
disclosure of matters which are essentially in the prosecutorial domain lies with the government").
Indeed, at oral argument the government agreed that had Jones been a government witness, it would
readily have produced his cooperation agreements without insisting on a subpoena, Oral Arg. Tr. at 32-
33, just as Giglio and Bagley contemplate. Since Jones' status as a defense witness is irrelevant here,
there is no reason to require any other procedure.
Finally, the government argues that Doe was not prejudiced by any non-disclosure that may have occurred
because Doe's attorney failed to impeach Jones with the information she did have in her possession. When
Jones denied under oath that he had ever informed on anyone else, Def. App., Tab E at 53 ("I haven't told
on anybody"), counsel could have contradicted him with the sworn affidavit attached to the search
warrant application, Def. App. 12 ("The source has given information which has led to the arrests of
several subjects"). She might also have tried to use a representation made by Jones' attorney at the bench
almost immediately after Jones made his denial. Id., Tab E at 61 (advising the court that there "was a
stipulation of [Jones'] probation to assist the police on the street"). Defense counsel did not attempt to
use either one.
There is no doubt that this argument is relevant to the ultimate question of the materiality of the
undisclosed evidence, that is, whether there was "a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been
disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickler, 119 S. Ct. at
1948 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682). But an evaluation of the significance of the evidence that was
available to the defense cannot begin until the government determines whether there was any
evidence that was unavailable. If the information the government finds about Jones' agreements is the
equivalent of that which the defense already had, then it may well not be material for Brady purposes.
See Iverson, 648 F.2d at 738 (" [N]o violation of due process results from prosecutorial non-disclosure if
defense counsel both knows of the information and is able to make use of it but still chooses, for tactical
reasons, not to do so.").
Page 29 of 198
On the other hand, the evidence that was available to Doe only indicated that Jones had cooperated with
the government, and perhaps that he had an agreement to do so. It did not disclose, at least not explicitly,
the terms of any such agreement and whether they gave Jones a motive to plant the guns in Doe's house.
The latter would not have been the equivalent of what the defense already knew and, depending on the
other facts in the case, may or may not have been material for Brady purposes. See United States v. Smith,
77 F.3d 511, 512-13 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that although aspects of witness' plea agreement were
known to defense, undisclosed elements were material to defendant's ability to impeach); Cuffie, 80
F.3d at 517-18 (" [T]he fact that other impeachment evidence was available to defense counsel does not
[necessarily] render additional impeachment evidence immaterial.") (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Needless to say, until we know whether such information exists, we are unable to determine
whether it would have been material. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 ("At this stage, of course,
it is impossible to say whether any information in the ... records may be relevant to [defendant's] claim of
innocence, because neither the prosecution nor defense counsel has seen the information....").
III
The government concedes that it never conducted a full-fledged Brady search with respect to any
agreements its various components may have had with Jones. See Oral Arg. Tr. at 23-24, 29-30, 38-39.
For the reasons stated above, that failure constituted a breach of the government's "duty to search"
for Brady information. Brooks, 996 F.2d at 1502-03.
In their arguments before this court, both the government and the defendant agreed that were we to find
such a breach of the obligation to search, the proper disposition would be to remand this case to the
district court, "to conduct a further evidentiary hearing to resolve whether there exists any Brady
information and whether such information was material." Gov't Br. at 18 n.11; see Def. Br. at 20.
This is the course we have followed in other cases, see Brooks, 966 F.2d at 1504-05; United States v. Lloyd,
992 F.2d at 352, and the course we follow here as well. "On remand, the district court should require the
U.S. Attorney's [O]ffice to do what it should have done earlier," 966 F.2d at 1504, namely, to review
information held by that office, as well as the MPD and other relevant law enforcement agencies, to
determine whether the government has or had any agreements with its informant of the kind discussed
in this opinion. If the government finds that such agreements exist, the district court must then
determine whether there is "a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the
defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickler, 119 S. Ct. at 1948 (quoting
Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682).
Because this case remains under seal, the names of the defendant and the informant have been changed.
In its brief before this court, the government states that it has "no reason to believe that any agreement
existed between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. [Jones] with respect to his case in Superior
Court." Gov't Br. at 34 n.17 (citing, inter alia, Gov't App., Tabs A-F). We are confused by the government's
statement since its citations, recently prepared transcripts of some of Jones' Superior Court appearances,
appear to refer to such an agreement. See Gov't App., Tab C at 3 (statement by defense counsel that "
Page 30 of 198
[Jones] has been cooperating with providing information"; reply by Assistant U.S. Attorney that "we will
need to ensure that the agreement is followed through"); id., Tab E at 3 (statement by court that at
sentencing " [i]t was included in the representation by prosecution that the defendant was cooperating").
But see id., Tab F at 7 (statement by prosecutor that "I have no information whether or not the defendant
is cooperating"). It may be that the government regards the cooperation agreement referred to in these
transcripts as one involving the police rather than the U.S. Attorney's Office. If that is the distinction the
government is drawing, it is of no moment to its obligations under Brady. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.
419, 437 (1995); United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Jones has convictions for carrying a pistol without a license, attempted possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, and attempted distribution of cocaine. Gov't Br. at 6 n.7.
See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 (noting that in Bagley "the Court disavowed any difference between exculpatory
and impeachment evidence for Brady purposes").
Cf. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986) (vacating judgment where court barred cross-
examination about prosecutor's agreement to drop charge in exchange for witness' promise to speak with
prosecutor, because "a jury might reasonably have found [it] furnished the witness a motive for favoring
the prosecution").
There is, of course, nothing inappropriate about such agreements. See United States v. Ramsey, 165 F.3d
980, 988-90 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting legitimacy and law enforcement value of "prosecutorial promise(s) of
leniency in exchange for truthful testimony"). And we certainly do not suggest that any such agreement
would, or could, have authorized Jones to plant the guns. Rather, the point is simply that such an
agreement may give a person a motive that the jury must be permitted to evaluate. See Van Arsdall,
475 U.S. at 679; Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55; United States v. Smith, 77 F.3d 511,
513 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Indeed, the government knew from the opening bell that it would at least have to prepare to conduct its
own cross-examination of Jones. See Def. App., Tab B at 15 (listing defendant's potential witnesses).
Hence, it should not have needed the compulsion of Brady to learn all it could about him. See Brooks,
966 F.2d at 1502-03 (noting that "prosecutor's own interest in avoiding surprise at trial gives him a very
considerable incentive to search accessible files").
Page 31 of 198
Appendix F—Supplemental authority in support of the Emergency Reliefs,
U.S. v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500, 02-03 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Government has a
duty and is required to search for Brady evidence and produce all that is
found to the defense, and the district court is required to conduct
materiality assessments of newly discovered Brady evidence.
Page 32 of 198
Appendix F (con’t).
Page 33 of 198
Appendix G—Government witness Ari Rabinowitz testimony in U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) where Rabinowitz blew up the government’s
indictment’s charges, trial theory, and case in chief—Rabinowitz admitted
and confessed to unregistered broker-dealer and 15 USC 77b(a)(11)
statutory underwriter status; and therefore, admitted the government’s
indictment failed to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense.
Which annulled and mooted the 04cr1224 proceedings/
Page 34 of 198
Appx. G (con’t): The SEC found Arie Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services
to be “unregistered investment advisors”—relevant Brady favorable
evidence required to have been searched for and disclosed to Applicant.
Page 35 of 198
Appendix H: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent, dispositive Brady
exculpatory certified finding that each plaintiff in the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
litigation (the “Plaintiffs”)—the alleged factual basis for the government’s
U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment’s charges—that is, each had
never registered as required by federal law, 15 USC 77b(a)(11), and
therefore, each was an unregistered broker-dealer, each lacked Article III
and 28 USC 1332(a) standing, and implicitly found that SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995) strictly prohibited an exemption to 15 USC 77e strict-
liability registration requirement for each of the Plaintiffs.
Page 36 of 198
Appendix I—Brady evidence suppressed by the Respondents—Norris v.
SEC, 675 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Norris admitted that he abused his
SEC email account, admitted he was under the care of a psychiatrist, and
also admitted that he was required to take drugs which affected his
mental state).
Page 37 of 198
NORRIS v. S.E.C.
Email | Print | Comments (0)
No. 2011-3129.
View Case Cited Cases Citing Case

675 F.3d 1349 (2012)
Jeffrey B. NORRIS, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 10, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael J. Kator , Kator, Parks & Weiser, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.
With him on the brief was Adam J. Casner , of Austin, Texas.
Tara K. Hogan , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were
Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Todd M. Hughes ,
Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief was Juanita C. Hernandez , Senior Counsel,
Securities & Exchange Commission, of Washington, DC.
Before DYK, MOORE, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.

Jeffrey B. Norris ("Norris") petitions for review of an arbitrator's decision affirming
his removal from his position as a Trial Attorney with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union Chapter
293, No. SEC-AR-09-005 (Apr. 19, 2011) (Winograd, Arb.) ("Arbitration Decision").
Because we hold that the arbitrator erroneously failed to consider new evidence
bearing upon the reasonableness of Norris's removal, we vacate and remand.
BACKGROUND
Norris served as a Trial Attorney with the SEC from February 23, 1992, until he was
removed on August 28, 2009. Before the events leading to his removal, discipline was
initiated against Norris for exercising poor judgment and misuse of government email
on two separate occasions. In 2007, Norris was suspended from service without pay
for one day for exercising poor judgment in emailing an attorney who represented a
witness in an ongoing SEC case, and expressing his opinion about the merits of the
case. Thereafter, from March to May 2007, Norris exchanged a series of antagonistic
emails from his SEC email account, and in which he identified himself as SEC trial
counsel, with businessman Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional
basketball team. Based on this exchange, Norris was suspended without pay for
fourteen calendar days due to his misuse of government email.
The removal here was based on three additional emails sent in 2008. On September 11,
2008, Norris sent an email to the Washington Post from his SEC email account in
which he identified himself as Senior Trial Counsel and expressed certain political
Page 38 of 198
views. On October 19, 2008, Norris [675 F.3d 1351] sent an email to two supervisors and
three members of the support staff in which he demeaned the support staff and
implied that they were incompetent at performing their job duties. Finally, on October
23, 2008, Norris emailed a confidential suspicious activity report ("SAR") to an
appointed receiver and his counsel in violation of SEC policies.1
On May 22, 2009, the SEC sent Norris a notice of proposed removal which proposed to
remove him based on the three emails sent in 2008, and recounted the prior emails
which had led to the previous disciplinary actions against him. Norris responded,
urging that his actions in connection with the 2008 emails were influenced by several
personal circumstances, including his wife's becoming fully disabled, his daughter's
suffering from Asperger's Disorder, and Norris's adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder ("AD/HD"). On August 19, 2009, the deciding official, Rose Romero
("Romero"), informed Norris that she had decided to remove him effective August 28,
2009, for misuse of government equipment by sending unauthorized or inappropriate
emails. In the decision, Romero stated that "because of [Norris's] continued inappropriate
and/or unauthorized emails [she had] lost confidence that [he could] effectively perform
[his] assigned duties." J.A. 118. Romero also noted that she had considered Norris's
explanation that his behavior stemmed from his AD/HD and the effect of the medical
conditions of his wife and daughter, but nevertheless concluded that Norris did "not have
the potential for rehabilitation because prior disciplinary actions have not prevented [his]
impulsive and improper e-mails." Id.
The union submitted Norris's removal to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement with the SEC. A hearing was held before an arbitrator
on November 18-19, 2010. There was no dispute that Norris had engaged in the behavior
that led to his removal or that his actions constituted improper conduct. The focus was
primarily on whether removal was a reasonable penalty. During the hearing, the
arbitrator received testimony from six witnesses, including Romero and Norris.
Although the incident was not mentioned in the notice of proposed removal, Romero
testified in response to questioning from the agency's counsel that sometime before
the termination proceeding, she had learned that Norris had a confrontation with agency
commissioners in 2007 and that he was therefore barred from presenting cases to
commissioners in the future.2 Romero also testified that Norris's conduct in connection
with this incident and the subsequent presentations bar had "a direct impact on how
that attorney... is able to perform his duties." J.A. 139. In mitigation of the charges
against him, Norris presented evidence that his personal circumstances had improved
in early 2009, so that the improper conduct was unlikely to recur in the future. Norris
testified that his daughter was placed in a special program to cater to her needs due to
her Asperger's Disorder and had begun taking a new medication that caused her to
show significant improvement, and that his wife's condition had also
[675 F.3d 1352]
improved.
Page 39 of 198
Norris's psychiatrist testified that Norris began taking medication for his AD/HD in
June of 2009, and also had begun attending adult AD/HD support groups. Norris's
psychiatrist expressed his opinion that in the future, Norris was unlikely to send
emails such as those that had formed the basis of his removal, due in part to his
treatment and also to the fact that his primary "stressors" (the medical conditions of
his wife and daughter) had been alleviated.
Page 40 of 198
Appx. I (con’t), Dkt. 84 (22cv3409)
Page 41 of 198
Appx. I (con’t).
Page 42 of 198
Appendix J: Official SEC-DOJ email to and from AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell and government 1224 trial witness Jeffrey B. Norris, who was
involved in the SEC-DOJ commingled Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings, SEC
v. Investment Technology, Inc., 03-0831 (D. NV). AUSA Southwell admitted
that Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. on Sept. 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA was “improperly
arrested” in an illegal attempt by the U.S. Marshals and District Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) to collect the USAO’s and the 02cv2219
(SDNY) unregistered broker-dealers’ criminal usury unlawful debt, GX 1-4
(04cr1224)—see Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022)
(criminal usury debt contracts are ipso facto unenforceable, illegal
contracts that violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury
law, a class E felony).10
10
The government’s U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment’s charges were predicated on the 02cv2219
(SDNY) criminal usury subject matter—GX 1-4, and GX 5, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt Contracts”),
over which a U.S. Article III or Article I (cf., In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) (WLH)
Chapter 11 proceedings, see Dkt. 256 and subsequent filings—conspiracy to obstruct justice by the Chief
Bankruptcy Judge (NDGA) Wendy L. Hagenau to conceal and suppress the actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the Chapter 11 proceedings) lacks jurisdiction to enforce
unlawful criminal usury subject matter.
Page 43 of 198
Page 44 of 198
Appendix K: U.S. Probation Office (SDNY) confirmation Ulysses T. Ware,
Esq., September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA kidnapping by the U.S. Marshals—
an overt act in furtherance of the 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO unlawful debt
collection activities regarding 04cr1224 trial exhibits GX 1-4 (the “Criminal
Usury Unlawful Debt”). See U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d
conviction, sentence, and RICO +$3.0 billion unlawful debt collection
forfeiture judgment).
Page 45 of 198
Appendix L: Perjured Declaration of former AUSA Maria E. Douvas
regarding suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence—Douvas was the USAO’s line prosecutor in 04cr1224 and was
aware of her suppression of Norris’ professional misconduct referenced
in Appx. I, supra. Douvas and the USAO did not file a response to
Applicant’s Brady Motion.
Page 46 of 198
Appendix M—IRNewswires’s article on former AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell’s crimes, frauds on the court, and prosecutorial misconduct in
04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
See attachment for Appx. M
Page 47 of 198
Appendix N—Affidavit of Ulysses T. Ware’s 12.10.2019 filed with USPO
(SDNY) regarding judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
Page 48 of 198
Case Nos. 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY)
Submitted on May 25, 2021, by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

_____________________________
Ulysses T. Ware, individually, and as
the legal representative for the estate
of Mary S. Ware.
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260 phone
[email protected]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
United States of America, et al.,
Plaintiff, Petitioner,
Cross Respondent,
v.
Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

Defendant, Respondent,
And Cross Petitioner.
_______________________________________________
Exhibit #UTW-01
Ulysses T. Ware’s December 10, 2019 Affidavit.
Mr. Ware and the estate of Mary S. Ware will file a brief in opposition to the Government’s Dkt. #250
not later than June 20, 2021
To: The United States Probation Office (SDNY)
From: Ulysses T. Ware
Page 49 of 198
RE: Affidavit of Sworn Material Facts in regard to superseding final judgments entered in:
(i) Alpha Capital, AG et al. v. Group Management Corp et al., case no. 02cv2219-LBS (SDNY), Doc.
#90, 12/20/2007 Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment;
(ii) United States v. Ware, 07-5670-cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, 08/18/2009 superseding final judgment;
and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Doc. #113;
(iii). and other matters.
_______________________________________
A. Contentions.
1. The Government incorrectly contends, according to the USPO, that (a) fines, (b) restitution, and
(c) forfeiture is owed in regard to the void and abrogated 1224 and 1115 cases.
2. Mr. Ware contends that the Superseding Final judgments, see Fact #23, final judgments entered in favor
of Mr. Ware, abrogated, annulled, and vitiated all prior judgments, (i.e., fines, restitution, and forfeitures)
entered in 02cv2219, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115. By operation of law, any and all prior judgments, orders,
or proceedings that depended in whole and/or in part on any prior judgment entered in 2219, 1224, and
1115 have been abrogated, annulled, vitiated, and voided.
3. The federal courts legally designated Mr. Ware as the prevailing party in the 2219, 1224, and 1115
proceedings as a result of the Superseding Final Judgments.
4. The United States and its privies, i.e., the DOJ, USPO, SEC, AOC, FBI, U.S. Marshals, etc., all are bound
absolutely by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and bound by the Double Jeopardy Clause against any
further fact finding in any proceeding in regard to any issues, facts, or claims actually or necessarily
resolved by the Superseding Final Judgments in 2219, 1224 and 1115. see Federated, 452 U.S. at 398-402
(“final judgment absolutely binding on all courts, the parties, and their privies in all subsequent
proceedings between the parties; all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved by final judgment
forever settled between the parties.”) (paraphrased) (emphasis added).
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
________________________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
Page 50 of 198
Affidavit of Ulysses T. Ware
County of Manhattan
State of New York
December 10, 2019
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 10th day of December, 2019 in the city of Manhattan, in the State of New
York, while under oath, set my hand and seal, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge
of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, hereby have made this sworn Affidavit in my personal and individual
capacity, and set forth the following facts that are true, correct, and indisputable. I hereby incorporate by
reference herein, and make the same a part hereof as if attached hereto, the Government’s trial exhibits,
1224 and 1115 PSIs in heac verba, briefs, motions, memorandi, transcripts, orders, judgments, and
dockets from the 02cv2219 SDNY, 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), 03-0831-kjd (D. NV), 04cr1224 SDNY,
05cr1115 SDNY and related proceedings, jointly (the “Ware Cases”).
Fact #1.
On or about February 2, 2001 Alpha Capital, AG, (“Alpha”), Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., and
Amro International, S.A., LH Financial, Ari Rabinowitz, and others both known and unknown, jointly and
severally, (“Alpha” or “Unregistered Broker-Dealers” or “Brokers”)), knowingly and willingly, while not
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (“SEC”), or the Financial Industry Regulatory
Agency, (“FINRA”)11, entered into an illegal financing agreement with Group Management Corp.,
(“GPMT”), (the “Illegal Financing Agreement” or government trial exhibit in U.S. v. Ware, 04-cr-1224 SDNY
(“GX-5”))12.
Fact #2
On February 2, 2001 the Brokers, while not registered with the SEC or FINRA, entered into and knowingly
executed paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-513; and illegally purchased for immediate resale, via an illegal public
offering,14 $1.1 million of GPMT’s restricted convertible notes, (the “Notes”), GX 1-4.
11
According to the SEC and FINRA’s public database, www.brokercheck.gov, neither Alpha, Stonestreet, Markham,
Amro, LH Financial, Ari Rabinowitz, Rhino Advisors, fugitive Thomas Badian, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko,
Esq., Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., nor Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., have ever been lawfully registered pursuant to 15 USC
78o(a)(1) as brokers or dealers. Cf. Rabinowitz’s testimony at Tr. 204-06 confessing to criminal violations of Section
15(a)(1) registration requirements.
12
“GX” shall hereinafter refer to Government trial exhibits fraudulently entered in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY) via AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin and Maria E. Douvas through government witnesses Ari Rabinowitz an admitted,
(see Tr. 180-82, 188, 202-08) unregistered broker-dealer operating in criminal violations of the federal securities
laws, Section 15(a)(1), and Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. (an officer of the court).
13
Paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 conferred 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter status on each unregistered Broker
involved in the February 2, 2001 transactions: “Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters required to register all
distribution of securities” (quoting SEC Release 33-7190); cf., Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (same); Kern, 425 F.3d at
152-56 (Pooler, J.) (same)). (emphasis added).
14
According to paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 the Brokers, jointly and severally, intended to immediately resell GPMT’s
Notes [within 135 day of 02/02/2001], rather than hold the Notes [for the Rule 144(k) holding period requirement,
Page 51 of 198
Fact #3
On March 20, 2002 Alpha, et al., through its retained counsel, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., while recklessly
lacking Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction15 and standing, knowingly,
willfully, in bad faith, and for an improper purpose16 Alpha, et al. filed their frivolous, malicious, fraudulent
and null and void ab initio complaint in Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp, et al., case
no. 02cv2219-LBS (SDNY), (“2219”), complaint, (the “2219 Complaint”) in willful violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b)(1-4); and 28 USC 1927.
Fact #4
From 2001 continuing to 2007 Alpha, et al., knowingly criminally violated Section 77x and 78ff, by the
knowing and willful sale of millions of unregistered shares of GPMT, see 11/25/2002 2219 Opinion, (Sand,
J.); and a “good few hundred” small publicly traded companies’ shares according to the sworn testimony
of government 04cr1224 SDNY government trial witness Ari Rabinowitz, Tr. 202-08.
Fact #5
On or about November 25, 2002, the 2219 district court (Sand, J.), while lacking all Article III and Section
1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction over the 2219 proceeding, and to knowingly and willfully aid,
abet, and facilitate the criminal and racketeering activity of laundering of the illegal profits, proceedings,
revenues, and property extorted by Alpha, et al. issued the 2219 Opinion; and purported to enter a bogus
and fraudulent void ab initio default judgment, GX-7, against GPMT and the 2219 defendants (Elorian and
Becky Landers).17 However, nevertheless, in the 2219 Opinion Judge Sand ruled, (i) that each of the Brokers
were in fact Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT restricted securities, GX 1-4; and further
i.e., 2 years] as a bona fide investment as required by 15 USC 77d(2), Section 4(2), evidenced by requiring GPMT to
immediately register the conversion securities on Form SB-2 and file the same with the SEC. See also paragraphs 12
and 13 in the Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp, et al., case no. 02cv2219-LBS (SDNY), (“2219”),
complaint, (the “2219 Complaint”). CF., also with the 2219 district court’s 11/25/2002 Memorandum and Opinion,
(the “2219 Opinion”), confirming the original intentions of Alpha, et al. on 02/02/2001: Alpha, et al., had no
intentions of being bona fide investors in GPMT; rather Alpha, et al., initially to immediately resell the conversion
securities of GPMT as found by the Court: Alpha, et al. intended to be unregistered statutory underwriters of GPMT’s
securities in criminal violation of 15 USC 78o(a)(1) and Id. 77x, and 78ff.
15
Unregistered broker-dealers lack Article III and diversity subject matter jurisdiction to enforce illegal contract
entered into and performed in criminal or civil violation of the federal securities laws, see 15 USC 78cc(b); cf.,
Regional Props., Inc. v. Fin. & Real Estate Consulting Co., 678 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1982). (unregistered brokers not
entitled to receive any damages for alleged breach of illegal contract entered into or performed in violation of the
securities laws).
16
Cf., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 11(b)(1-4) sanctions,; 28 USC 1927; and the Article III inherent power of the courts’ to
sanction frivolous, and bad faith pleadings signed and filed by Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., on behalf of Alpha. Alpha, et
al., filed the 2219 Complaint seeking to force GPMT, and its legal counsels to issue false, fraudulent, and bogus Rule
144(k) legal opinions to enable Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent 15 USC 77e(a), (c), Section 5, strict liability
registration requirement before offering for sale GPMT’s Notes, GX 1-4, see note 3 supra.
17
The Landers had been forced to file personal bankruptcy to fend off the illegal and unethical violent extortion and
criminal contempt threats directed towards them by Alpha’s counsel Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., (an officer of the court)
in his quest to force the Landers’ and their securities counsels to issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions
to enable the criminal unregistered sale of more than 15 million free-trading shares of GPMT’s stock. See Tr. 283.
Page 52 of 198
ruled that each of the Brokers were in fact Section 16(a) statutory insiders not permitted to trade in the
equity securities of GPMT as of 02/02/2001.
Fact #6
In January 2003 due to the continuing and violent personal threats and extortion demands of Alpha, et al.,
Zitter and Rabinowitz Elorian Landers and the board of directors of GPMT appointed Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.,
as chief executive officer and chairperson of the board of directors of GPMT; notified the SEC of the
change; and resigned from GPMT. Mr. Ware as of January 2003 acted as chief executive officer and
securities counsel for GPMT until falsely incarcerated in November 2007.
Fact #7
Beginning in January 2003 and continuing to 2007 Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., an officer of the court, and Ari
Rabinowitz, on behalf of their clients LH Financial and Alpha, et al., continued to contact and threaten Mr.
Ware, via the mail and wires of the United States, as CEO of GPMT ( a publicly-traded company); and made
illegal extortion threats and demands on Mr. Ware, to wit: Zitter demanded that Mr. Ware fraudulently
issue to him (Zitter), on behalf of LH Financial and Alpha, et al., more than 10 million free-trading shares
of GPMT; and further demanded that Mr. Ware prepare and provide to him (Zitter on behalf of Alpha, et
al.) bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to enable LH Financial and Alpha, et al. to criminally
circumvent Sections 77x and 78ff and conduct an illegal unregistered public offering of GPMT’s shares18.
Else, Zitter stated to Mr. Ware, “ … I will have Judge Sand throw your ass in prison, nigger, and you will
never get out … who do you think that you are fucking with … I want that stock and those opinions, else
I will have the marshals arrest your ass … you better give them to us … I’m not playing around with you
… don’t do it and see what happens to you ….”19 (emphasis in original) (quoting Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. in
March 2003; see also the transcript of the September 1, 2004 illegal arrest (kidnapping) proceedings of
Mr. Ware in Atlanta, GA, on the admitted request of Zitter and Rabinowitz, by the U.S. Marshals (NDGA)
held before District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.; cf. Doc. #88 order in 2219 (Sand, J.) ruling Thrash and the
Marshals lacked authority and jurisdiction to have entered Mr. Ware’s law office in Atlanta, GA on
September 1, 2004 demanding the issuance of bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions and more than 10 million
free-trading shares of GPMT’s stock)20.
18
See the sworn testimony of both Rabinowitz and Zitter in 04cr1224 under direct and cross examination admitting
to criminal violations of the federal securities and criminal laws of the United States in 2002-2007 attempting to
extort GPMT and Mr. Ware out of more than $500 million dollars in market capitalization value. Both Rabinowitz and
Zitter confessed under oath to aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act extortion criminal enterprise; and both confessed to
aiding and abetting a conspiracy to launder the profits and proceeds derived from the extortion of GPMT, the Landers,
and Mr. Ware regarding the shares of GPMT.
19
Zitter testified under oath in 04cr1224 that he and Judge Sand arranged for Mr. Ware’s illegal arrest on September
1, 2004 in Atlanta, GA by the U.S. Marshals (NDGA) in their attempt to extort Mr. Ware and GPMT out of more than
10 million free-trading shares of GPMT’s stock. See Doc. #88 in 02cv2219 (SDNY) order (Sand, J.) conceding the
Marshals lacked lawful authority on September 1, 2004 to have arrested (kidnapped) Mr. Ware in Atlanta, GA;
confirming that the 2219 district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over 2219. CF., Tr. 322; Tr. 325 Zitter
confessed that he received 4,026,695 unregistered shares of GPMT from Mr. Ware based on his (Zitter’s and Sand’s)
continued Hobbs Act extortion threats of violence.
20
Zitter testified, Tr. 371, that Mr. Ware’s 09/01/2004 arrest in Atlanta, GA by the U.S. Marshals was in fact illegal.
Page 53 of 198
Fact #8
In January and March of 2003 Zitter and Rabinowitz -- to facilitate the laundering of the illegal profits and
proceeds derived from the illegal sale of GPMT’s unregistered shares sold in violation of Sections 77x and
78ff (both section criminalize the unregistered sale of securities) – colluded and conspired with District
Judge Leonard B. Sand, and had Sand enter bogus and fraudulent null and void ab initio purported orders
(GX-11) directed to GPMT to criminally violate the federal securities laws by issuing fraudulent and bogus
Rule 144(k) legal opinions to Zitter and LH Financial to enable Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent Section
5 of the 1933 Act, and illegally sell GPMT’s unregistered securities in violation of Sections 77x and 78ff.
Fact #9
On or about August 13, 2003, Sand, Zitter, LH Financial and others both known and unknown, see Doc.
#65 (2219), GX-24, entered into illegal ex parte proceedings with Judge Sand where Alpha, et al., judicially
admitted in the ex parte proceedings to actually be the “beneficial owner of more than 9.9% of [GPMT’s]
stock” (emphasis added), (quoting Sand, J.; cf., 08/13/2003 order (Sand, J.)); thus conferring draconian
statutory insider status, 15 USC 78p(b), Section 16(b), on Alpha, et al21; and admitted ineligibility for any
exemption to Section 5’s strict-liability registration requirements.
Fact #10
Due to the continued and violent extortion threats made by Zitter and Alpha, et al. to Mr. Ware as
securities counsel for GPMT, on December 3, 2003 GPMT filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, In re
Group Management Corp. (BC NDGA),. Chapter 7 protection triggered 11 USC 362(a) automatic stay
injunction order had the following legal effects: prohibited against any further extortions threats by Zitter,
Sand, Rabinowitz, and Alpha, et al., demands, or collection methods of any type in regard to any lawful or
unlawful alleged prepetition debt of GPMT; prohibited David N. Kelley from any attempt to enforce via
criminal contempt the collection of any prepetition debt of GPMT; and terminated forever the 2219 court’s
subject matter jurisdiction over any aspect of the 02/02/2001 Illegal Transaction; Mr. Ware also notified
the 2219 district court (Sand, J.) and Zitter of GPMT’s Chapter 7 filing and the Section 362(a) automatic
stay.22
Fact #11
On December 22, 2003 in willful and knowing violation of the December 3, 2003 Section 362(a) automatic
stay resulting from GPMT’s December 3, 2003 Chapter 7 filing; and while lacking all jurisdiction over the
2219 proceedings, Judge Sand on the urging of Zitter, Rabinowitz, and Alpha, et al., knowingly, willfully, in
bad faith, and maliciously -- to aid and abet the continued Hobbs Act extortion and money laundering
21
Statutory insiders are per se ineligible for Rule 144(k); and Alpha, et al. are required to disgorge back to GPMT all
profits from the trading in GPMT’s securities from February 2, 2001; thus, ipso facto, legally precluding Alpha, et al.,
from any alleged loss amount. Cf. appeal briefs of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. filed in United States v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d
Cir. 2010) for a detailed explanation of Section 5, Rule 144(K), Section 16 and the August 13, 2003 order’s legal effects
on the 02cv2219 and 04cr1224 proceedings.
22
GPMT’s December 3, 2003 Chapter 7 filing triggered the 11 USC 362(a) automatic stay against Alpha, et al., Zitter,
and the 2219 district court; and voided all post petition orders or judgments entered in 2219 and 04cr1224 (SDNY).
See Judge Sand’s December 4, 2003 bogus and null and void ab initio order confirming actual notice of the GPMT’s
12/03/2003 Chapter 7 filing.
Page 54 of 198
conspiracy being run by Alpha, et al., -- entered bogus, fraudulent null and void ab initio orders in 2219,
GX-34.23
Fact #12
On or about November 17, 2004, United States Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley and others both known
and unknown, (“Kelley, et al.”), government lawyers officers of the court, using the null and void ab initio
2219 proceeding’s orders: (1) March 13, 2003 order (Sand, J.), GX-11; (2) August 13, 2003, GX-24; and (3)
November 25, 2002 judgment, GX-7, allegedly approached a federal grand jury and knowingly and
recklessly while lacking 28 USC 547(2) statutory standing and legal probable cause for any 18 USC 401(3)
criminal contempt offense24 committed by Mr. Ware in regard to the null and void ab initio 2219
proceedings recklessly and maliciously, presented to the federal grand jury known to be null and void ab
initio documents, known and suborned perjured testimony of witnesses, and evidence fabricated by
Kelley, et al., in criminal violation of 18 USC 241, 242, 371, 1201-02, 1951(a), 1621-23, 1956-57, and
1962(a-d) and numerous state laws (the “RICO Acts”).
Fact #13
On November 17, 2004 in regard to the null and void proceedings, orders, and judgments entered in the
void ab initio 2219 proceedings probable cause was a legal impossibility and a nullity for U.S. Attorney
(SDNY) David N. Kelley, et al., to have presented any information to a federal grand jury and lawfully
charged Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., GPMT’s securities lawyer, with an alleged 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt
offense for refusing to aid, abet, assist, and facilitate Alpha, et al., to criminally circumvent Section 5 of the
1933 Act by the issuance of fraudulent and bogus Rule 144(k) legal opinions; which Kelley knew or was
reckless in not knowing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions would have enabled Alpha, et al.
to conduct an illegal unregistered public offering of GPMT’s securities in criminal violation of Sections 5,
10j(b), 77x, 78ff, and Rule 10b-525.
23
As of December 3, 2003 pursuant to 11 USC 362(a), et seqs. all jurisdiction over the 2219 proceedings in regard to
any alleged prepetition debts of GPMT rested exclusively in the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA): the New York 2219 district
court lacked lawful jurisdiction after December 3, 2003 to enter any order in 2219 without first the GPMT Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) lifting the Section 362(a) automatic stay on motion and a hearing by a party having
standing in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Alpha, et al. being unregistered broker-dealers lacked lawful
claims, and thus, lacked standing to appear in the Bankruptcy Court regarding any proceedings concerning GPMT, or
any successor in interest of GPMT. As of the February 2, 2001 execution of paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5 Alpha, et al.,
as unregistered broker-dealers, lacked any enforceable legal rights, i.e., claim, apropos GPMT’s securities, see 15 USC
78cc(b); cf., Regional, 678 F.2d at 561-64.
24
It is not a 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense to not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to
unregistered broker-dealers, Section 16(b) statutory insiders, and Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters to enable,
aid, abet, or facilitate the criminal circumvention of Section 5 registration requirements in violation of 15 USC 77x
and 78ff; and 18 USC 2, 371, 1341, 1343, 1951(a), 1956-57, and 1962(a-d), all racketeering activities. See U.S. v.
Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (aff’d conviction and sentences for Section 77x violations).
25
Kelley knew and/or was reckless in not knowing he and the USAO lacked lawful 28 USC 547(2) statutory standing
– the USAO (Kelley, et al.) only has standing to prosecute an offense -- to have pursued any fake and bogus criminal
contempt charges against Mr. Ware in regard to not issuing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to Section
2(a)(11) statutory underwriters (i.e., Alpha, et al.). According to SEC Release 33-7190, “Section 2(a)(11) statutory
Page 55 of 198
Fact #14
Lacking probable cause, and ipso facto an offense, the 04cr1224 district court (Sweet, J.) as a matter of
law lacked Article III and statutory 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings.
Therefore, the 04cr1224 proceedings were as a result ultra vires, invalid, without any validity, and null and
void an initio.
Fact #15
The 02cv2219 SDNY proceedings were ultra vires, invalid, and null and void ab initio. Consequently, the
04cr1224 SDNY District Court (Sweet, J.) lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the void 02cv2219
proceedings, orders (GX 11, GX-24, GX-34, etc.) and judgments (GX-7, etc.) on which the factual predicate
of the 04cr1224 was formed.
Fact #16
From beginning on or about 2002 and continuing to the present (December 10, 2019) and beyond United
States Attorneys David Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, and Preet Bharara; and AUSAs Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah
E. Paul, Nicholas S. Goldin and Maria E. Douvas, jointly and severally, (the “USAO” of “DOJ Lawyers”) all
knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, recklessly have acted in concert; and all knew or were reckless and/or
professionally negligent in not knowing the legal consequences of their own trial exhibits on the
Government’s ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the factual elements of the alleged 18 USC
401(3) criminal contempt charges, to wit:
(i) GX-5 paragraph 10.1(iv) of the February 2, 2001 purported “subscription agreement” pled by Zitter at
paragraphs 12 and 13 of the March 20, 2002 2219 complaint; however, GX-5 was in actuality an illegal null
and void ab initio, cf., 15 USC 78cc(b), underwriting contract which was explicitly adopted by the
Government in its 04cr1224 indictment and argued at trial as its Article II, §3 prosecutorial litigation
strategy, by the admission into evidence by AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin, Tr. 180-88, through unregistered
broker-dealer government witness Ari Rabinowitz; and
(ii) GX-24 the August 13, 2003 order (Sand, J.), Doc. #65, ex parte proceedings in which Alpha, et al.,
judicially admitted and confessed to Section 16(b) statutory insider status as of February 2, 200126; and
underwriters are required to register all distribution [(public offerings)] of securities [pursuant to Section 5 of the
1933 Act.]” (emphasis added); cf., Kern, 425 F.3d at 152-56 (Pooler, J.) (same); cf., Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (same).
26
Alpha, et al., judicially admitted in the August 13, 2003 illegal and unethical ex parte proceedings to the devastating
fact of being “the beneficial owner or more than 9.9% of [GPMT’s] stock” (emphasis added) (quoting Sand, J. in
August 13, 2003 order, (GX-24), Doc. #65 in 2219); which had the draconian effect of irrevocably conferring Section
16(b) statutory insider status on Alpha, et al. as of February 2, 2001; and required the immediate Section 16(b)
disgorgement of all profits back to GPMT realized from the illegal trading in GPMT’s stock. Thus, precluding any
and all fines, USSG §2B1.1 loss amount calculation, assessments, or other monetary sanctions in regard to the null
and void ab initio 04cr1224 proceedings. See 04cr1224 direct examination of Ari Rabinowitz by AUSA Goldin
confessing and admitting to illegal insider trading in GPMT’s stock from 2001 to 2004. See also Mr. Ware’s appeal
briefs filed in U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) detailing the bankruptcy fraud conspiracy by the Atlanta, GA law
firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, (“KTS”), and its partners Dennis S. Meir, Esq. (Zitter testified in 04cr1224
that Meir was a classmate of Zitter at Harvard Law School), and John W. Mills, III, Esq.; hired by Zitter to commit a
bankruptcy fraud conspiracy on the 03-93031-mhm (NDGA) Bankruptcy Court, (i.e., impede, delay, and obstruct the
Page 56 of 198
judicially admitted by necessary implication they were required to disgorge back to GPMT all profits
(estimated at $500 million dollars in post-Chapter 11 reorganization market capitalization) realized from
the illegal insider trading in GPMT’s unregistered securities. A statutory insider cannot suffer any legal loss
as a result of statutory, 15 USC 78p(b), disgorgement.
Fact #17
In the 2219 proceedings on or about December 20, 2007, Doc. #90, order (Sand, J.), after the statute of
limitation had run on all claims in 2219, in another ex parte proceeding (cf., with Zitter and Sand’s August
13, 2003 ex parte proceeding referenced in GX-24) Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. again approached District Judge
Sand (2219) and demanded that Judge Sand, without notice to Mr. Ware, the Landers, or GPMT, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2), immediately reverse, vacate, annul, and vitiate all proceedings, orders,
and judgments previously entered in 2219; and Zitter implicitly and by necessary implication demanded
that Judge Sand enter a superseding final judgment in 2219 in favor of GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the Landers;
and furthermore, Zitter implicitly demanded by necessary implication that Judge Sand confer via Rule
41(a)(2) superseding final judgment prevailing party status on GPMT, the Landers, and Mr. Ware for the
purpose of civil and criminal contempt enforcement proceedings against any party willfully resisting the
12/20/2007, Doc. #90 Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment/order. See 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3).
Fact #18
On December 20, 2007, Doc. #90, order (Sand, J.), Judge Sand acquiesced to Mr. Zitter’s unethical and
improper ex parte unnoticed Rule 41(a)(2) demand; entered the superseding final order/judgment, Doc.
#90; and by operation of law reversed, vacated, annulled, and vitiated, all prior proceedings (any
purported civil or criminal contempt proceedings), all orders (GX-11, GX-24, GX-34; and the order which
dismissed GPMT’s counterclaim, Doc. #31, etc.,), all judgments (GX-7, etc.); and dismissed with prejudice
the 2219 proceedings27.
Fact #19
In 2008 long after the 2219 case had been dismissed with prejudice by District Judge Sand on 12/20/2007,
Doc. #90, pursuant to the superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment, United States Probation Office,
(“USPO”), employee, an officer of the court (see 18 USC 401(2)), Thomas J. McCarthy, knowingly, willfully,
in bad faith, and to commit a fraud on a federal court by an officer of the court, deliberately and
intentionally prepared, signed, and filed in the 04cr1224 Court a known to be false, fraudulent, and
Section 16(b) profits disgorgement of Alpha, et al. back to GPMT); conceal the illegal insider trading by Alpha, et al.;
and disrupt and interfere in GPMT’s 2003, In re Group Management Corp., case no. 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA)
Chapter 11 reorganization. CF., Doc. #101-1 (07/15/01 filed in 02cv2219 SDNY) pgs. 3-8 for Zitter, KTS, Mills, and
Meir’s bankruptcy fraud in 03-93031 (BC NDGA) to conceal Alpha, et al. Section 16(b) insider trading in GPMT’s stock.
27
See binding circuit precedent in A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (voluntary dismissal of
lawsuit by plaintiff [Alpha, et al.] annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and proceedings; treated the
proceedings as if they had never been filed; rendered the proceedings moot; and terminated the court’s jurisdiction
over the moot proceedings).
Page 57 of 198
completely fabricated presentence report, (the “1224 PSI”); filed by McCarthy as part of the conspiracy to
conceal and cover up the Hobbs Act money laundering extortion conspiracy run by Alpha, et al28.
Fact #20
The USAO’s lawyers, Garcia, Goldin, and Douvas; McCarthy and the USPO; Sweet; and the USAO’s 09-0851
(2d Cir.) appeal filers (Polk-Failla, Douvas, Paul, and Bharara) all either knew or were deliberately and
intentionally reckless and negligent in not knowing the legal consequences of Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007,
Doc. #90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment on the 2219 and, by necessary converse
implication, the 04cr1224 proceedings29.
Fact #21
In the 1224 PSI prepared by McCarthy in 2008 he ostensibly had access to both the 2219 case file and
Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007 Doc. #90 superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment given the numerous
references made to the 2219 proceedings in the 1224 PSI by McCarthy; and ostensibly had access to the
05cr1115 case file and related documents evident by the numerous referenced to the 1115 proceedings.
Rather than fulfill his lawful and ethical duty of complete candor to the courts, as an officer of the court,
in all official transactions, cf., 18 USC 401(2), McCarthy conspired with the USAO’s lawyers, Goldin, Douvas,
and Garcia to cover up and conceal from the courts and the public the ongoing Alpha, et al., Hobbs Act
money laundering criminal conspiracy; and the fact the 2219 proceedings went moot on 12/20/2007 by
Judge Sand’s Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment.
Fact #22
McCarthy was and is currently a USPO employee, an officer of the court, 18 USC 401(2); McCarthy had
and was required by law to exercise a duty of complete candor to the federal courts in the performance
of his official duty and transactions with the Courts (see Federal Tort Claim Act); and in his preparation
of the 1224 PSI, an official transaction, McCarthy was required by law, Section 401(2) to have notified the
1224 Court in 2007 that the 2219 proceedings had been dismissed with prejudice on 12/20/2007 by Judge
Sand pursuant to voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte demand by government trial witness Zitter; and
furthermore, McCarthy was required to exercised complete candor and notified the Court of the legal
28
McCarthy’s PSI was deliberately, intentionally, fraudulently, and negligently prepared, signed, and knowingly filed
into the 1224 Court after the 2219 case had been dismissed with prejudice by Judge Sand on 12/20/2007, doc. #90;
filed as a fabricated inaccurate judicial document to adversely affect Mr. Ware; and prepared, signed, and filed into
the records of a federal court as the illegal and criminal means and methods to provide the fraudulent and fabricated
factual basis for the USAO and District Judge Sweet to impose a null and void conviction and sentence; and to illegally
increase the sentence of Mr. Ware by the fraudulent imposition of a consecutive sentence in violation of the Due
Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses.
29
The record is indisputable: as a matter of law once Zitter and Sand annulled 2219 on 12/20/2007, ipso facto, by
converse necessary implication 1224 was also annulled. Judge Sand on 12/20/2007 acted based on the 1224 post-
trial voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte demand of Zitter and Alpha, et al. to annul, vitiate, vacate, void, and dismiss
with prejudice the 2219 proceedings; demanded after Zitter had knowingly testified for the Government in 1224;
and demanded after Zitter had knowingly committed perjury and falsely testified at trial in 1224 regarding paragraphs
12 and 13 of the 2219 complaint; and paragraph 10.1(iv) of GX-5. Perjury knowingly suborned by the USAO’s lawyers
Garcia, Douvas, and Goldin.
Page 58 of 198
consequences of Judge Sand’s superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment on the 1224 proceedings. That
was not done by McCarthy and the management of the USPO.
Fact #23
Since on or about 12/20/2007 continuing to the present (December 10, 2019) McCarthy and the USPO’s
executive management have knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, in bad faith, and recklessly, in criminal
violation of 18 USC 401(3) and 401(2)30 actively “resisted” the legal consequences on the USPO and its
employees in regard to (1) Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007, Doc. #90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final
order/judgment31 apropos their official court employee transactions concerning both the 04cr1224 and
05cr1115 null and void ab initio dismissed with prejudice proceedings; and (2) knowingly and willfully
actively resisted the binding legal effects of the United States Attorney General (“USAG”), November 7,
2008 Article II, §3 Executive Branch appellate political decision to dismiss with prejudice the Government’s
cross-appeal filed in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I32, ratified by the Second
Circuit’s 08/18/2009 superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I (07-5670) (2d Cir.). CF., (i) Judge Sand’s
12/20/2007 Doc. 90 Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment and (ii) the Second Circuit’s 08/18/2009 Gov.-I final
judgment, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”)33.
30
Contempt, active resistance, in the official transactions of the USPO (officers of the court) regarding Mr. Ware
given 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction in 1224 terminated on November 17, 2004 upon David N. Kelley filing
the 1224 indictment in the record of the court containing affirmative defenses on the face of the indictment. CF.,
Cammer v. United States, 399 U.S. 399, 404 (1956) (court employees, judges, marshals, bailiffs, court clerks, probation
officers, etc. are officers of the court subject to contempt in their official transactions).
31
“A court of the United States shall have the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, …. (3) [d]isobedience
or resistance to its lawful … order [i.e., the 12/20/2007 Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment entered in 2219 (Sand,
J.)].” (emphasis added).
32
On November 7, 2008 the USAG pursuant to 18 USC 3742(b), Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), and Article II, §3 exercised his
exclusive Executive Branch prerogative to control all litigation in 05cr1115 and thus notified the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit at page 2* in its 07-5222 (2d Cir.) government brief as follows: “The Government filed a notice of
appeal but is not pursuing a cross-appeal [of the 1115 District Court’s October 2007 post-trial Rule 29 rulings in favor
of Mr. Ware, to wit: Doc. #99, S.Tr. 31 L 18-25 (R-1); S. Tr. 35-36 (R-2); and S. Tr. 73-76 (R-3), jointly, (the “Pauley
Acquittal Verdicts”)].” (the “USAG’s Appellate Political Decision”) (emphasis added). On August 18, 2009 based on
the USAG’s 11/07/2008 Appellate Political Decision to dismiss with prejudice the Government’s 07-5670 cross-appeal
the Court of Appeals ipso facto affirmed the October 2007 Pauley Acquittal Verdicts R-1, R-2, and R-3), and entered
final judgment in Gov.-I against the United States and its privies, (i.e., the USPO, the USAO, the AOC, the BOP, the
U.S. Marshals, the FBI, the SEC, et al.); triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause’s protections for Mr. Ware; triggered
res judicata, collateral estoppel, and terminated all courts’, the United States, and the DOJ’s and its lawyers’ subject
matter jurisdiction over all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved by the legal effects of the Gov.-I final
judgment. see Federated, 452 U.S. at 398-401 (final judgment [Gov.-I] absolutely binding on all courts [the 02-cv-
2219, 03-0831 D. NV, 05cr1115, 04cr1224, 07-5222 (2d Cir.), and Supreme Court (i.e., Ware v. United States, 10-
6449)], the parties [Mr. Ware and the United States], and their privies [i.e., the DOJ, the USPO, the SEC, the AOC,
FBI, IRS, U.S. Marshals, and the BOP] in all subsequent proceedings between the parties; all issues and claims
actually or necessarily resolved by final judgment are “forever settled between the parties.”) (emphasis added); and
consequently irrevocably conferred prevailing party status on Mr. Ware for the purposes of civil and Fed. R. Crim. P.
42(a) criminal contempt sanctions and enforcement of the Gov.-I final judgment.
33
Judge Sand’s 02cv2219 12/20/2007 Doc. 90 Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final order/judgment and the
second Circuit’s 08/18/2008 superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I jointly, the “Final Judgments.”
Page 59 of 198
Fact #24
Since December 20, 2007 continuing without interruption to the present (December 10, 2019) the USPO
(SDNY) and its employees, and the USAO and its employees, officers of the court, all privies of the United
States, and thus, therefore accordingly all bound absolutely by the Final Judgments entered in
proceedings in the federal courts in New York; and therefore consequently all are subject to res judicata,
collateral estoppel; and civil and criminal contempt enforcement sanctions in regard to their personal34
and official transactions apropos: (1) the Judge Sand’s 12/20/2007, Doc. #90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2)
final judgment entered in 2219; and (2) bound by and subject to the Second Circuit’s 08/18/2009
superseding final judgment entered in Gov.-I (07-5670) (2d Cir.).
Fact #25
The U.S. Probation Office submitted to a federal court in 1224 a materially false and fraudulent PSR dated
August 28, 2008, prepared by Thomas J. McCarthy, which was used to sentence Mr. Ware to the illegal and
unreasonable sentence as a matter of law.
McCarthy knowingly and deliberately included known false and fraudulent information in the PSR.
Paragraphs 1-4 contained the known false information that Mr. Ware was a named defendant in 02-CV-
2219(LBS); and that Ware disobeyed an order of the 2219(LBS) court.
Paragraphs 7-24 contained the known false information that Mr. Ware willfully disobeyed orders of the
2219(LBS) court: GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24.
Paragraphs 50-53 were known false and fraudulent information obtained from District Judge William H.
Pauley, III and U.S.P.O. Cathleen Tyler regarding INZS and SVSY which is in direct contradiction to the
position of the AUSA Feldman's statement at sentencing on October 26, 2007, S. Tr. 46, regarding SVSY.
At page 21 of the false and fraudulent 1224 PSR the USPO recommended a “consecutive sentence”
(emphasis added) base on the fraudulent and void sentence entered in 05-CV-1115(WHP).
Fact #26
Rabinowitz testified at trial in 1224, Tr. 228-29, that IVG/GPMT and its counsel (Mr. Ware) were
contractually authorized to “stop or impede the sale or delivery of their [GPMT’s] securities [GX 1-4]” if as
34
Clearly lacking and in the absence of all subject matter jurisdiction – it is clear, indisputable, and axiomatic by the
concepts of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the Double Jeopardy Clause’s maxims no live Article III case or
controversy can legally exist, in any proceeding, between Mr. Ware and the United States, its privies and agents,
with respect to all issues and claims actually or necessarily resolved in whole or in part by the Final Judgments
entered in favor of Mr. Ware, GPMT, and the Landers – all actions therefore taken by the United States, its agents,
or its privies in willful “resistance to” [see 18 USC 401(3)] the Final Judgments were therefore taken in the personal
and/or official capacity of the individual(s) or agencies taking such ultra vires and extra-judicial actions; and
accordingly the individuals and/or agencies have already retrospective and prospectively incurred draconian personal
civil monetary and criminal contempt sanctions liability to Mr. Ware, GPMT, and the Landers. see Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 350 (1978). (no judicial immunity for ultra vires action taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”).
Hence the USPO’s employees and in particular those who prepared and signed the PSIs in 1224 and 1115, Thomas J.
McCarthy and Colleen Tyler, respectively, are all personally civilly monetarily liable to Mr. Ware for compensatory
civil and penal criminal contempt sanctions. CF., Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a), and 18 USC §§ 401(2) and 401(3).
Page 60 of 198
Rabinowitz testified at Tr. Id., “as may be required by law [i.e., Rule 144(k); SEC Release 33-7190; Kern, 425
F.3d at 152-56].”
Fact #27
At trial in 1224 Zitter, testified under brutal and devastating cross-examination by Mr. Ware as follows, to
wit:
1. that he did not heed Ware's advice and proceeded to taking additional steps to conduct the illegal
distribution of IVG/GPMT securities, including having Ware illegally arrested and kidnapped on September
1, 2004, GX-34 (Tr. 360-61); GX-35 (Tr. 363); GX-251 (Tr. 343);
2. Tr. 371 (Zitter admits Ware's [09/01/2004 Atlanta, GA] arrest was illegal);
3. Tr. 466 (Zitter stated “his motion to punish [threats of violence on Mr. Ware] for contempt.”);
4. Tr. 468 (Zitter stated: “I know we [he and Judge Sand] took further action ... [b]ut we did take
further actions to punish you [Ware] for contempt because there were different ....”);
5. Tr. 456 (Zitter testified that his steps were taken to compel (extort) GPMT by holding Ware in
contempt of court.
6. Zitter testified at Tr. 457 of his steps in furtherance of the illegal distribution of IVG/GPMT securites
as follows:
Mr. Ware: What were those steps?
Zitter: We [Judge Sand and the four plaintiffs] attempted to compel [extort] you [Mr. Ware] to issue the
[GPMT free-trading] stock [in violation of Section 4(1)].
Mr. Ware: How did you attempt to compel [extort] Mr. Ware to issue the stock?
Zitter: By applying to [Judge Sand] to hold you in civil contempt [kidnapping] if you [Mr. Ware] didn't do
so.
Fact #28
At trial in 1224 the following events regarding AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin’s conspiracy to obstruct justice took
place:
1. AUSA Goldin made the binding judicial admission when in direct examination of Zitter at Tr. 305,
Goldin, ostensibly totally ignorant to the elements of criminal securities fraud as well as
§77b(a)(11), introduced into evidence GX-9, Mr. Ware's letter dated January 28, 2003 addressed
to Zitter, in regard to Zitter's Hobb Act extortion attempts on Mr. Ware and GPMT (GX-52, 52A,
52B, i.e., Hobb Act extortion demands).
2. AUSA Goldin actually had Zitter read into the record at GX-9, Tr. 305 L13, Mr. Ware’s January 28,
2003 letter: “Dear Mr. Zitter, we are in receipt of a fax originating from your office requesting an
illegal issuance of [GPMT’s] free trading shares to your clients.” (emphasis added).
3. AUSA Goldin's faux pas is a confession by Goldin and Zitter, that the plaintiffs through Zitter were
on notice of the illegality of their actions as early as January 28, 2003, and took “steps” to further
the Hobbs Act conspiracy money laundering criminal activities.
Page 61 of 198
4. At Tr. 306-07, AUSA Goldin foolishly introduced into evidence GX-10 (Zitter's letter of January 29,
2003 addressed to Ware in reply to Ware's January 28, 2003 letter).
5. In GX-10 Zitter admits to taking “steps” necessary for the unregistered distribution of IVG/GPMT's
securities on behalf of his clients (the four plaintiffs in 02-CV-2219(LBS)) thus, conferring §2(a)(11)
statutory underwriter
status on them as well.
Fact #29
At trial in 1224 the Government via AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin and Maria E. Douvas made the following
judicial admissions, to wit:
1. The Government admitted via its indictment ¶9-10, the Notes (GX 1-4) were sold pursuant to GX-
5, the subscription agreement.
The Government introduced GX-1 and GX-5, at trial, through its own witness Rabinowitz at Tr. 182, Tr. 190
respectively; and AUSA Goldin, Tr. 252, stated as an officer of the court:
“These are very complex areas of the law. There is no one [associated with the
Government] in this courtroom [other than Mr. Ware] qualified to discuss these
matters. The document [GX-5 (the subscription agreement)] speaks for itself.”
(emphasis added). Mr. Goldin apparently did not understand or realize
exactly what para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5 was in fact speaking.
2. Therefore, the Government's judicially admitted GX-5's unredacted content -- ¶10.1(iv),
requested IVG to file a Form SB-2 registration statement within 90 days of February 7, 2001, the purchase
date of the Notes [GX 1-4], to enable the conversion shares, “to be sold on the open market without
restriction” -- ‘speaks for itself.’”
Hence, the Government admitted via the admissions contained in GX 1-4, 5 and through Rabinowitz's
testimony:
1) Alpha purchased IVG Notes (GX 1-4) and Promissory Notes, “with a view to a ‘public offering’ ”,
Cavanaugh, 445 F.3d at 111 citing Wolfson, 405 F.2d at 782; and
3. any persons (Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., (“Zitter”), Edward Grushko, Esq., (“Grushko”),
Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., (“Mittman”), Ari Kluger, Dennis Meir, Esq., (“Meir”), Kilpatrick & Stockton, LLP,
Thomas V. Sjoblom, Esq., Prokauser & Rose, LLP, and District Judge Sand, acting in his personal capacity
without subject-matter jurisdiction, were also §2(a)(11) principal underwriters of GPMT’s restricted
securities (GX 1-4). Kern, 425 F.3d at 152; R.A. Holman & Co., Inc., 366 F.2d at 449; Geiger, 363 F.3d at 487.
4. By “engag[ing] in steps necessary to the distribution of [IVG] securities [,]” the participants were
aiders and abettors in the distribution of [IVG] securities. SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)
(Secondarily liable for enabling the distribution); SEC v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 810-11
(2d Cir. 1975)(Discussing Spectrum, recklessness is sufficient to establish negligence as an aider or abettor
liability.); SEC v. Spectrum, Ltd., 489 F.2d 535, 541 (2d Cir. 1975) (Issuer's attorney thought to be negligent
for recklessly issuing legal opinion enabling an unregistered distribution of issuer's securities.); SEC v. North
American R&D Corp., 424 F.2d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 1970)(Substantial assistance will Impose secondary liability
as aider and abettor).
Page 62 of 198
Fact #30
At trial in 1224 Rabinowitz, an admitted Section 2(a)(11) underwriter, admitted at Tr. 199, 204; and Zitter,
Tr. 481, that 1,351,351 unregistered shares of GPMT [valued at +$15 million dollars] “were sold into the
open market” in June 2003 [an illegal unregistered public offering], thus confessing to §5, 77x, and a
§15(a)(1) violations since he and Alpha were admitted unregistered brokers and dealers, Tr. 206.
Nathan Landenberg, Esq., according to Rabinowitz's trial testimony, Tr. 219, supplied the extortion money
and laundered the profits and proceeds for his and Alpha's “private placement business”, a “few hundred
times”.
Fact #31
At trial in 1224 Rabinowitz testified to hiring Zitter, Tr. 196; and Zitter hired Dennis S. Meir, Esq.35 in GPMT's
Chap 11, Tr. 376-82, and also hired Grushko & Mittman, P.C., Tr. 493-94;
Zitter performed steps necessary to the distribution of GPMT’s securities and was a Section 2(a) (11)
underwriter, Kern, 425 P.3d at 152; and procured through Grushko & Mittman, P.C. a fraudulent Rule 144
legal opinion, Tr. 494-95, and sent a false and fraudulent -- mail and wire fraud -- letter (GX 52-B) to GPMT's
transfer agent demanding free trading shares, Tr. 301-02; Geiger, 363 F.3d at 487 quoting:
“It was [Zitter] who procured those [GPMT’s] certificates [Tr. 322-326]; GX-16 (June 16, 2003 ltr. from Ware
to Zitter);
GX-17 (Zitter's June 3, 2003 letter sent to Rabinowitz, “I got shares [4,026,695 unregistered shares of GPMT
which were unlawfully sold pursuant to Rule 144(k) in June 2003 in violation of Section 5 and 77x, pursuant
to fraudulent legal opinion of Grushko & Mittman, P.C., Tr. 493-94.]]”
Zitter further admitted, Tr. 368, of requesting that Mr. Ware be arrested on 09/01/2004 in Atlanta, GA for
not issuing the fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions.
35
Meir was employed by the Atlanta, GA law firm of Kilpatrick, Townsend, and Stockton, LLP; Zitter’s class mate
from Harvard Law School.
Page 63 of 198
Page 64 of 198
Appendix O—U.S. Attorney’s Manual’s Brady disclosure requirements.
Page 65 of 198
Docket 07-5222cr/07-5670cr/09-0851cr (XAP) (07)
Filed on 4/12/2023 7:42:38 AM via email.
__________________
v.
________________
VERIFIED LEAVE TO FILE and APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF PETITION—
Supplemental Undisputed Facts in Support of Emergency Relief, Appx. O, and
Request for Additional Emergency Relief.
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 66 of 198
Table of Contents
Introduction: Applicant includes the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) proceedings in the
Emergency Petition’s request for Emergency Relief. ................................................................................. 68
National U.S. Attorney’s Office Brady disclosure requirement policy regarding exculpatory and
impeachment evidence. ............................................................................................................................. 68
Appendix O: Section 9-5.001 DOJ prosecutor’s discovery obligations and duty to “search” for
exculpatory and impeachment evidence. ................................................................................................. 70
DOJ prosecutors’ duty to search for exculpatory and impeachment evidence. ...................................... 73
The USAO was required to have produced and discloses all exculpatory and impeachment evidence
uncovered during the 2003 Las Vegas SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional Bootleg
Grand Jury Proceedings.............................................................................................................................. 75
The USAO was required to have produced and disclosed all benefits offered, or received by all involved
in its investigations—“principal witness” Jeremy Jones’ benefits, the alleged Rule 11 plea and
cooperation contracts, money, free plane tickets, food reimbursements, or other benefits have never
been disclosed. ........................................................................................................................................... 76
End of document. ....................................................................................................................................... 78
Page 67 of 198
Introduction: Applicant includes the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.
2010)36 proceedings in the Emergency Petition’s request for Emergency
Relief.
In the interest of judicial economy, judicial efficiency, and to avoid the needless
duplication of issues regarding the Government’s required “search” and disclosure of Brady
favorable evidence vis-à-vis the EOUSA’s FOIA response dated March 20, 2023, Appx. A, infra,
and the Brady Court Orders, Applicant Ulysses T. Ware is presenting additional supplemental
authorities and material facts to the Court in support of the Request for Emergency Relief made
to the Court on April 5, 2023, which requested a return date of April 7, 2023. Applicant is
extending the return date for Emergency Relief to Tuesday, April 11, 2023, time of the essence.
Applicant has uncovered additional factual predicates, undisclosed actual innocent Brady
favorable, exculpatory, or impeachment evidence the Government was required to have
“searched for,” produced, and disclosed “prior to trial in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (WHP)
(“1115”) and U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS) (“1224”) pursuant to the Brady court orders
Dkt. 32 (1224) and Dkt. 17 (1115) entered in the sub judice 1115 and 1224 criminal proceedings.
National U.S. Attorney’s Office Brady disclosure requirement policy

regarding exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
36
On appeal from U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (Sweet, J.) (deceased), (aff’d conviction and sentence).
Page 68 of 198
DOJ policy required the USAO (SDNY)’s prosecutors and supervisors to have “searched”
and to now search the contents of the “over 15 boxes of materials” and other sources not
previously searched confirmed in the March 20, 2023, FOIA response of the Executive Office of
the U.S. Attorneys (“EOUSA”) for “all” materials that “could be” exculpatory or impeachment
evidence. Moreover, according to DOJ regulations all “benefits” offered to or received by a
government witness, or other persons who refused to testify, but were offered benefits were
required to have been disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware “prior to trial” according to the Brady Court
Orders, Kyles v. Whitney, and DOJ policy.37
The USAO (SDNY) has been, and is now in current civil and willful criminal contempt, 18
USC 401(3), of the Brady Court Orders entered in the sub judice criminal proceedings, which is an
egregious violation of the DOJ Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and “duty of
complete candor to the tribunal;” and a violation of the District Court (SDNY) Local Rules on
Lawyer Ethics and Professional Conduct, and actionable pursuant to L.R. District Court Rule
1.5(b)(5), 1.5(d)(3) proceedings.
37
See Dkt. 129 (22cv3409 (SDNY) request for Brady disclosure.
Page 69 of 198
Appendix O: Section 9-5.001 DOJ prosecutor’s discovery obligations and
duty to “search” for exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Page 70 of 198
Page 71 of 198
Page 72 of 198
DOJ prosecutors’ duty to search for exculpatory and impeachment
evidence.
Page 73 of 198
Page 74 of 198
The USAO was required to have produced and discloses all exculpatory
and impeachment evidence uncovered during the 2003 Las Vegas SEC-
DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional Bootleg Grand Jury
Proceedings.
Page 75 of 198
The USAO was required to have produced and disclosed all benefits offered, or
received by all involved in its investigations—“principal witness” Jeremy Jones’
benefits, the alleged Rule 11 plea and cooperation contracts, money, free plane
tickets, food reimbursements, or other benefits have never been disclosed.
Page 76 of 198
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on April 12, 2023.

States
The New York Times
John W. Mills, III
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
Baker & McKenzie, LLP
Lawrence B. Mandala, Esq.
London Fisher, LLP
Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
US DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
Gary G. Becker and Michael F. Bachner
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 77 of 198
End of document.
Page 78 of 198
Appendix P—Declaration of Fraud on the court undisputed material facts
by Ulysses T. Ware.
Omitted
Page 79 of 198
Appendix Q—Letter to Andre Damian Williams, 04.13.23 re clear and
convincing evidence of criminal prosecutorial misconduct, fraud on the
court, and a fundamental miscarriage of justice committed by U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr. as a DOJ racially-motivated
Jim Crow hate crime conspiracy.
Page 80 of 198
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Thursday, April 13, 2023, 8:27:25 AM
PRIORITY
Via email to [email protected]
Office of the United States Attorney
For the Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Andre Damian Williams, Jr.
Re: March 20, 2023, EOUSA FOIA response regarding “over 15 boxes of materials” that have not
been searched for Brady evidence as required by Kyles v. Whitney, Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Attorney’s
Manual 9-5.001, and Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland’s opinion in In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir.
1999), and the immediate disclosure and production of the September 2006 alleged Rule 11 proceedings
judicial public records and Brady materials related to government’s “principal witness” the person
alleged to be “Jeremy Jones.” See Appx. 02, Ex. C and D, infra.
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Ware writes to you today April 13, 2023, in your official capacity as the U.S. Attorney
(SDNY) subject to the District Court (SDNY) and the DOJ Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
Rulse 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and “duty of complete candor to the tribunal.” Thus, Mr. Ware inquires on you
as an officer of the court in your official capacity. A copy of this letter will be filed in the district
courts and the Court of Appeals regarding an Emergency Application to Recall Mandates in 07-
5222, 09-0851, and 11-4181cv.
As you are aware on March 20, 2023, see Ex. A, infra, the Executive Office of the U.S.
Attorneys (EOUSA) responded to Mr. Ware’s 22-000907 FOIA request for the production of Brady
evidence apropos the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal
proceedings. The EOUSA informed Mr. Ware that the “Southern District of New York” has in its
possession “over 15 boxes of materials” which have not been searched for materials that “could
be” Brady materials—which is a direct breach of the Brady doctrine’s “duty to search,” duty to
Page 81 of 198
produce, the Brady Court Orders entered sub judice, and violations of DOJ Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and
“duty of complete candor to the tribunals” actionable via Local Rules of the District Court (SDNY)
(L.R.) 1.5(b)(5), 1.5(d)(3), civil, 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt proceedings, and DOJ Office of
Professional Responsibility proceedings.
Mr. Williams, moreover, numerous items of concealed, suppressed, and covered up
dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence have been discovered,
see Appx. 02, attached hereto, which you and your Office deliberately, willfully, in bad faith, and
recklessly conspired, colluded, acted in concert, and confederated with numerous other parties—
an illegal association-in-fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), a continuing criminal enterprise, (the
“DOJ CCE”), to perpetrate an insidious and malicious fraud on the courts by the knowing, willful,
and bad faith violation of the Brady Court Orders, Rule 5(f), 18 USC 401(3), the Due Process
Clause, and 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(3), 1519, 1956-57, 1961(B)(6), 1962(a-d), and 2071.
Mr. Williams, in order to lessen the burden on the courts regarding factual matters Mr.
Ware requests that the Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”), answer the
following questions in writing by Friday, April 14, 2023, at 10:00 AM, time of the essence, and
serve a copy of your answers, if any, on Mr. Ware via the above email, and also serve a copy on
the 22cv3409 (SDNY) district court, and also on the U.S. Court of Appeals in 07-5222cr, 09-0851cr,
and 11-4181cv.
1. Has the USAO conducted the required Brady search of the “over 15 boxes” referenced in
the EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response?38
2. If not, does the USAO intend to conduct the required Brady search of the 15 boxes?39
3. And if so when will the required Brady search be completed?, and does the USAO intend
to comply with the DOJ Rules of Ethics 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and “duty of complete candor to the
tribunal” and disclose to the courts and Mr. Ware the contents of the 15 boxes?
4. Does the USAO oppose Mr. Ware’s Emergency Application to recall the mandates in 07-
5222cr, 09-0851, and 11-4181cv (2d Cir.) with contradictory legal precedents?40
38
See In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (ruled the DOJ must conduct a search,
and produce all Brady materials found, and the district court must conduct evidentiary hearings and assess
the materiality of all Brady materials found in the required search).
39
See 18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt of a Brady court order.
40
See n.4, infra, for binding precedents authorizing the Court of Appeals to recall the mandates in 07-
5222cr, 09-0851cr, and 11-4181cv (see Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022)
regarding GX 1-4, and GX 5 04cr1224 trial exhibits—the RICO loan sharking criminal usury, null and void
ab initio illegal contracts).
Page 82 of 198
5. If so, what is the legal basis for any opposition to the mandates recall enabling the Court
of Appeals to remand to the respective district courts to (i) conduct Brady enforcement
proceedings, civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), and (ii) conduct Brady materiality
assessment evidentiary hearings where Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and others will be
subpoenaed and compelled to produce documents and give testimony under oath, as a
hostile, adverse, material fact witness.41
Mr. Williams, the prevailing rule of law is not rationally debatable, the Court of Appeals
has the authority, and the judicial responsibility to enforce Brady Court Orders, valid court orders
of the district courts within the Second Circuit’s territorial jurisdiction—court orders which you
and your Office are in willfully violation and resistance to, 18 USC 401(3) violations. Those are the
facts which Appx. 02, attached hereto, confirmed—Damian Williams, the USAO, and the
knowingly and the willful participants in the DOJ CCE are in civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC
2, 371, and 401(3) of the Brady Court Orders, violations of the District Court (SDNY) Rules of
Ethics, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and “duty of complete candor to the tribunals.”
Mr. Williams, these are very serious charges and allegations being lodged against you and
your Office, allegations which the District Court (SDNY), the Court of Appeals, and the DOJ’s Office
of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) are duty bound to investigate, and hold you and your Office
accountable—we will see if that happens. Doubtful, I agree given the incestuous intertwinement
between the Legislative, the Executive, and Judicial branches in the SDNY. But, nevertheless, Mr.
Ware intends, and will attempt to hold you and your Office accountable for your and Your Office’s
crimes, frauds on the court, and other nefarious conspiracies to obstruct justice.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
41
See circuit precedent Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 75 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Our power
to recall a mandate is unquestioned … it exist as part of the [Court of Appeals] power to protect the
integrity of its own proceedings” … and thus “we have the power [jurisdiction] to reopen a case [07-
5222cr, 09-0851cr, and 11-4181cv] at any time.” (emphasis added). Cf., Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-
Empire Co., 322 U.S. 228, 244 (1944) (same); also cf., Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C.C., 463 F.2d
268, 277-78, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Inherent authority of a court of appeals to recall a mandate to (i) prevent
injustice, (ii) newly discovered evidence, (iii) a fraud on the court, and (iv) to correct a fundamental
miscarriage of justice.).
Page 83 of 198
Attachment: Appx 02 (Newly discovered actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence required to be assessed for materiality in an evidentiary hearing).
Page 84 of 198
Exhibit A—EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response.
Page 85 of 198
Appendix 02-Suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence—willfully and deliberately concealed and suppressed by the DOJ
CCE as overt acts in furtherance of the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection
activities associated with 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial exhibits GX 1-4 and GX 4, (the “RICO
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt Contracts”).
Page 86 of 198
Docket 07-5222cr
__________________

v.
________________
VERIFIED LEAVE TO FILE, APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF MANDATES,

and APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF PETITION—NEWLY
DISCOVERED ACTUAL INNOCENT BRADY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Page 87 of 198
Exhibit 3-4—Concealed and suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence—an official SEC internal email
which confirmed the 2003 SEC-DOJ Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional bootleg
grand jury proceedings, are admitted by disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris to be illegal
and unconstitutional, and violated the Due Process rights of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.
Page 88 of 198
B Norris’ actual innocent Brady exculpatory official SEC email to the government’s
“principal witness” trial witness Jeremy Jones—prior to trial in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY), the SEC’s lawyers involved in the commingled SEC-DOJ unconstitutional Las Vegas
03-0831 (D. NV) litigation, SEC v. Investment Tech, Ware, et al., the SEC’s lawyers had
concluded there was no conspiracy between Jones, Ware, and the government’s 05cr1115
(SDNY) trial witnesses. The USAO deliberately and intentionally suppressed and concealed
this evidence as a fraud on the court, and a willful violation of the Brady Court Order, 18
USC 401(3) criminal and civil contempt.
Page 89 of 198
C CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. Brady letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.) which
admitted and confessed that the government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 criminal
proceedings, Jeremy Jones, had in fact entered a concealed and suppressed Rule 11 plea
and cooperation agreement, and that Jones had “cooperated” with the USAO and had
received a “5k letter” from the government at his sentencing for substantial assistance to
the government by knowingly and deliberately committing perjury during the 05cr1115
trial with the consent and knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors, AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, Preet
Bharara, and others.
Page 90 of 198
D-1 Suppressed and concealed alleged September 2006 Rule 11 proceedings of
government “principal witness” the person alleged to have been “Jeremy Jones. The
Government and the 05cr1115 district court (Ramos, J.) both have maliciously refused to
produce or disclose any judicial public records related to Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 or
sentencing proceedings.
Page 91 of 198
D-2 Alleged September 2006 Rule 11 proceedings of government “principal witness” the
person alleged to have been “Jeremy Jones. Apparently a person who the government
claimed without any proof in the record was “Jeremy Jones” signed a Rule 11 plea
agreement dated “September 15, 2006,” prior to trial in 05cr1115 that started on January
16, 2007. Jones’ Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio materials were ordered by The Brady Court
Order, Dkt. 17, to have been disclosed “prior to the start of trial.”
Page 92 of 198
E The suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory Executive Branch’s
July 14, 2003, ¶33, affirmative defense and acquittal of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) made in the SEC-DOJ’s 03-0831 (D. NV) SEC v. Investment Technology, et al.,
suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
complaint—that is, a binding stipulation, judicial admission, and confession by the United
States and its privies—which vitiated all probable cause to arrest and prosecute, an
Executive Branch affirmative defense to all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY), that INZS and
SVSY’s disclosures had “no effect”—no alleged “artificial” “inflation,” no “increase,” no
“pumped up” or other material effect on the stocks “prices”—in contradiction to and
impeachment of the Government’s U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial theory, and
impeachment of the decision of the Court of Appeal entered in its August 18, 2009, opinion
(Kearse, J.) entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir. 2010).42
42
Had ¶33 and the SEC’s lawyers involved in the Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) proceedings been available,
and permitted to be compelled and subpoenaed to testify pursuant to Applicant’s Sixth Amendment right
to compel witnesses—before trial, Dkt. 35, the USAO moved for an in limine order that prohibited
Applicant from compelling the SEC’s lawyers and use of ¶33 during the 05cr1115 trial. Applicant would
have presented actual innocent Brady impeachment and exculpatory evidence and testimony to the jury
which completely impeached the government’s trial witnesses’ known perjured testimony, called into the
credibility of the government’s witnesses, and moreover, called into question the conduct of the USAO’s
prosecutors ethics and professional conduct.
Page 93 of 198
Enlargement of Ex. C—Kirton’s Brady letter to the 05cr1115 District Court
Page 94 of 198
F. 02cv2219 (SDNY) post-trial Brady Rule 41(a)(2) December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90,
voluntarily, ex parte, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims, the plaintiffs
dismissed with prejudice the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit which annulled the government’s
04cr1224 indictment, trial evidence (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34), and
voided the 04cr1224 conviction.
Page 95 of 198
G. Former SEC lawyer, government 04cr1224 FRE 404(b) witness, Jeffrey B. Norris’
Brady impeachment bad acts evidence—suppressed by the USAO’s prosecutors during the
2007 04cr1224 trial. Excerpts from Norris v. SEC, 675 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Page 96 of 198
H. November 2007, 04cr1224 Brady trial testimony of government witness Ari
Rabinowitz—admitted and confessed to unregistered broker-dealer and Section 2(a)(11)
statutory underwriter status which annulled and vitiated the government’s indictment and
trial theory—Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters are legally ineligible for Rule 144
exemption to 15 USC 77e registration requirements, see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995).
Page 97 of 198
H (con’t)—Rabinowitz’s Brady trial testimony vitiated the government’s case in chief and
trial theory. Rabinowitz testified that he, LH Financial Services, and Alpha Capital, AG were
unregistered broker, dealer, and investment advisors which the government was required
to have disclosed “prior to trial” in accordance with the 04cr1224 August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32,
Brady order (Sweet, J.).
Page 98 of 198
I Excerpt of 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaints Brady judicial admission and confession of
15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter status for each 2219 plaintiff, pleaded before the
grand jury, and admitted into evidence by the government during the 2007 04cr1224 trial
, via GX 5 (the Criminal Usury Subscription Agreement) and Ari Rabinowitz.
Page 99 of 198
J EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, Brady FOIA response—admitted and confessed “over 15
boxes of materials” in the possession of the USAO (SDNY) have not been searched for Brady
evidence regarding 04cr1224 and 05cr1115. Requires a remand to the district courts to
conduct Brady materiality assessments.
Page 100 of 198

K September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA kidnapping—Brady evidence of fraud on the court
and conspiracy, of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.—18 USC 1961(B)(6) RICO unlawful debt collection
activities by the U.S. Marshals, District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Leonard B. Sand,
Kenneth A. Zitter, the SEC, the USAO (SDNY), Ari Rabinowitz and others.
Page 101 of 198

L FINRA’s May 17, 2021, Brady unregistered broker-dealer certification for each
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff—annulled and vitiated the factual predicate for the
government’s 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment and trial theory. The FINRA certification
annulled the entire 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 09-0851cr
(2d Cir.),11-4181cv (2d Cir.), and 22cv10566 (SDNY) proceedings.
Page 102 of 198

Appendix R—the SEC’s public disclosures regarding Alpha Capital, AG
(Anstalt) settlement in SEC v. Honig, et al., 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.),
securities fraud, and market manipulation of securities—criminal usury
convertible promissory notes.
Page 103 of 198

Page 104 of 198
Page 105 of 198
Ari Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services are the unnamed unregistered investment advisers. Why
would the SEC not name Rabinowitz and LH Financial Services? A very important question the SEC
must answer.
Page 106 of 198

Page 107 of 198
Page 108 of 198
Appendix S—Clear and convincing evidence: Declaration of Fraud on the
court by Ulysses T. Ware—the Government’s fake, fraudulent, and bogus
alleged U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
probable cause was a legal and factual impossibility.
Page 109 of 198

02cv2219 (SDNY) (07)
United States District Court
Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp., et al.
___________
Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Petitioners’ Declaration in support of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 injunctive relief,

Civil Contempt, Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42(a) criminal contempt, and Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court enforcement of the December 20,
2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 110 of 198

Table of Contents
Petitioners’ Declaration in support of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, injunctive relief, Civil Contempt, Fed. R. Crim.
P. Rule 42(a) criminal contempt, and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court enforcement of
the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). .............. 114
I. ................................................................................................................................................................ 114
A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit civil and criminal contempts,
frauds, and frauds on the court, and RICO loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal
enterprise. ................................................................................................................................................ 114
The February 2002 $1.1M criminal usury unlawful debt, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt”), made
by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., (OTCBB: GPMT),
(“GPMT”), the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, (the “Criminal Usury Collection Lawsuit”). .... 114
B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for the unlawful purpose and
criminal objective to create and collect RICO criminal usury unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), provide
protection for the participants, and launder the profits and proceeds derived therefrom, the RICO
Unlawful Debt loan sharking conspiracy. ................................................................................................ 117
C. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, racketeering activities, and frauds committed
by Leonard B. Sand. .................................................................................................................................. 122
D. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed
by Kenneth A. Zitter related to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation. .... 124
E. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, frauds, and racketeering activities committed
by the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court, its judges, and employees related to 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule 41
Final Judgment in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, related to
the 02cv2219 lawsuit, and 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation, and the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus
proceedings. ............................................................................................................................................. 127
F. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, obstruction of justice, and frauds
committed by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP., in In re Group
Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11. ............................................................... 130
G. Willful contempts, racketeering activities, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and frauds
committed by the State Bar of Georgia and its employees. ................................................................... 131
H. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed
by the District Court (NDGA) regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
proceedings .............................................................................................................................................. 133
I. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the District Court (SDNY) regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115
(SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY).................................................................................................................. 134
Page 111 of 198

J. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”) in regard to 02cv2219
(SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY). ................................................................................... 135
K. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed
by Colleen McMahon in regard to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and 04cr1224 (SDNY). ...................... 137
L. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY), (the “USPO”). ............................................................ 138
Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Tyler. ...................................... 138
M. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Laura Taylor-Swain. .......................................................................................................... 139
N. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston regarding Edgardo Ramos’ crimes, civil
and criminal contempts, and frauds on the court. ................................................................................. 140
O. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick. .................................................................................. 142
P. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) panel: Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and
Barbara S. Jones (retired)......................................................................................................................... 143
Q. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the USAO’s 09-0851 appeals team (Bharara, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and
Maria E. Douvas, the “Appeal Team”). ................................................................................................... 144
R. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Edgardo Ramos................................................................................................................. 145
S. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit,
03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY). ............... 146
T. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by U.S. Bureau of Prisons. ..................................................................................................... 148
U. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. .................................................................. 148
V. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ....................................................................................... 149
W. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”). .......................................... 151
Jeffrey B. Norris, Joan E. McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Stephen Webster, et al. ................................. 151
X. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by William H. Pauley, III. ....................................................................................................... 153
Page 112 of 198

Y. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Robert W. Sweet. ............................................................................................................. 155
Z. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan)
apropos 02cv2219 vis-à-vis 03-93031 (BC NDGA). .................................................................................. 156
Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................... 158
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/22 and sum certain
compensatory actual damages claim calculation. .................................................................................. 159
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ...................................... 160
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.). . 161
End of document. ..................................................................................................................................... 162
Page 113 of 198

Petitioners’ Declaration in support of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, injunctive relief,
Civil Contempt, Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42(a) criminal contempt, and Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court enforcement of the December 20,
2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Kings County
Brooklyn, NY
I Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management, and Silver Screen Studios, jointly, (the “Petitioners”),
hereby this 16th day of April 2023, in Brooklyn, NY by and through Ulysses T. Ware, who has
personal knowledge of the facts, under oath and pursuant to 28 USC 1746, makes this Declaration
of fact in support of civil and 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3) criminal contempt, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(d)(3) fraud on the court enforcement of the December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment
entered in Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), Dkt
90, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”).
I.
A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit

civil and criminal contempts, frauds, and frauds on the court, and RICO
loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal enterprise.
The February 2002 $1.1M criminal usury unlawful debt, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful
Debt”), made by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management
Corp., (OTCBB: GPMT), (“GPMT”), the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, (the
“Criminal Usury Collection Lawsuit”).
a. On or about February 2001 in the Southern District of New York the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
lawsuit’s plaintiffs, then and now unregistered broker-dealers, (the “Unregistered Broker-
Dealers”), made a purported $1.1M loan to GPMT, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt”).
Page 114 of 198

b. The terms of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt were contained in convertible promissory
note instruments, (the “Convertible Promissory Notes”), and were issued pursuant to a
purported so-called Subscription Agreement, (the “Subscription Agreement”).
c. The Convertible Promissory Notes and Subscription Agreement shall be referred to herein
as (the “RICO Unlawful Debt Illegal Contracts”).
d. Paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement required GPMT to “register 200%” of
the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt amount of $1.1M with the SEC on a Form SB-2 for
immediate resale of the securities derived from the Convertible Promissory Notes, (the
“Conversion Securities”).
e. The terms of paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement and the Convertible
Promissory Notes violated N.Y. Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class
E felony; and the collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt violated 18 USC
1961(6)(B).
f. The RICO Unlawful Debt Contracts are illegal contracts that are null and void ab initio,
unenforceable, are criminal usury loan contracts, and the collection of the unlawful debts
terms therein violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
g. On or about March 2002, the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, LH Financial Services, Inc., and
Ari Rabinowitz hired Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. to file a lawsuit, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v.
Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), (the “RICO Collection Lawsuit”), in
the U.S. District Court (SDNY) (Sand, J.) to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
h. Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith filed a
false, frivolous, and fraudulent complaint, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);
Page 115 of 198

a. which falsely and fraudulently lied and committed perjury and claimed that the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;
b. lied that the Unregistered Broker-Dealers were required to be repaid the principal
and interest amounts contained in the Illegal Contracts;
c. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs
were not and had never been registered as broker-dealers;
d. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs
were 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Conversion Securities
and therefore as a matter of law ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC
77e strict-liability registration requirements;
e. in November 2007 Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly lied and committed
perjury as a government witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), with the
consent and knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors; Zitter lied and committed
perjury and falsely testified the 02cv2219 plaintiffs are entitled to use Rule 144 as
an exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Act;
f. Zitter further lied and committed perjury with the consent and knowledge of the
USAO and testified the 02cv2219 court’s orders were lawful orders;
g. On December 20, 2007, less than one month after the 04cr1224 trial concluded,
Zitter and the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers ex parte moved the
02cv2219 district court (Sand, J.) to dismiss the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); which ex parte motion was granted by the district court
(Sand, J.), and entered at Dkt. 90, 02cv2219 (SDNY). Ex. 2, infra.
Page 116 of 198

B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for
the unlawful purpose and criminal objective to create and collect RICO
criminal usury unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), provide protection for
the participants, and launder the profits and proceeds derived therefrom,
the RICO Unlawful Debt loan sharking conspiracy.
a. On or about February 2001, or before, and continuing to the present, without
interruption, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, Alpha Capital,
AG, Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro International, S.A., LH
Financial Services, Inc, Ari Rabinowitz, Solomon Obstfeld, convicted felon Edward
M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Ari Kluger, fugitive Thomas Badian, and others
known and unknown knowingly agreed, colluded, acted in concert, with unity of
purpose, and conspired to orchestrate and formed an illegal association-in-fact,
(the “Unindicted Coconspirators”); and further agreed and conspired to and did
commit two or more acts of racketeering activities listed in 18 USC 1961(1), or
violate N.Y. Penal Laws, or other state penal laws, for the criminal objectives and
purposes to create, collect, protect, and launder the profits and proceeds derived
from participation in the operations of the criminal usury unlawful loan “business”
operations and criminally used the U.S. banking system, U.S. Senators,43 private
43 New York senator Charles Ellis Schumer and his cronies.
Page 117 of 198

law firms,44 the U.S. federal courts,45 judges,46 prosecutors,47 and employees, used
the State Bar of Georgia, and their employees,48 used the Supreme Court of
Georgia, and others known and unknown, and used the means and methods of
interstate commerce, the U.S. mail, and wires, (the “RICO Loan Sharking CCE”), to
conduct the operations of the RICO Loan Sharking CCE.
b. On August 13, 2003, Dkt. 65, Judge Sand ruled, ex parte, that Stonestreet, L.P.
“beneficially owned more than 9.9% of the stock of [GPMT];” and thus, ruled ipso
facto ruled that each of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs also “beneficially owned more than
44Paul, Weiss, et al., LLP, Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, Grushko & Mittman, P.C., Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Cleary, Gottlieb, LLP,
45 The Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court, the District Court (SDNY), the District Court (NDGA), the
District Court (D. NV), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the Supreme Court of
the United States.
46 Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, Robert W. Sweet, Colleen McMahon, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Edgardo Ramos, Debra Ann Livingston, Andrew J. Peck, Michael H. Dolinger, Amalya
L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, Gerald B. Tjoflat, Stanley Marcus,
Charles R. Wilson, and Adelburto Jordan.
47David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steve R. Peikin,
Steven D. Feldman, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Margaret M. Garnett,
Daniel Gitner, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, Joon
Kim, and Jun Xiang.
48The RICO CCE in 2007-08 as an overt act in furtherance of its racketeering activities criminally
enticed and used the State Bar of Georgia, its employees, and agents, and the Supreme Court of
Georgia, who knowingly joined and agreed to participate in the RICO CCE, and conspired with
the State Bar and had the State Bar knowingly fabricate a false affidavit of Service; and conspired
and had the State Bar use the known fraudulent and fabricated affidavit of service in fraudulent
disbarment proceedings to have the Supreme Court of Georgia steal Ulysses T. Ware’s license to
practice law in Georgia.
Page 118 of 198

9.9% of GPMT’s stock;” which ruled that each of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs were 15
USC 78p(b) statutory insiders of GPMT and were therefore prohibited to trade in
GPMT’s equity securities.
c. On September 1, 2004, Zitter conspired with the SEC, the USAO, the 02cv2219
plaintiffs, Judge Sand, the U.S. Marshals, and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
(NDGA) and had Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., (GPMT’s securities counsel), kidnapped by
the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn, from his law office in Atlanta, GA as the means
and methods to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt; and Judge Thrash
demanded that Ulysses T. Ware draft and issue fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions
and issue 10,000,000 free-trading shares of GPMT’s securities, then valued
between $22.25M and $225M of GPMT, to the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, else Mr. Ware
would face indefinite incarceration until the fraudulent legal opinions and
shares were delivered to Zitter and the Unregistered Broker-Dealers ;
d. Judge Thrash as an overt act of kidnapping and unlawful debt collection act, on
behalf of the RICO CCE illegally and unlawfully, in the “clear absence of all
jurisdiction” on September 1, 2004, willfully and in bad faith imposed an illegal
$250,000 bail of Ulysses T. Ware as a criminal ransom to force Mr. Ware to issue
false and fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions to the Unregistered Broker-Dealers
who were legally ineligible for Rule 144 exemption to Section 5 registration
requirements;
e. on September 9, 2004, without Zitter having been properly admitted to the District
Court (NDGA), Zitter, Judge Sand, and the RICO CCE conspired and colluded with
Page 119 of 198

Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. who then permitted Zitter to unlawfully appear
before the District Court (NDGA) and fraudulently argue for collection of the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt;49
f. on November 17, 2004, the RICO CCE contracted with U.S. Attorney (SDNY) David
N. Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, and others, and hired and bribed, or gave
favors, or other illegal gratuities to Kelley and the USAO; who then knowingly
fabricated a false and fraudulent indictment, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), that
attempted to charge Ulysses T. Ware with three counts of 18 USC 401(3) criminal
contempt for Ulysses T. Ware refusing to fabricate, create, and issue bogus and
fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions to the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers
to enable an unregistered public offering of GPMT’s Conversion Securities.
g. In November 2007 the RICO CCE’s participants hired District Judge Robert W.
Sweet to rig and fix the bogus and fraudulent 04cr1224 purported trial in favor of
the USAO by bribing Sweet to enter known bogus, fraudulent, and frivolous legal
rulings, orders, and judgments in favor of the USAO and the RICO CCE to protect
the RICO CCE, its profits, proceeds, and participants.
h. On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims
in the 02cv2219 complaint, government trial witness in 04cr1224 Kenneth A.
Zitter, Esq., an officer of the court, ex parte, on behalf of the 02cv2219 Broker-
49Judge Sand, Dkt. 88, (02cv2219), subsequently ruled that on September 1, 2004, Judge Thrash
and the U.S. Marshals lacked lawful authority and jurisdiction to have entered the law office of
Ulysses T. Ware and kidnapped Mr. Ware regarding the unlawful collection of the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt.
Page 120 of 198

Dealers demanded the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2).
i. On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, District Judge Sand granted the 02cv2219
plaintiffs’ voluntarily demanded Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice, and
entered final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”), in 02cv2219 (SDNY) in
favor of and for GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and
Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”).
j. In 2009 the USAO’s appeal section then run by AUSA Katherine Polk-Failla,
colluded, conspired, and acted in concert with the RICO CCE; and AUSAs Polk-
Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and Maria E. Douvas, with the knowledge and consent of the
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Preet Bharara, researched, drafted, fabricated, signed, and
on behalf of the RICO CCE submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) a known
to be a bogus and fraudulent government appeal brief while knowing the
02cv2219 (SDNY) underlying criminal proceedings had been voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice on December 20, 2007, which “annulled” “vitiated” and voided the
government’s trial exhibits, GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24, entered in the 04cr1224 trial.
k. In 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) panel Circuit Judges Katzmann, Hall, and
District Judge Barbara S. Jones (SDNY), sitting by designation, was hired by the
RICO CCE to rig and fix in favor of the government and the RICO CCE the moot U.S.
v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) appeal.
l. Circuit Judges Katzmann, Hall, and Jones, while knowing the underlying 02cv2219
(SDNY) lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20,
Page 121 of 198

2007, nevertheless, lied, committed perjury, obstructed justice, conspired and
knowingly committed a fraud on the court, as officers of the court, and
purportedly conducted, in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, ultra vires Article III
appellate judicial review on the annulled and then moot GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24
orders and judgments entered in the annulled and mooted 02cv2219 (SDNY)
lawsuit;
m. which frauds on the court, civil, and criminal contempts have caused Petitioners
actual irreparable harms, injuries, and damages in the sum certain amount of
$225,000 per day,50 each and every day beginning on December 20, 2007, and
continuing each day at the sum certain rate of $225,000 each day thereafter until
such time that all civil contempts and frauds on the court are terminated.51
C. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, racketeering

activities, and frauds committed by Leonard B. Sand.
a. District Judge Leonard B. Sand, deceased, was hired by the RICO CCE to provide corrupt
judicial services for the collection, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), and protection—obstruction of
50 The New York state unlawful detainment and unlawful custody compensation is paid at the rate
of $326,000 per day. Notwithstanding actual irreparable harm, injury, and damages to Ulysses T.
Ware’s professional reputation as an attorney at law; and notwithstanding the statutory 3x
damage compensatory and punitive damages available for RICO injuries.
51 There are 5,392 days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/22 multiplied by $225,000 per day in
irreparable damages = $1.213.2 billion in total civil contempt and fraud on the court
compensation. See Ex. 1, infra.
Page 122 of 198

justice illegal schemes, for the unlawful profits and proceeds derived by the RICO CCE’s
racketeering activities; and to provide protection for the participants in the RICO CCE and
for their families, friends, and professional privies.
b. Judge Sand knowingly rigged and fixed the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s litigation, and
entered bogus and frivolous orders, GX 11,52 GX 24, and judgments, GX 7, and Dkt. 80,
that enabled the RICO CCE to undertake unlawful collection activities to collect the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
c. Judge Sand on or about November 2002 while he lacked all subject matter jurisdiction
over the 02cv2219 lawsuit entered a purported final judgment, GX 7.
d. GX 7 is null and void ab initio entered while the district court lacked all Article III subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims in the 02cv2219 complaint.
e. Judge Sand knowingly lied and committed a fraud on the court on or about December
2003 when he conspired and racketeered with the RICO CCE and entered the civil
contempt judgment against Petitioners, Dkt. 80.
f. On December 20, 2007, Judge Sand knowingly entered final judgment on the plaintiffs’
voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte motion, dismissed the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice,
annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and proceedings, and conferred
prevailing party status on GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and
Becky Landers.
52 “GX” refers to government trial exhibits entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
Page 123 of 198

g. In or about August 2011, Dkt. 102, Judge Sand knowingly and deliberately conspired with
the RICO CCE, committed a fraud on the court, knowingly violated and resisted the
preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment; undertook actions and omissions that
obstructed justice done by Judge Sand on behalf of the RICO CCE that enabled the RICO
CCE to continue to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt, done in the clear absence of
all jurisdiction entered Dkt. 102 as the unlawful means and methods to delay, obstruct,
conceal, suppress, and cover up his and the crimes of the RICO CCE, done in in bad faith,
and caused actual injuries, harms, and damages to Petitioners.
h. From the entry of Dkt. 102 in 2011 to the entry of Dkt. 117, and all times to his death in
2016, Judge Sand knowingly and in bad faith lied, obstructed justice, conspired to obstruct
justice, and committed racketeering activities which resisted the preclusive effects of the
Rule 41 Final Judgment; refused to enforce the Rule 41 Final Judgment on behalf of
Petitioners; and conspired with the RICO CCE and others and agreed to and deliberately
entered a series of fraudulent and obstruction of justice orders designed to protect the
RICO CCE’s unlawful profits, proceeds, and participants.
D. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering

activity, and frauds committed by Kenneth A. Zitter related to the
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation.
a. On or about March 2002, the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, LH Financial Services, Inc., and
Ari Rabinowitz hired Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. to file a lawsuit, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v.
Page 124 of 198

Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), (the “RICO Collection Lawsuit”), in
the U.S. District Court (SDNY) (Sand, J.) to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
b. Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith filed a
false, frivolous, and fraudulent complaint, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);
c. which falsely and fraudulently lied and committed perjury and claimed that the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;
d. lied that the Unregistered Broker-Dealers were required to be repaid the principal and
interest amounts contained in the Illegal Contracts;
e. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs were
not and had never been registered as broker-dealers;
f. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs were
15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Conversion Securities and therefore
as a matter of law ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC 77e strict-liability
registration requirements;
g. in November 2007 Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly lied and committed perjury
as a government witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), with the consent and
knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors; Zitter lied and committed perjury and falsely
testified the 02cv2219 plaintiffs were entitled to use Rule 144 as an exemption to Section
5 of the 1933 Act;
h. Zitter further lied and committed perjury with the consent and knowledge of the USAO
and testified the 02cv2219 court’s orders were lawful orders;
Page 125 of 198

i. Zitter testified and admitted under oath as a government witness in 04cr1224 that he and
Judge Sand arranged for the U.S. Marshals to enter Ulysses T. Ware’s law office with guns
drawn threatening to murder Mr. Ware on September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA; and
arranged the kidnapping of Mr. Ware to “punish you [Mr. Ware] … because you would
not give us the stock of GPMT [i.e., 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO unlawful debt collection
activities].”
j. Zitter and the RICO CCE in furtherance of the unlawful collection of the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt conspiracy used the wires of the United States and in 2003 communicated
terroristic threats (“ … I’ll have Judge Sand throw your ass in prison and you will never get
out ….”), threats of violence (“ … I’ll have the marshals arrest your ass and throw you in
prison if you don’t give us that stock and the opinions ….”), and egregious racial slurs (“
… nigger who do you think you are fucking with ….”) to Ulysses T. Ware in an effort to
collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
k. On December 20, 2007, less than one month after the 04cr1224 trial concluded, Zitter
and the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers ex parte, voluntarily, in secret moved the
02cv2219 district court (Sand, J.) to immediately dismiss the 02cv2219 lawsuit with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); the ex parte secret motion was granted by the district
court (Sand, J.), and the Rule 41 Final Judgment was entered on December 20, 2007, at
Dkt. 90, 02cv2219 (SDNY). Ex. 2, infra.
l. From December 20, 2007 to the present without interruption Zitter, the RICO CCE, and its
participants have deliberately conspired and have omitted to inform the federal courts
the 02cv2219 lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007; and Zitter and
Page 126 of 198

the RICO CCE’s participants have willfully in bad faith resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s
preclusive effects, and continued to lie, commit perjury, obstruct justice, conspire, and
undertake racketeering activities to give legal effect to the annulled and vitiated orders,
judgments, and proceedings related to the 02cv2219 lawsuit. Which have caused
Petitioners irreparable harms, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Petitioner
until such time as the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects are enforced.
E. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, frauds, and

racketeering activities committed by the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court,
its judges, and employees related to 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule 41 Final
Judgment in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA),
Chapter 11, related to the 02cv2219 lawsuit, and 04cr1224 (SDNY)
litigation, and the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus proceedings.
a. From beginning on or about March 2003 continuing to the present, without interruption,
the Atlanta, GA U.S. Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), its judges,53 and employees,54 jointly, (the
“Bankruptcy Court”), regarding the Chapter 11 case, In re Group Management Corp., 03-
93031-mhm (BC NDGA), (the “93031” or “Chapter 11”), knowingly, willfully, and
deliberately aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated the RICO CCE’s participants to
conduct racketeering activities, 18 USC 1961(6)(B) activities, for the purpose of, (i)
53 Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Wendy L. Hagenau.
54 Bankruptcy Clerk (NDGA) M. Regina Thomas, and clerk Patricia Sinback.
Page 127 of 198

collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt and (ii) willful resistance to the Rule 41
Final Judgment.
b. On May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28, Order of dismissal of 93031 with prejudice (Murphy, J.), in the
clear absence of all subject matter jurisdiction to grant the 02cv2219 plaintiffs,
Unregistered Broker-Dealers, any judicial relief; Murphy deliberately as a conspiracy to
commit a fraud on the court, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 157, as an
overt act to enable the unlawful collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt, conspired
with the RICO CCE’s participants, the USAO (SDNY), Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, and its partners, J. Henry Walker, IV, Dennis S. Meir, and John
W. Mills, III, jointly, (“KTS”), and others both known and unknown, deliberately and
intentionally granted the Unregistered Broker-Dealers’ ultra vires motion, Dkt. 15, Dkt.
16, and deliberately in bad faith to aid and abet the RICO CCE’s objectives to collect the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt dismissed GPMT’s Chapter 11 case with prejudice, Dkt. 28.
c. In 2011 to the present without interruption the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court has
functioned as a direct agent and/or willing participant in the RICO CCE’s racketeering
activities; and the Bankruptcy Court.
d. From 2011 to the present without interruption the Bankruptcy Court deliberately with
malice, and with a criminal motivation and intention agreed and conspired and have
undertaken all actions and/or omissions necessary to suppress, conceal, cover up, and
hide the evidence that each to the 02cv2219 plaintiffs in 2003 were unregistered broker-
dealers, which accordingly, as a matter of law each lacked Article III standing in 2003 to
have authorized the Bankruptcy Court, Murphy, J., to have entertained, Dkt. 15, Dkt. 16,
Page 128 of 198

or granted any judicial relief, Dkt. 28, the May 21, 2003, Order of dismissal with prejudice
of GPMT’s Chapter 11 case to Unregistered Broker-Dealers.
e. From 2021 the Bankruptcy Court, Wendy L. Hagenau, and M. Regina Thomas have
undertaken and formed an illegal association-in-fact with KTS, the USAO (SDNY), the State
Bar of Georgia, the District Court (SDNY), the District Court (NDGA), and others both
known and unknown, (the “Bankruptcy CCE”), having its criminal objectives and purposes
to obstruct justice, conceal, hide, suppress, remove, destroy any judicial public records
and other documents and papers from the Bankruptcy Court that would expose the overt
act taken by the Bankruptcy Court from 2003 to the present on behalf of the RICO CCE.
f. Since beginning in or about 2011 as a fraud on the court, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
and as overt acts in furtherance of the RICO collection activities of the RICO CCE, the
Bankruptcy Court, and M. Regina Thomas with the consent, advisement, and knowledge
of Wendy L. Hagenau and others has forged, fabricated, and manufactured known false
and fraudulent incomplete 93031 dockets as Rule 5006 certified dockets.
g. Beginning on March 8, 2021, Dkt. 34, to the present, Dkt. 236, September 23, 2022,
Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS, M. Regina Thomas, the Bankruptcy Court, and others, have
colluded and conspired with the RICO CCE, the USAO (SDNY), the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (Circuit Judges Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan), the State Bar of
Georgia, and others known and unknown; undertook numerous racketeering activities
and, (i) refused all requests of Petitioners to conduct the required Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
12(h)(3) Article III jurisdictional status conference; (ii) refused all requests to refer the
93031 Chapter 11 case to the U.S. Department of Justice with a judicial referral to open a
Page 129 of 198

criminal investigation of the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, which violated 18 USC 1519
and 2071; and (iii) refused all requests to reverse and vacate Dkt. 28, the null and void ab
initio May 21, 2003, Order (dismissal with prejudice of 93031).
F. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, racketeering activity,

obstruction of justice, and frauds committed by Atlanta, GA law firm
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP., in In re Group Management Corp.,
03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11.
a. Beginning on or before April 8, 2003, see Dkt. 11 (93031), entry of appearance KTS in
93031, KTS has colluded, conspired, and committed two or more racketeering activities
on behalf of the RICO CCE: (i) conspired with the Bankruptcy Court to conceal its clients,
the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, Unregistered Broker-Dealers, status as unregistered broker-
dealers, and thus, the lack of Article III standing to appear in 93031 in any capacity; and
(ii) conspired, colluded, and racketeered with the USAO, Zitter, the RICO CCE, the
Bankruptcy Court, the State Bar of Georgia, the District Court (SDNY), and others known
and unknown to obstruct and impede Petitioners’ right to vacate and set aside Dkt. 28,
and to conduct Rule 9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court proceedings.
b. Beginning in 2007 and continuing to the present without interruption KTS, the Bankruptcy
Court, the District Court (SDNY), the USAO, and others known, and unknown have acted
on behalf of the RICO CCE and conspired to obstruct justice, and willfully in bad faith resist
the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects, res judicata, and refused to move the
Bankruptcy Court in 93031 to vacate and set aside Dkt. 28, the May 21, 2003, null and
void ab initio purported Order (Murphy, J.);
Page 130 of 198

c. KTS has conspired with the RICO CCE and the Bankruptcy Court and willfully resisted the
res judicata effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, violated its duty of candor as an officer
of the court, and concealed the unregistered broker-dealer status of its clients;
d. and KTS willfully conspired with the Bankruptcy Court, the USAO, the District Court
(SDNY), the State Bar of Georgia, and the RICO CCE and concealed and suppressed the
fact its clients in February 2001 created, and from 2001 to the present, has attempted to
collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B) using KTS and
the Bankruptcy Court as a RICO unlawful debt collection agency; which has caused
irreparable injuries, harms, and damages to Petitioners in the sum certain amount of
$225,000 per day, beginning on December 20, 2007, and accruing each day to the present,
and; the Petitioners will continue to suffer irreparable RICO, fraud on the court, criminal
and civil contempt harms, injuries, and damages until KTS moves in the Bankruptcy Court
to vacate, set aside, and annul Dkt. 28, the null and void ab initio Order (Murphy, J.).
G. Willful contempts, racketeering activities, conspiracy, obstruction of

justice, and frauds committed by the State Bar of Georgia and its
employees.
a. Beginning from on or about 2007 and continuing to the present, the State Bar of Georgia,
its employees, agents, and others, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, jointly, (the “State
Bar”), agreed, colluded, conspired, racketeered, and aided and abetted the RICO CCE and
its participants to engage in RICO unlawful debt collection activities; and aided and
Page 131 of 198

abetted the USAO and the RICO CCE to obstruct justice by the fabrication of a purported
“affidavit of service,” and committed mail and wires fraud offenses.
b. The State Bar since 2007 has continuously acted in concert, orchestrated, coordinated,
agreed to, and did conspire and collude with District Judge William H. Pauley, III, the
USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, KTS, the Bankruptcy Court, and others and did
falsify, fabricate, and conduct known bogus and fraudulent disbarment proceedings on
behalf of the RICO CCE as the illegal device and artifice to prevent, obstruct, delay, and
impede Ulysses T. Ware from challenging the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money
laundering conspiracy in the federal and state courts on behalf of GPMT and others.
c. The State Bar since December 20, 2007, has resisted the preclusive res judicata effects of
the Rule 41 Final Judgment and has refused to vacate the fraudulent 2008 alleged
disbarment judgment entered by the Supreme Court of Georgia; entered as an over act
to obstruct justice, and as an overt act to aid and abet the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and
money laundering conspiracy
d. The State Bar has continuously since 2007 deliberately, in bad faith, relentlessly
conspired and resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the August 18, 2009, U.S. v. Ware,
07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, (the “Gov-I Final Judgment”), final judgment’s res
judicata preclusive effects; coordinated and conspired with the RICO CCE and its
participants, and orchestrated, aided, abetted, and facilitated a criminal protection
conspiracy for KTS, the Bankruptcy court’s judges, and employees who offered and
provided racketeering activity services to the RICO CCE to obstruct, impede, delay,
frustrate, and undermine the timely and fair adjudication of Petitioners’ claims raised in
Page 132 of 198

the 93031 Chapter 11, 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY)
proceedings.
H. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering

activity, and frauds committed by the District Court (NDGA) regarding the
02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings
a. Beginning on September 1, 2004, and continuing to the present, without interruption
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. allowed himself to be used, played as a fool, hired,
employed, and bribed by the RICO CCE’s participants to aid, abet, assist, and facilitate the
kidnapping, 18 USC 1201, 1202, of Ulysses T Ware, GPMT’s securities counsel in Atlanta,
GA coordinated and executed by the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn, as unlawful debt
collectors on behalf of the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering operations;
b. the September 1, 2004, kidnapping of Mr. Ware was coordinated with SEC’s lawyers, the
USAO, and District Judge Kent J. Dawson (D. NV) in a conspiracy to witness tamper in the
deposition of SEC lawyer Stephen Webster, Esq., who possessed personal knowledge of
the SEC and USAO’s bootleg grand jury proceedings then being illegally conducted in the
District Court (D. NV) in the SEC-DOJ’s commingled grand jury proceedings, 03-0831 (D.
NV);
c. District Judge Thrash and the District Court (NDGA) directly participated and conspired
with the SEC, the USAO, and the RICO CCE on September 1, 2004, and continuously to the
present, have permitted the District Court (NDGA), its judges, and employees to be used
as the criminal means and method to execute 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO collection activities
Page 133 of 198

in willful resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the regarding the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt, and in willful resistance to the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata
preclusive effects.55
I. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the District Court (SDNY)
regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), and
22cv3409 (SDNY).
a. Since beginning in or about 2004, and continuing to the present, 2022, without
interruption, the District Court (SDNY), its judges, employees, and agents, jointly, (the
“District Court SDNY”), have knowingly and in bad faith, functioned as an illegal
association-in-fact, a continuing criminal enterprise, criminally acted and functioned not
as an Article III U.S. District Court, but, rather has operated and functioned as an agent,
facilitator, unindicted coconspirator, and a material participant in the loan sharking,
money laundering, and obstruction of justice operations of the RICO CCE; and has
materially enabled and eagerly authorized numerous acts of racketeering activity that had
furthered the RICO unlawful debt collection operations of the RICO CCE.
b. The District Court SDNY since December 20, 2007, has aided, abetted, and enabled the
RICO CCE and the Unindicted Coconspirators to willfully and in bad faith resist all court
orders and judgments entered in 02cv2219, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115;
55 See Ware v. United States, 12cv4309-TWT (NDGA), (Thrash, J.) (Thrash conspired with the RICO
CCE and the USAO and rigged, fixed, obstructed, and impeded Ulysses T. Ware’s 2012 habeas
corpus proceeding while having an actual conflict of interest in the proceedings).
Page 134 of 198

c. and has enabled and facilitated Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, and Colleen
McMahon to commit two or more racketeering activity offenses—that is, obstruction of
justice, mail, and wire frauds, 18 USC 1519, 18 USC 2071; and
d. has willfully and in bad faith aided and abetted the obstruction of the 22cv3409 (SDNY)
habeas corpus proceedings to provide protection for the participants, profits, and
proceeds derived from racketeering activities committed by the RICO CCE.
J. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Office of the United States
Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”) in regard to 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224
(SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
a. Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Melissa Childs, Jun Xiang,
Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Geffrey Berman, Preet Bharara, Alexander H.
Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, David N. Kelley, Joon Kim, Sarah E. Paul,
Katherine Polk-Failla, Steven D. Feldman, Michael J. Garcia, and others known and
unknown, jointly, (the “USAO”), from beginning in 2003 to the present, 2022, without
interruption, aligned, and acted in concert with the SEC, the participants in the RICO CCE,
and others known and unknown, conspired and formed an illegal association-in-fact, a
criminal enterprise, (the “USAO CCE”), having the criminal objectives and purposes to aid,
abet, facilitate, enable, and function as the protection and collection operations for the
RICO CCE’s loan sharking, money laundering, and unlawful debt collection operations.
Page 135 of 198

b. The USAO CCE has from December 20, 2007, to the present, April 2023, with malice has
willfully and in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final
Judgment.
c. The USAO CCE has from August 18, 2009, to the present, April 2023, with malice has
willfully in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the Gov-I Final
Judgment.
d. The USAO CCE has from May 19, 2006, to the present, April 2023, with malice has resisted
and disobeyed the commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, entered in 05cr1115.
e. The USAO CCE has from August 10, 2007, to the present, April 2023, with malice has
resisted and disobeyed the written commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 32, entered
in 04cr1224.
f. From on or about 2003 the USAO CCE agreed, colluded, and conspired with the SEC, Kent
J. Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, Joan E. McKown, and others known and
unknown, and devised an illegal plan and scheme to violate Ulysses T. Ware’s Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent;
g. colluded and conspired with the SEC, Kent J. Dawson, and the FBI and formed an illegal
grand jury proceedings, (the “Bootleg Grand Jury”); and
h. the Bootleg Grand Jury had the illegal objective and purpose to circumvent the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and collect unlawful evidence for use in the USAO CCE’s
imminent 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings.
Page 136 of 198

K. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering
activity, and frauds committed by Colleen McMahon in regard to the
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and 04cr1224 (SDNY).
a. Beginning in or around May 2019, then Chief District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon
knowingly and intentionally joined the RICO CCE’s unlawful debt collections operations,
and in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, undertook and obstructed, impeded, delayed,
and frustrated Petitioners’ right to reinstate their counterclaim filed in 02cv2219 lawsuit,
and deliberately conspired and did commit a fraud on the court, obstructed justice, and
resisted the preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and frivolously entered Dkt.
120.
b. Since 2003 and continuing to the present, April 2023, Colleen McMahon and her spouse,
Frank V. Sica, have made +55 investments in criminal usury convertible promissory note
investments, (the “Usury CPN Investments”).
c. In 2019 when then chief judge McMahon entered the nonsensical purported Order, Dkt.
120, Judge McMahon then knew that she and her spouse had made more than +55 Usury
CPN Investments, then having a reported value between $10.1 and $55 million; an actual
financial conflict of interest which Judge McMahon suppressed and concealed.
d. Since 2019 Judge McMahon has violated federal law, 28 USC 455(a), and 45(b)(1-5), and
refused to recuse herself from judicial involvement in the moot, and annulled 02cv2219
(SDNY) lawsuit.
e. Since 2019, and continuing to the present, April 2023, Judge McMahon has criminally
resisted the Rule 41 res judicata preclusive effects; and Judge McMahon has acted
Page 137 of 198

recklessly, with a criminal depraved mind and motive, and obstructed justice, delayed,
impeded, and denied the Prevailing Parties in 02cv2219 (SDNY)—that is, Ulysses T. Ware,
GPMT, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and Becky Lander, their legal right to enforce the
Rule 41 Final Judgment.
L. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Probation Office
(SDNY), (the “USPO”).
Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Tyler.
a. Beginning in 2005 the USPO took possession of the passport of Ulysses T. Ware pursuant
to bail condition set in 04cr1224 (SDNY). To the present, April 2023, the USPO has
conspired and colluded with the USAO and the District Court (SDNY) and refused all
requests made by Ulysses T. Ware to return his passport.
b. In 2007 the USPO, and Colleen Tyler knowingly conspired with District Judge William H.
Pauley, III and knowingly in bad faith, in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, prepared and
submitted a false and fraudulent pre-sentence report, (the “PSI”), in 05cr1115.
c. In 2008-09 the USPO, and Thomas J. McCarthy knowingly conspired with District Judge
Robert W. Sweet, after the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit had been dismissed with prejudice
on December 20, 2007, orchestrated and fabricated a fraudulent PSI, and submitted the
fraudulent PSI into the court records in 04cr1224.
d. In 2008-09 the USPO and McCarthy conspired with Sweet and the USAO and fabricated
the 04cr1224 PSI as the illegal means and method to aid and abet the RICO CCE to obtain
Page 138 of 198

bogus restitution for its February 2001 Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt—that is, a RICO
unlawful debt collection device and procedure which violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B), and
resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
e. From 2018 to May 23, 2022, the USPO, David Mulcahy, and the USAO conspired with
Judge William H. Pauley, III, and conspired to impose bogus, fraudulent, and nonexistent
alleged “special conditions of supervised release” while knowing the moot 05cr1115
judgment did not contain any written special conditions of supervised release; and
conspired with Pauley and the USAO to resist the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata
preclusive effects.
M. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Laura Taylor-Swain.
a. Beginning in 2021 and continuing to the present, April 2023, Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Laura Taylor-Swain knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, conspired, colluded, obstructed
justice, stole, destroyed, suppressed, concealed, and removed judicial public records
submitted to the District Court (SDNY)’s Committee on Lawyer Misconduct which violated
18 USC 1519 and 18 USC 2071; and Taylor-Swain knowingly and in bad faith conspired
with the USAO, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and Merrick B. Garland to cover up, conceal,
suppress, and remove from the District Court Ulysses T. Ware’s lawyer misconduct
petitions submitted to the District Court (NDGA) for adjudication.
Page 139 of 198

b. Beginning in 2021 and continuing to the present, April 2023, Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Laura Taylor-Swain has knowingly, willfully, in bad faith colluded, conspired, resisted the
Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgment; and refused to conduct Local Rule
1.5(b)(5) lawyer misconduct proceedings regarding the USAO, Andre Damian Williams,
Jr., Merrick B. Garland, Daniel Gitner, and Margaret M. Garnett concerning the USAO’s
non-compliance with the Brady Court Orders entered in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115; and the
USAO and DOJ’s resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgments’
res judicata preclusive effects.
c. In June 2022 during the Ware v. United States, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and
Laura Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241(a) habeas corpus proceedings, see Dkt. 60-
63, respondent, material witness, and unindicted coconspirator Laura Taylor, in an
unprecedented degree of criminal judicial misconduct, willful criminal depravity, fraud on
the court, obstruction of justice, while not officially assigned to 22cv3409 purported to
enter a nonsensical order, Dkt. 60, 06/16/22 Order (Taylor-Swain, C.J.), to aid and abet
the RICO CCE’s participants evade justice, evade being held in civil and criminal contempt,
and from being held accountable for their frauds on the court and numerous crimes
committed against Petitioners.
N. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Chief Circuit Judge (2d
Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston regarding Edgardo Ramos’ crimes, civil and
criminal contempts, and frauds on the court.
Page 140 of 198

a. From beginning on or about May 27, 2022, Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann
Livingston, has acted with willful depravity, unprecedented criminal judicial misconduct,
aided, abetted, and conspired with the USAO and Edgardo Ramos, and has acted and
omitted to act, and has deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith obstructed the timely and
complete investigation and adjudication of the In re Edgardo Ramos complaint for judicial
misconduct, 02-22-90049-jm (2d Cir.), (the “Judicial Complaint”).
b. Judge Livingston has acted and functioned recklessly, willfully, and deliberately in
opposition to, and obstructed the Rules that govern the judicial complaint process; Judge
Livingston has acted with a unprecedented criminal depravity, moral turpitude, and
willfully conspired with Ramos, the USAO, the RICO CCE participants, and others to
obstruct and impede the required investigation of the crimes committed by Edgardo
Ramos and the USAO during the 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409 (SDNY) proceedings.
c. Judge Livingston has conspired, acted, and functioned recklessly, and functioned with a
criminal depraved mind, undertook obstruction of justice judicial misconduct, and
irresponsibly has aided, and abetted Ramos and the USAO to continue to cause
irreparable harms, injuries, and damages to Ulysses T. Ware’s legal rights in 04cr1224,
05cr1115, and 22cv3409 (SDNY); and Judge Livingston has conspired and effectively
denied and suspended, indefinitely, Ulysses T. Ware’s right to the writ of habeas corpus in
violation of the Constitution.
Page 141 of 198

O. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby
Krajick.
a. From beginning in or about 2005, and continuing to the present, April 2023, Ruby Krajick,
the District Court (SDNY), and its employees, acted in concert, and colluded, and
conspired with the USAO and District Judge William H. Pauley, III, and others, known and
unknown, with a criminal depraved mind and motivation, knowingly, willfully, and in bad
faith aided, recklessly abetted, and enabled the USAO and Pauley to resist (i) the 05cr1115
Brady Court Order’s commands, (ii) resist the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and resist the Gov-
I Final Judgment.
b. Krajick and the District Court (SDNY), conspired and acted in concert with Pauley and
Edgardo Ramos, and have removed, concealed, suppressed, hid, and fabricated judicial
dockets, and removed, and concealed the purported September 2006 purported Rule 11
plea documents associated with a person purportedly known as “Jeremy Jones.”
c. Krajick and the District Court since 2021 have conspired and colluded with Edgardo
Ramos, and continued to conceal, hide, suppress, and remove all traces and records of
Jeremy Jones’ alleged September 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract, USSG 5k perjury letter,
transcripts, and other benefits, gifts, favors, gratuities, and other things of value paid to
Jones by the USAO for Jones knowingly to lie and commit perjury during the U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) trial.
d. Krajick and the District Court (SDNY) since 2006 have concealed, suppressed, and hid all
records of the kickbacks, bribes, gifts, favors, and illegal gratuities paid to Marlon G. Kirton
Page 142 of 198

by the USAO and/or William H. Pauley, III for Kirton’s participation RICO CCE’s operations
to fabricate a conviction and sentence in 05cr1115 (SDNY).
e. Krajick and the AOC, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court, have continuously since
2005, conspired, colluded, acted in bad faith, and recklessly, with a criminal depraved
minds and motivation obstructed the fair, impartial, unbiased, and correct adjustment of
Federal Tort Claim Act petitions submitted to the AOC for adjustment by Ulysses T. Ware
regarding the negligent torts committed by Krajick and the District Court (SDNY).
P. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. v. Ware, 09-
0851cr (2d Cir.) panel: Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and
Barbara S. Jones (retired).56
a. From beginning in 2010, and continuing to April 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit’s U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), (Katzmann, Hall, and Jones), (the “Panel”)., in
bad faith, recklessly, and with criminal depraved minds and motivation, recklessly
colluded, conspired, and racketeered with the USAO, the SEC, the RICO CCE, and others
and rigged and fixed the 09-0851 appeal in such a way and affirmed the moot 04cr1224
proceedings’ purported judgment of conviction and sentence (Sweet, J.).
b. The Panel knew and/or recklessly in bad faith disregarded the facts and the law, the
underlying sub judice 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s orders, judgments, and proceedings had
been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, pursuant to Rule
56 Then District Judge (SDNY) Barbara S. Jones sat by designation on the 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) panel.
Page 143 of 198

41(a)(2); yet, nevertheless, from 2010 to the present, 2022, the Panel knowingly,
wantonly, recklessly, and irresponsibly undertook criminal obstruction of justice actions,
committed frauds on the court, frauds, conspiracy, aided, abetted, and facilitated on
behalf of the USAO and the RICO CCE’s unlawful profits, proceeds, and participants and
resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects. Which has and will
continue to cause irreparable RICO, civil contempt, and other harms, injuries, and
damages to Ulysses T. Ware’s personal and business interests.
Q. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the USAO’s 09-0851
appeals team (Bharara, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and Maria E.
Douvas, the “Appeal Team”).
a. From beginning in 2007 to the present, April 2023, the Appeal Team knowingly, willfully,
in bad faith, recklessly, acted, and functioned with a wanton and depraved criminal mind
and motivation, and fabricated, drafted, signed, and in 2010, filed with the Court of
Appeals in 09-0851 the fraudulent appeal brief, (the “Fraudulent Brief”).
b. The Appeal Team and the Panel knowingly colluded, conspired and did obstruct justice,
on behalf of the RICO CCE’s participants, and after the 02cv2219 lawsuit had been
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, Dkt., by government
04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., the Appeal Team and the Panel (Katzmann,
Hall, and Jones), arranged, orchestrated, and with wanton depravity and racial animosity
rigged and fixed the 09-0851cr moot appeal in favor the USAO and the RICO CCE’s
participants and affirmed the moot appeal in favor of the USAO and the RICO CCE.
Page 144 of 198

c. The depraved and reckless crimes, frauds on the court, civil and criminal contempt
committed by the Panel and the Appeal Team committed in 04cr1224 and 09-0851cr (2d
Cir.) has caused, and will continue to cause Partitioner Ulysses T. Ware irreparable RICO
and compensatory civil contempt damages, injuries, and harms to his personal and
business interests unless the USAO and the Panel are enjoined, and held in civil and
criminal contempt.
R. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Edgardo Ramos.
a. From beginning in 2021 and to the present April 2023 Edgardo Ramos has acted and
functioned as a covert agent of the USAO, the RICO CCE, and the Unindicted
Coconspirators; and Ramos has knowingly and in bad faith in violation of the Codes of
Conduct for Federal Judges colluded, conspired, obstructed justice, and aided, abetted,
and conducted the 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409 proceedings to obstruct justice,
conducted the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings in the “clear absence of all
jurisdiction,”
b. and Ramos knowingly in bad faith, and recklessly in disregard for the law and the facts
facilitated the USAO to obstruct justice by the willful and bad faith commission of two or
more acts of racketeering activity, which enabled the USAO to willfully and in bad faith
resist the res judicata preclusive effects of the (i) Rule 41 Final Judgment, (ii) the Gov-I
Final Judgment, and (iii) the Brady Court Orders.
Page 145 of 198

c. In 2021 Ramos in collusion and while conspiring with the USAO, while he lacked all subject
matter jurisdiction over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, Ramos aided, abetted, and enabled
the USAO to steal and embezzle $50,000.00 in bail posted by Ulysses T. Ware and his
family.
d. In 2021-22 Ramos knowingly and in bad faith colluded and conspired with the USPO and
its employees, resisted the preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-
I Final Judgment, and conspired with and enabled the USPO to criminally impose illegal
and unconstitutional alleged “special conditions of supervised release” on Ulysses T.
Ware when Ramos and the USPO knew and were actually aware the purported judgments
in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 did not contain any special conditions of supervised release.
e. Since 2022 Ramos has colluded, conspired, obstructed justice, and acted in concert with
the USAO, the SEC, the RICO CCE, and the Unindicted Coconspirator, and conspired to
obstruct the timely adjudication of the 28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent habeas corpus
proceedings, 22cv3409 (SDNY), by willfully and in bad faith refusing to enter the required
28 USC 2243 show cause order to the USAO, his unindicted coconspirator.
S. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by District Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, 03-0831 (D.
NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409
(SDNY).
Page 146 of 198

a. Beginning on September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., coordinated,
colluded, and conspired with the USAO, the SEC, the FBI, and the RICO CCE’s participants,
and agreed to act in concert with the U.S. Marshals and kidnap Ulysses T. Ware on behalf
of the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering RICO unlawful debt collections
operations, which violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
b. Thrash conspired, colluded, and agreed to aid, abet, and facilitate the SEC, the USAO, and
the RICO CCE to undertake RICO loan sharking debt collection procedures—that is, the
September 1, 2004, kidnapping of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., GPMT’s securities counsel, in
exchange for gifts, favors, kickbacks, illegal gratuities, and other things of value, i.e.,
Thrash’s promotion to chief judge of the District Court (NDGA).
c. From September 1, 2004, and to the present, April 2023, Thrash has continued to collude
and conspire with the SEC, the USAO, and the RICO CCE’s participants; and Thrash has
acted in concert with the RICO CCE’s participants and rigged and fixed multiple judicial
proceedings in such a manner to protect the ill-gotten profits, proceeds, and participants
in the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering operations.
d. Thrash in 2012 knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith agreed, collude, and conspired with
the USAO, the SEC, the RICO CCE’s participants and rigged and fixed the habeas corpus
proceeding, Ware v. USA, et al., 12cv4397 (NDGA) (Thrash, J.), by knowingly and willingly
obstructed the adjudication of Ulysses T. Ware’s actual innocent claims; and willfully and
in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of (i) the Rule 41 Final Judgment,
and (ii) the Gov-I Final Judgment.
Page 147 of 198

T. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
a. Beginning on or about December 20, 2007, continuing to the present, April 2023, the U.S.
Bureau of Prison, (the “BOP”), colluded, conspired, acted in concert, and racketeered with
the USAO, the SEC, and the RICO CCE’s participant and willfully in bad faith resisted and
impeded the execution of the res judicata preclusive effects of (i) the Rule 41 Final
Judgment and (ii) the Gov-I Final Judgment.
b. From January 2007 to the present, April 2023, the BOP has colluded, conspired, and acted
in concert with the State Bar of Georgia and its employees, the USAO, and the RICO CCE’s
participants, and has continued to agree and support the State Bar’s false and fabricated
purported “affidavit of service” that falsely asserted that Ulysses T. Ware was in the
custody of the BOP on January 15, 2007, in the MDC Brooklyn, NY federal prison; while
the BOP knows that Ulysses T. Ware was not in the custody of the BOP on January 15,
2007.
U. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts.
a. Beginning in 2009 and continuing to the present April 2023 the Administrative Office of
the U. S. Courts, (the “AOC”), entered into a nefarious criminal conspiracy with the USAO,
the Bankruptcy Court employees, the District Court (NDGA) employees, the District Court
(SDNY) employees, the USPO (SDNY) employees, and others, (the “Court Employees”);
Page 148 of 198

and the AOC’s officials have knowingly lied, committed fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of
justice, and other racketeering activities, resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of (i)
the Rule 41 Final Judgment and (ii) the Gov-I Final Judgment, jointly, (the “Final
Judgments”).
b. The AOC has enabled Ruby Krajick, M. Regina Thomas, Lance C. Wilson, James N. Hatten,
Patricia Sinback, and other clerks to fabricate dockets, falsify judicial court records,
conspire to obstruct justice by the removal, suppression, concealment, and destruction
of judicial court records filed by Ulysses T. Ware in judicial proceedings.
c. The AOC and its officials have since 2009 deliberately violated federal law and resisted
the Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects to such an extent, and in such a
manner to obstruct justice and not in good faith properly adjust Federal Tort Claim act
petitions presented to the AOC by Ulysses T. Ware.
V. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Department of
Justice.
a. Beginning from on or about July 2003, and continuing without interruption to the present,
April 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice, its privies, agents, officials, unindicted
coconspirators, and others in active concert therewith, jointly, (the “DOJ”), formed an
illegal association-in-fact, (the “DOJ CCE”), with the objective and purpose to fraudulently
indict, prosecute, convict, and sentence Ulysses T. Ware in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and
Page 149 of 198

U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), as a depraved racially-motivated retaliatory hate crime,
(the “Hate Crimes Persecution”).
b. The DOJ CCE’s participants knowingly and with criminal depravity and perfidy arranged,
orchestrated, enabled, and facilitated the Hate Crimes Persecution by and through the
commission of RICO activities, to wit, by the payment of favors, gifts, bribes, kickbacks,
illegal gratuities, and other things of value to willing participants who undertook two or
more racketeering activities to knowingly and in bad faith effectuated the DOJ CCE to
obtain its objective.
c. The DOJ CCE has from beginning in 2003 continuing to the present, April 2023, used the
U.S. Federal Courts, its judges, employees, agencies, officials, and state courts, and
agencies, as willing participants in the DOJ CCE, the “DOJ CCE’s Unindicted
Coconspirators” or the “DOJ Stooges”; and used the DOJ Stooges as the means and
methods to commit two or more racketeering activities to obtain the objectives of the
DOJ CCE.
d. The DOJ CCE has knowingly, in bad faith, and with depravity, and wanton recklessness
since December 20, 2007, has resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and since August 18,
2009, resisted the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects in violation of 18
USC 401(3), and other statutes.
e. Unless immediately held in contempt, enjoined, and restrained the DOJ CCE and its willing
participants will continue to resist and disobey the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgments’ res
judicata preclusive effects; and Ulysses T. Ware will continue to suffer irreparable RICO,
civil contempt, criminal contempt, and fraud on the court harms, injuries, and damages.
Page 150 of 198

W. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”).
Jeffrey B. Norris, Joan E. McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Stephen Webster, et al.
a. Beginning in or about 2003, and continuing to the present, April 2023, the SEC knowingly
colluded, acted in concert, and conspired with the USAO, the FBI, Kent J. Dawson, William
H. Pauley, III, and others both known and unknown, and orchestrated an unprecedented
criminal fraud—that is, aided, abetted, and facilitated the USAO and the FBI, special agent
David Makol, et al., and enabled, orchestrated, and fabricated the Bootleg Grand Jury
proceedings in 03-0831 (D. NV).
b. The SEC acting by and through Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, Joan E. McKown,
Stephen Webster, and others, jointly, (the “SEC”), in 2003 during the 03-0831 (D. NV)
Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings arranged with District Judge Kent J. Dawson, a criminal,
the USAO and the FBI and coordinated the Bootleg Grand Jury, circumvented the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, (the “Federal Rules”), and agreed, gathered, and unlawfully
collected evidence using the civil rules of procedure for use in the USAO’s criminal
proceedings, 04cr1224 and 05cr1115; and agreed and deliberately violated Ulysses T.
Ware’s constitutional right to remain silent.
c. In 2007 during the USAO’s 04cr1224 prosecution the SEC, the USAO’s prosecutors, and
Robert W. Sweet, coordinated, arranged, planned, and facilitated the known perjured and
Page 151 of 198

false testimony of SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, approved by SEC chief counsel Joan E.
McKown.
d. Sweet, the SEC, Norris, McKown, and the USAO knowingly, willfully, in bad faith,
conspired to conceal and suppress Norris’ professional bad acts, i.e., Brady impeachment
evidence, in willful and bad faith resistance and disobedience to the August 10, 2007,
Dkt. 32, Brady Court Order, (04cr1224), professional bad acts for which Norris had been
sanctioned by the SEC in 2007.
e. From November 20, 2007, to the present, April 2023, the SEC has conspired, colluded,
acted in concert, and racketeered with the USAO, and has willfully and in bad faith failed
to undertake its duty of candor to the federal court—that is, knowingly committed a fraud
on the court, and come forth and admitted that Norris and the USAO knowingly
committed perjury and presented false and misleading testimony during the 04cr1224
trial regarding the Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings.
f. From December 20, 2007, to the present, April 2023, the SEC has willfully and in bad faith
resisted the Rule 41 Judgment’s preclusive effects, and refused to notify and inform the
federal courts regarding the frauds on the court committed by the USAO during the
Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings, committed during 04cr1224, and committed by the
USAO, the UPSO, and Sweet after trial in 2007.
Page 152 of 198

X. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by William H. Pauley, III.
a. Beginning in or about 2001 District Judge William H. Pauley, III, and continuing to his death
in 2021, without interruption, Judge Pauley, colluded, conspired, acted in concert, and
knowingly and willfully directly and indirectly participated in, and aided, abetted, and
facilitated the loan sharking and money laundering racketeering activities of the RICO CCE
by obstructing justice, hiding, concealing, and suppressing dispositive Brady exculpatory
evidence, lied and committed perjury in open court on numerous occasions;
b. Pauley knowingly conspired with the USAO, the RICO CCE’s participants, the SEC, the
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), the District Court (NDGA) and resisted the res judicata
preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgment;
c. Pauley beginning in 2006 knowingly conspired with the FBI, the USAO, the SEC, the
Bankruptcy Court, the State Bar, the RICO CCE, and others and orchestrated and
coordinated the State Bar’s fraudulent 2008 purported disbarment of Ulysses T. Ware as
an overt act to enable the collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt;
d. Pauley in 2005 conspired with the RICO CCE’s participants and in open court shouted in
an angry and delusional tone, “ … Mr. Ware you have violated orders of the 02cv2219
(SDNY) district court and have not provided bogus and fraudulent legal opinions to the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers, therefore I am requiring that you appear at all proceedings
in person regarding this matter ….” (paraphrased) (emphasis in original).
Page 153 of 198

e. Pauley from 2001 to his death in 2021, without interruption, acted and functioned as a
covert agent, an unindicted coconspirator, and willing participant in the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt’s creation, collection, money laundering, and protection racketeering
operations; and Pauley aided and abetted the USAO, the District Court (SDNY), and the
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) to knowingly and deliberately, in bad faith resist the preclusive
res judicata effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and the Gov-I Final Judgment.
f. From 2005 to this death in 2021, without interruption, Pauley knowingly and in bad faith
functioned as a covert agent of the USAO and SEC , and colluded, and conspired with the
RICO CCE’s participants, the USAO, the SEC, the FBI, Marlon G. Kirton, the USPO, the
District Court (NDGA), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the State Bar, the
District Court (D. NV), the District Court (SDNY), Ruby Krajick, Edward T.M. Garland, Gary
G. Becker, Michael H. Dolinger, Alexander H. Southwell, Michael J. Garcia, Michael F.
Bachner, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS, and other Unindicted
Coconspirators; and Pauley willfully resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata
effects, coordinated the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings in such an obstructive manner to
obstruct justice, and protect the loan sharking and money laundering racketeering
activities of the RICO CCE by the willful commission of two or more racketeering activities,
to wit, mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, honest services conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
racketeering to obstruct justice, money laundering, RICO unlawful debt creation and
collection, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
Page 154 of 198

Y. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Robert W. Sweet.
a. From beginning in 2004 and continuing to his death in 2019, Robert W. Sweet, without
interruption, acted and functioned as a covert agent of the USAO, the RICO CCE, and the
Unindicted Coconspirators; and agreed, acted in concert, aided, abetted, facilitated, and
enabled the continued creation and collection of RICO unlawful debts by the RICO CCE
and its participants; and
b. from 2007 until his death in 2019 Sweet colluded and conspired with the USAO, the SEC,
and the RICO CCE’s participants, and committed two or more racketeering activities and
obstructed justice, and Sweet knowingly resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the
Rule 41 Final Judgment to the extent to obstruct justice and refused to reverse, vacate,
and annul the conviction, sentence, and fines fraudulently imposed by Sweet in the U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings while Sweet and the USAO lacked an 18 USC 3231
“offense” in the 04cr1224 charging document.
c. Sweet aided, abetted, and assisted the USPO and Thomas J. McCarthy to fabricate and
falsify the presentencing report (“PSI”) filed in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
d. Sweet, the USPO, and McCarthy agreed, arranged, and orchestrated, and Sweet
coordinated the preparation, drafting, and filing into the Court the false PSI as the criminal
means and methods on behalf of the RICO CCE to enable the RICO CCE to obtain
purported restitution of $1.1 million, the amount of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
Page 155 of 198

e. Sweet, the USPO, McCarthy, and the USAO in 2009 willfully and in bad faith resisted the
Rule 41 res judicata preclusive effects and entered a null and void ab initio consecutive
sentence in 04cr1224 on behalf of the RICO CCE.
f. Sweet, the USPO, the USAO, and McCarthy’s crimes, frauds, frauds on the court, civil and
criminal contempts, and racketeering activities caused and will continue to cause
irreparable injuries, harms, and damages to Ulysses T. Ware.
Z. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan) apropos
02cv2219 vis-à-vis 03-93031 (BC NDGA).
a. Beginning in 2012 and continuing to the present, April 2023, the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit’s judges, Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan, (the “Circuit Judges”),
criminally aligned themselves with the RICO CCE, agreed and colluded, conspired,
obstructed justice, aided, abetted, and facilitated the RICO CCE to continue to collect the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt and entered non-sensical orders in two petitions for writ
of mandamus filed by Ulysses T. Ware regarding the 93031 Bankruptcy Court’s frauds on
the court committed by KTS, and the Bankruptcy Court.
b. The Circuit Judges in 2012-13 knowingly, deliberately, and in bad faith resisted the res
judicata preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment on the 93031 Bankruptcy Court’s
proceedings and colluded and conspired with the RICO CCE participants, and rigged and
fixed the mandamus proceedings and aided and abetted the RICO unlawful debt
collection operations of the RICO CCE.
Page 156 of 198

c. The Circuit Judges conspired and were knowingly complicit in the Bankruptcy Court’s
malicious resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects by
their completely frivolous and fraudulent mandamus rulings.
Signed this 16th day of April 2023, under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal
knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, in Brooklyn, NY.
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Brooklyn, NY
Page 157 of 198

Exhibits
Page 158 of 198

Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/22 and sum
certain compensatory actual damages claim calculation.
There are 5,393 days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/22 multiplied by $225,000 per day in
irreparable damages = $1.213.4B in total civil contempt and fraud on the court compensation.
Page 159 of 198

Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 160 of 198

Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(XAP)(2d Cir.).
Page 161 of 198

End of
document.
Page 162 of 198

Appendix T—Clear and convincing evidence: Declaration of 2003-06 SEC-
DOJ Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction
of justice by Ulysses T. Ware—the alleged “scheme to defraud” was a legal
and factual impossibility.
Page 163 of 198

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (107M)
Filed on 1/23/2023 8:00:27 AM
United States District Court
Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, & Taylor-Swain

___________
Ulysses T. Ware’s Motion for a Franks v. Delaware

evidentiary hearing, entry of briefing schedule, and
dismissal with prejudice of the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) indictment for criminal prosecutorial misconduct
before the magistrate court, the grand jury, the
05cr1115 trial jury, and the 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) court of
appeals.
_____________
Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Monday, January 23, 2023
Page 164 of 198

Table of Contents
Requested reliefs. ................................................................................................................................. 167

Preliminary statement. ........................................................................................................................ 169
The legal standard, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and its progeny. ................................. 171
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware—the relevant facts in support of the Franks evidentiary hearing. .. 176
The reasons why relief is required to be granted Discussion and analysis. ....................................... 180
Summary and conclusions. ........................................................................................................................ 181
Certificate of service. ................................................................................................................................. 182
Exhibit 1: 1115 indictment---2005 Perjured, bogus, fabricated, and fraudulent U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) indictment’s alleged “scheme to defraud” regarding the Las Vegas DOJ-SEC Bootleg Grand Jury
Proceedings: the DOJ’s and District Court’s intentionally perjured and materially false allegations of (i)
“engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of and market demand for INZS stock” and
(ii) “artificially pumping up the price and volume of the INZS stock ….” Required to be proved at trial
beyond a reasonable doubt via expert testimony, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Fraudulent Indictment”). ...... 183
Exhibit 2-1: FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony in 05cr1115 under brutal cross-examination by
Ulysses T. Ware, in tears, capitulated, confessed, and admitted there was no evidence that anyone ever
read any “press releases” or that the volume or price was “artificially inflated” or affected by “press
releases”—Brady exculpatory and impeachment actual innocent evidence—Jencks Act and Giglio
evidence. ............................................................................................................................................... 184
Exhibit 2-2: Regarding GX 92 and GX 93—the government’s counterfeit, Fugazi, fabricated, and
fraudulent U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial exhibits entered via AUSA Alexander H. Southwell
through FBI analyst Maria A. Font. ........................................................................................................ 185
Exhibit 2-3 (Con’t) from Ex. 2-2 regarding FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony regarding GX 92 and
GX 93, the alleged proof of “artificial” “inflation” of INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ “prices” “caused by” “press
releases” disseminated by INZS and SVSY. ............................................................................................. 186
Exhibit 3: Para. 33 (03-0831)--Concealed and suppressed Brady exculpatory actual innocent evidence--
2003 Las Vega 03-0831 (D. NV) DOJ-SEC illegal and unconstitutional Boot Leg Grand Jury proceedings
bogus and fabricated complaint’s para. 33, a binding judicial confession and admission—collateral
estoppel on the United States and its privies in the 03-0831 (D. NV), U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and In re Ware, State Bar of GA proceedings (2008). ................................. 187
Exhibit 4-1: FBI’s and DOJ’s Fraudulent and bogus affidavit for the 2005 Complaint for arrest warrants.
Intentionally perjured and materially misleading affidavit of FBI special agent David Makol, Andrew J.
Peck, Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the SEC, and AUSA Alexander H. Southwell—perjured and
fabricated probable cause for arrest warrants for Ulysses T. Ware and Jeremy Jones, (the “DOJ’s Jim
Crow Kidnapping Warrants”) based on the SEC and DOJ’s unconstitutional and illegal conspiratorial Las
Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings to fraudulent convict Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.—a retaliatory SEC-
DOJ Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy. ....................................................................... 188
Page 165 of 198

Exhibit 4-2 (con’t). ................................................................................................................................. 188
Exhibit 4-3 (con’t) .................................................................................................................................. 190
Exhibit 4-4 (con’t) .................................................................................................................................. 191
Exhibit 4-5 (Con’t): FBI special agent David Makol’s deliberate and intentional perjury, lies, material
misrepresentations, and fraud committed with the consent of the SEC, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the SEC, and magistrate judge Andrew J.
Peck. Makol asserted that he “reviewed” the SEC’s 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint’s ¶33, see Ex. 3, supra,
and nevertheless lied and committed perjury in the affidavit as a retaliatory Jim Crow racially-motivated
DOJ-SEC hate crime conspiracy.............................................................................................................. 192
Exhibit 5: Fraudulent and fabricate “scheme to defraud” manufactured by AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, and FBI special agent David Makol’s known and intentionally perjured, and materially false,
and fraudulent testimony before the grand jury for 2005 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment for Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq. in contradiction to ¶33 in the SEC-DOJ’s illegal and unconstitutional Las Vegas 2003 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings complaint. Contradicted and impeachment by, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3,
supra—concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence. .. 193
Exhibit 6: Gov’t’s 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) perjured appeals brief prepared by AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin,
Andrew L. Fish, with the consent and approval of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia, and their supervisors,
excerpt regarding alleged “artificial” “inflation” of “increase” of stocks’ “prices” and “volume” allegedly
“caused by” “press releases.” The trial testimony of FBI analyst Maria A. Font, Ex. 2, and the United
States binding judicial admissions and confession in ¶33, Ex. 3, supra, supra, vitiated, and impeached
the gov’t bogus and fraudulent assertions in its 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) trivially frivolous and fraudulent
appeal brief. ........................................................................................................................................... 194
Exhibit 7: Southwell (DOJ) and Norris’ (SEC) official email evidence dated October 6, 2004--actual
innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence of the SEC and DOJ’s USAO (SDNY) illegal
communications, contact, and commingling of the 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury
proceedings and the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, and 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings. ............................... 195
impeachment evidence the SEC and DOJ concealed from the magistrate court, the grand jury, the
defense, and the trial jury in violation of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17 (Pauley, J.). ........................... 196
Page 166 of 198

Requested reliefs.
Comes now Ulysses T. Ware, the Petitioner, and moves the District Court (SDNY) in
22cv3409 and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) based on the record presented herein, request the
Court enter the following relief:
1. enter a briefing schedule regarding this matter to have the interested parties submit their
position on the facts and the law, and;
2. set down this matter for a Franks v. Delaware evidentiary hearing to resolve all factual
disputes, to the receive evidence, and take the oral testimony of Edgardo Ramos,57
Andrew J. Peck, Kent J. Dawson, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Alexander H. Southwell,58 David
Makol, Steven D. Feldman, Katherine Polk-Failla, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria
E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Jeffrey B. Norris, Marlon G.
57
Edgardo Ramos will be subpoenaed, compelled, and confront as a hostile material fact witness during the Franks
evidentiary hearing to give testimony on his concealment, and suppression of actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in the file record of 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings—all ex parte communications and in-
camera inspections, sealing orders, Rule 11 plea documents associated with Jeremy Jones, and all government 1115
trial witnesses, i.e., judicial public records, the 1115 “sealed complaint’s” supporting documents, the grand jury
proceedings, and other relevant matters.
58
Former AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Michael J. Garcia, and Nicholas S. Goldin were the
leaders, organizers, and the ringleaders who facilitated, organized, and enable the DOJ’s collusion and conspiracy
with the SEC, the FBI, and the federal judiciary to conduct the illegal and unconstitutional 2003 DOJ-SEC Bootleg
Grand Jury proceedings, cf., Ex. 4-5, infra; fabricated and manufactured the “sealed complaint;” fabricated and
manufactures the 05cr1115 indictment; arranged and facilitated to have FBI analyst Maria A. Font fabricate and falsify
trial evidence, GX 92 and GX 93; conspired with Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Gary G.
Becker, and Michael F. Bachner, to deliberately and intentionally violate Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.’s Sixth Amendment
right to the effective assistance of independent legal counsel; had Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. deliberately and
intentionally violate Jeremy Jones’s Sixth Amendment rights to an effective, assistance of independent, unbiased,
non-conflicted legal counsel by having Jones enter the alleged September 2006 bogus, fraudulent, and fabricated
Rule 11 plea of guilty in 05cr1115 to S1, and Southwell deliberately and intentionally lied and committed perjury
before the magistrate court, the grand jury, and at trial in 2007 in violation of DOJ and NYS Bar Association Rules of
Professional Conduct 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4. The defendants’ purported Sixth Amendment legal counsels all worked,
covertly, with the DOJ and were “controlled government agents” in violation of the Due Process Clause, and 18 USC
2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, 1621, and 2071.
Page 167 of 198

Kirton, Jeremy Jones, Carlton Epps, Spencer C. Barasch, Robert Hannan, Stephen Webster,
John C. Martin, Steve R. Peikin, Joan E. McKown, Maria A. Font, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L.
Kearse, Michael F. Bachner, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel,
and Gary G. Becker, jointly, (the “Material Fact Witnesses”); and
3. After the conclusion of the Franks hearing vacate the arrest warrants of Ulysses T. Ware
and Jeremy Jones, suppress all evidence and testimony obtained by the USAO from the
SEC that was used in the 1115 and 1224 trials, reverse, vacate, and set aside the 1115
indictment, conviction, and expired by operation of law sentence of Ulysses T. Ware ,
dismiss the 1115 indictment with prejudice, nunc pro tunc October 2005, expunge all
records and proceedings in 1115, and set this matter down for sanctioning proceedings.
Page 168 of 198

Preliminary statement.
On or about July 14, 2003, the United States via the SEC in collusion and conspiracy with
the USAO’s prosecutors, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Kenneth A. Zitter, Edward M. Grushko,
and others, an illegal association-in-fact, as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), filed their unsigned,
commingled, fraudulent, fabricated, and manifestly frivolous, and bad faith complaint, Dkt.1 in
SEC v. Investment Technology, Inc., (“INZS”), 03-0831 (D. NV), (the “Risible Complaint”).59 The
United States pleaded in para. 33 in the Risible Complaint, see Ex. 3, infra, a binding judicial
admission and confession—judicial, equitable, and collateral estoppel against the United States
and its privies in all subsequent judicial proceedings, i.e., U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), that the INZS and SVSY’s press releases were immaterial—that is, (i)
were not the “cause” and (ii) “did not … increase or ‘artificially’ ‘inflate’ or ‘pump up the stock’s
prices.’” (paraphrased) (the “Acquittal Judicial Admission” or “USAO’s Mooting Event”).60
In September 2005 the United State via the USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell
(“Southwell”) and former FBI special agent David Makol (“Makol”) as an overt act in furtherance
of the SEC and DOJ’s retaliatory Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy appeared
59
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. was named as a defendant in the Complaint, however, see Ex. 8, infra, the United States did
not name Jeremy Jones or its 1115 trial witnesses in the Complaint, (the “USAO’s Witnesses”), because, according to
the opinions of the SEC’s and DOJ’s lawyers involved in the 03-0831 litigation (the “Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings”),
“believed the deposition testimony of the USAO’s Witnesses they were not involved in any conspiracy, and had they
known of any alleged conspiracy would not have become involved in the alleged conspiracy.” (paraphrased). Which
raises the relevant conundrum, riddle, and enigma: If the United States believed there was no conspiracy between
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. and the USAO’s Witnesses, and did not include the USAO’s Witnesses in the Bootleg Grand Jury
proceedings, then who did Mr. Ware allegedly conspire with? An 18 USC 371 conspiracy cannot be legally predicated
or sustained on a theory of a conspiracy with oneself.
60
The SEC-DOJ’s binding judicial admission pleaded in ¶33 of the Risible Complaint pleaded the United States and its
privies out of the Article III federal courts—that is, the SEC and DOJ’s judicial admission vitiated and eviscerated an
Article III justiciable controversy and jurisdiction over the moot subject matter, the INZS and SVSY press releases.
Page 169 of 198

before Magistrate Judge (SDNY) Andrew J. Peck and sought bogus and fraudulent arrest warrants
for Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.61 and Jeremy Jones based on the perjured and false factual predicates
contained in the affidavit of Makol, see Ex. 4-5, infra; and Southwell and Makol knowingly,
willfully, deliberately, and intentionally in bad faith concealed and suppressed the Acquittal
Judicial Admission and other exculpatory materials from consideration by the magistrate court in
its “independent” probable cause calculus.
The magistrate court being deceived and deliberately, and/or recklessly misled and lied
to by the United States agents, Southwell and Makol, inappropriately found probable cause,
lacking a credible independent factual basis, and issued bogus and fabricated arrest warrants for
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. and Jeremy Jones based on the lies and perjury contained in the United
States affidavit submitted by former FBI special agent David Makol and AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, see Ex. 4, infra.
Southwell and Makol obtained the fraudulent arrest warrants, and offered Mr. Ware a
risible opportunity to plead guilty to the fabricated allegations in the Government bogus
complaint, Ex. 4. The offer to plead guilty was rejected by Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., and in malicious
retaliation Southwell and Makol then appeared before a federal grand jury, and again lied,
committed perjury, and materially misled the grand jury with the same lies and perjury presented
61
The SEC and DOJ sought to retaliate against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., Group Management Corp. (“GPMT”), the
defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY), (“2219”), litigation securities counsel, because Mr. Ware refused to draft, sign, and
issue bogus, fraudulent, and criminal Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 2219 plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers,
and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s restricted securities, government trial exhibits in U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) GX 1-4, in order to cover a margin call, and to impede the required 15 USC 78p(b)
disgorgement back to GPMT of +$500 million in market value and profits derived from the trading in GPMT’s
securities by the 2219 plaintiffs—affiliates and statutory insiders of GPMT ineligible for any exemption to 15 USC 77e
strict-liability registration requirements. See SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995).
Page 170 of 198

to the magistrate court in Makol’s perjured affidavit, Ex. 4, infra, to obtain the bogus, risible, and
manifestly moot U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment, see Ex. 1, infra.62
The legal standard, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and its progeny.
The Court in the Franks decision set forth the rule of law applicable to challenging the
Government’s probable cause to arrest or search. The rule of law being:
Where a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing—see Declaration of Ulysses

T. Ware, attached herein, and the attached exhibits, infra, that a false statement [made
by FBI special agent David Makol in the “sealed complaint,” Ex. 4, infra] knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by an affiant in an
arrest warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of
probable cause, U.S. Const. amend. IV requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's
request. In the event that at the hearing the allegation of (i) perjury or (ii) reckless
disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with
the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is
insufficient to establish probable cause, the search or arrest warrant must be voided and
the fruits of the search or arrest excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was
lacking on the face of the affidavit.63
62
See Ex. 1, the fraudulent and fabricated alleged “Scheme to Defraud” prosecution theory alleged by Southwell,
Makol, Michael J. Garcia, and the United States in contradiction, vitiated, and impeached by ¶33 in the 03-0831 (D.
NV) complaint, see Ex. 3—a binding judicial admission, and equitable, judicial, and collateral estoppel against the
United States and its privies in all subsequent proceedings (04cr1224 and 05cr1115), which precluded Southwell and
Makol from presenting the bogus and perjured “Scheme to Defraud” allegations to the magistrate court, the federal
grand jury, and the trial jury.
63
Probable cause to arrest or indict Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. ipso facto as a matter of law and fact was lacking as of the
SEC’s and DOJ’s prosecutors illegal and unconstitutional July 14, 2003, filing of the bogus, fraudulent, bad faith, and
manifestly frivolous (Fugazi) Las Vegas (D. NV) 03-0831 complaint’s ¶33, see Ex. 3, infra—the binding judicial
admission and confession, judicial, equitable, and collateral estoppel against the real party in interest and its privies,
the United States, in all subsequent proceedings, to wit, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), based on the same subject
matter as the 03-0831 civil proceedings—the immaterial and moot press releases of INZS and SVSY (cf., the SEC’s
lawyers’ judicial admission, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, ¶33 judicial admission
and confession there was no “increase” or “artificial” “inflation” in the “price” of INZS or SVSY’s stocks) which
pleaded the United States out of the federal courts (03-0831 and 05cr1115) on July 14, 2003, as a matter of law
and fact—as of July 14, 2003, there was no live Article III justiciable controversy between the parties with respect to
INZS and SVSY’s press releases’ affects of INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ “prices.” The subject matter, INZS and SVSY’s press
releases, is not actionable in the Article III federal courts and is moot. Accordingly, the 03-0831 and 05cr1115
proceedings are null and void ab initio.
Page 171 of 198

The Fourth Amendment enshrines “[]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and provides that “no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation . . . .” U.S. Const.
Amend. IV. “[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to comprise
‘probable cause,’ the obvious assumption is that there will be a truthful showing . . . in the sense
that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.” Franks
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 164-65 (1978) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis
in original).
“It is established law . . . that a[n] [arrest] warrant affidavit [see Ex. 4, infra, Affidavit of
former FBI special agent David Makol for arrest warrants for Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. and Jeremy
Jones] must set forth [true] particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of
probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter.”
Id. at 165. (emphasis added). “Because it is the magistrate [Judge Andrew J. Peck] who must
determine independently whether there is probable cause, . . . it would be an unthinkable
imposition upon his authority if a warrant affidavit, [cf., Ex. 4-5, infra]64 revealed after the fact to
64
Makol, the USAO (SDNY), and the SEC all knew in September 2005 probable cause to arrest or indict Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq. with respect to the immaterial INZS and SVSY’s press releases was a legal and factual impossibility--Makol
admitted that he (the FBI) and the USAO (SDNY)’s criminal prosecutors had illegal contact and illegal communications
with the SEC, see Ex. 4-5, ¶¶ 10, 11, and 12, infra: after “speaking with a staff member of the SEC [involved in the
Las Vegas DOJ-SEC 03-0831 (D. NV) commingled, illegal, and unconstitutional Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings, i.e.,
SEC lawyers Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, John C. Martin, Stephen Webster, or Robert Hannan], which ipso
facto triggered the protections of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, triggered the requirement the 03-0831
(D. NV) District Judge, Kent J. Dawson, was required to stay the Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) alleged civil proceedings,
and fundamentally triggered the protections of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause rights of Ulysses T. Ware,
Esq.--the right to remain silent during the 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury ultra vires, extra-judicial criminal
Page 172 of 198

contain a deliberately or reckless false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.” Id.
(emphasis added).
“[W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant
[David Makol with the actual consent and approval of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia, et al.] in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false
statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a
hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” Id. at 155-56. (emphasis added).
At a Franks hearing, if the defendant establishes the affiant’s (i) material false statement
or (ii) reckless disregard of the truth by a preponderance of the evidence, the warrant “‘must be
voided’ and evidence or testimony gathered pursuant to it must be excluded.” United States v.
Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 156). A warrant that is held
invalid under these circumstances “is not subject to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary
rule pursuant to United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984).” Id. That is because when an
officer [Makol and Southwell with the approval and consent of Michael J. Garcia] secures a
proceedings. See United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12, n. 23, n.24 (1970) (once a criminal investigator [former FBI
special agent David Makol, see Ex. 4-5, ¶11, infra] becomes involved in a civil proceeding brought by the United
States [i.e., the 2003 03-0831 (D. NV) Law Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury proceeding] , the Fed. Rules of Crim. P. are
triggered, and the defendants in the civil proceeding are required to be given notice of the “contemplation” of a
criminal proceeding involving the same subject matter as the civil proceeding, else due process of law is violated,
and the United States and its privies are prohibited from any use of the evidence obtained in the civil proceeding
[03-0831] in the “contemplated” criminal proceedings [U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), or U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY)—disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris testified for the government as a purported FRE 404(b) ‘bad
act’ witness in November 2007 during the 04cr1224 trial and knowingly and intentionally, with the consent and
approval of the USAO’s prosecutors, Norris lied, committed perjury, fabricated, and falsified trial evidence regarding
issues and matters in the 03-0831 (D. NV) proceedings]).
Page 173 of 198

warrant based on information known to be false, or in reckless disregard of the truthfulness or
falsity of the information presented to demonstrate probable cause, he or she has by definition
not acted in good faith. And such a person obviously cannot in good faith rely on the magistrate’s
issuance of the warrant as an independent judicial finding of probable cause.
In Franks, the Court made it clear that where the defense has proof [see Ex. 2, 3, 4, and
5, infra] that the affiant [former FBI special agent, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, and U.S.
Attorney Michael J. Garcia] (i) lied and/or committed perjury or (ii) acted with a reckless disregard
for the truth with respect to some material statement65 in the affidavit [see Ex. 1, Ex. 4-5, and
Ex. 5, infra] a hearing regarding such is required. A deliberate falsehood by a nonaffiants’ [AUSA
Alexander H. Southwell and U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia], fellow officer may fall within the
Franks rule.
To be guilty of 'reckless disregard for the truth,' the officer [FBI special agent Makol and
Southwell] must have entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the information inserted in the
affidavit [Ex. 4, infra]—Makol, Southwell, Garcia, and Peck all knew or in reckless disregard for
the truth of ¶33 in the July 14, 2003, 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint, see Ex. 3, infra, there was no
65
FBI special agent David Makol “lied” and/or knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally committed perjury with the
consent and approval of the DOJ’s USAO’s prosecutors and the SEC’s lawyers apropos: (1) the lie and perjury there
was “artificial inflation” or “increase” in the (a) “volume” or (b) “prices” of INZS or SVSY’s securities given the binding
judicial confession and admission pleaded in ¶33 of the 03-0831 complaint, see Ex. 3, infra, “there was no increase
in the stocks’ prices” (paraphrased) known on or before July 14, 2003, by the SEC and the United States, the real
party in interest—Makol, the USAO (SDNY) prosecutors, and the SEC’s lawyers all were bound in U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) as privies of the United States by the United States Judicial Admission’s judicial, equitable, and
collateral estoppel regarding the lack of “artificial” “inflation” or “increase” or “pumped up” the “volume” or “prices”
of INZS and SVSY’s stocks—which ipso facto, as a matter of law and fact as of, or before, July 14, 2003,the filing date
of the unsigned Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint, rendered probable cause to arrest or indict Ulysses T. Ware,
Esq. and Jeremy Jones a legal and factual impossibility.
Page 174 of 198

probable cause to arrest Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., and Jeremy Jones in 2005 given the United States
binding judicial admissions and confessions pleaded in the 2003 Bootleg Grand Jury complaint’s
¶33, see Ex. 3, infra, and by the testimony of FBI analyst Maria A. Font at trial in April 2007, see
Ex. 2-1, infra, there was no “artificial inflation” or “increase” in the “prices” or “volume” of the
securities of INZS and SVSY made by the SEC’s lawyers’ judicial admissions and confession in the
Las Vegas 2003 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings; and also knew there was no
conspiracy between Ulysses T. Ware and the government 1115 trial witnesses that were
employed by Mr. Ware given Ex. 8, infra (Norris’ actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment email to Jeremy Jones).
Page 175 of 198

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware—the relevant facts in support of the Franks evidentiary
hearing.
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 22nd day of January 2023, under oath, subject to the penalty
of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, in the city of Brooklyn, NY, pursuant to 28
USC 1746, make this Declaration of materials and fact state the following facts.
Fact 1
On or about July 14, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC’s”)
lawyers in collusion and while conspiring with the DOJ’s U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY), (“USAO”),
and the 03-0831 trial judge, Kent J. Dawson, filed the unsigned complaint in US SEC v. Investment
Technology Inc., et al., 03-0831 (D. NV) (Dawson, J.), (“0831”), which judicially admitted,
confessed, and pleaded the United States and its privies out of the federal courts by pleading in
¶33, see Ex. 3, infra,
Exhibit 3, paragraph 33 in the 2003 SEC-DOJ’s 0831 complaint.
Fact 2
Paragraph 33, Ex. 3, is judicial, equitable, and collateral estoppel against the United
States, and its privies (the FBI, the USAO, the U.S. Probation Office, the Bureau of Prisons, the
U.S. Marshals, etc.), (the “United States”)—a binding judicial admission of the United States and
its privies, in all subsequent proceedings, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (“1115”), and U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”); and ipso facto as a matter of fact vitiated and annulled all
probable cause as of July 14, 2003, with respect to the subject matter of the 0831 judicial
proceeding—the press releases of INZS and SVSY (the “Moot Subject Matter”); and pleaded the
United States out of the federal courts with respect to the Moot Subject Matter.
Fact 3
Page 176 of 198

As of on or before July 14, 2003, the filing date of the 0831 complaint, the United States
66definitively, and without any doubt based on its illegal and unconstitutional Bootleg Grand Jury
investigation, knew there was no alleged “artificial” “increase” or “pumped up” or “inflation” of
INZS or SVSY’s (the “Stocks’”) “prices” or “volume” “caused by” “press releases” issued by INZS
or SVSY, (the “Immaterial Press Releases”); yet in its September 2005 “sealed complaint’s”
affidavit of FBI special agent David Makol, see Ex. 4-5, infra, (the “Perjured Affidavit”), Makol and
AUSA Southwell knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, committed perjury, and/or with reckless
disregard of the July 14, 2003, ¶33 of the Complaint lied, committed perjury, or in reckless
disregard for the truth, to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, see Ex. 4-1, infra, and knowingly
asserted in ¶¶10, and 11, there was “artificial inflation” of the Stocks’ “prices.”
Exhibit 4-5: the Perjured Affidavit's para. 10 and 11
Fact 4
In the Perjured Affidavit’s ¶10, Makol and Southwell both knowingly and deliberately
lied, committed perjury, and deliberately misled the magistrate court by lying and falsely
66
The USAO, the DOJ, the AOC, the USPO, the US BOP, AUSA Southwell, FBI special agent Makol, FBI analyst Maria A.
Font, cf., Ex. 2, infra, Font’s perjured and fabricated trial testimony manufactured with the consent and request of
AUSA Southwell, all privies of the United States are deemed aware of, and are bound by the United States judicial
admissions made in ¶33, Ex. 3, regarding the mootness of the INZS and SVSY immaterial press releases.
Page 177 of 198

asserting in furtherance of the alleged “scheme to defraud” “to artificially inflate the market
prices of and the market demand for INZS stock in early 2002” (the “Perjured Scheme”) … “there
is probable cause to believe that in order to fraudulently induce investors to purchase INZS stock,
Ware and Jones caused press releases containing materially false and misleading information
concerning INZS to be posted on the Internet in or about January and February 2002” (emphasis
added), while knowing and being bound by the United States July 14, 2003, ¶33 binding judicial
admission and confession made in Ex. 3, infra.
Fact 5
The magistrate court (Peck, J.) was willingly duped, relied on, and based its finding of
probable cause on the apparent veracity of the Perjured Affidavit’s assertions contained in ¶10
and 11—the only record evidence presented to the magistrate court by the United States, 67 in
the finding of probable cause to issue arrest warrants for Ulysses T. Ware and Jeremy Jones;
which without the lying, false, and perjured assertions in the Perjured Affidavit, in particular ¶¶10
and 11, the magistrate court would not have had any independent factual basis to find probable
cause the alleged Perjured Scheme existed; nor possessed an independent factual basis to
believe probable cause existed to find a conspiracy existed between Ulysses T. Ware, Jeremy
Jones, or any 1115 government trial witness given the concealed and suppressed Brady actual
innocent exculpatory and impeachment SEC’s email to Jeremy Jones, Ex. 8, infra, which was in
the possession of the SEC, the USAO, and Makol when appearing in the magistrate court in 2005
seeking the bogus kidnapping arrest warrants.68
Fact 6
The United States had in its possession before July 14, 2003, Ex. 8, and when appearing
in the magistrate court in 2005 seeking the arrest warrants the actual innocent Brady exculpatory
and impeachment evidence—the official opinion of the SEC’s lawyers involved in the Las Vegas
Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings, had known that Jeremy Jones and the 1115 trial government
witnesses were not involved in a conspiracy with Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. to commit the Perjured
Scheme regarding the Stocks’ “prices.” Actual innocent evidence the United States deliberated
and intentionally concealed and suppressed from the magistrate court, the grand jury, the
defense, and the trial jury as “an unconscionable plan and scheme” to commit a conspiracy to
67
According to the 1115 record and docket the only evidence presented to the magistrate court in the United States
arrest application, (the “Warrant Application”), was the affidavit of former special agent David Makol, the Perjured
Affidavit. Therefore, accordingly, the magistrate court lacked an “independent” factual basis to establish probable
cause in the absence of the Perjured Affidavit’s assertions.
68
The magistrate court (Peck, J.), and Ramos, J., are required to produce and disclose the transcripts and all
materials presented, and testimony of all persons who appeared before the magistrate court in the application
proceedings to obtain the September 2005 arrest warrants for Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. and Jeremy Jones.
Page 178 of 198

commit fraud on the court; and violations of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1519, 1621,
and 2071.
Fact 7
Had the United States not concealed and suppressed Ex. 8, but presented Ex. 8 to the
magistrate court during the Arrest Warrant Application, and had the magistrate court possessed
Ex. 8, infra, it would not have had an alternative independent factual basis to find probable cause
to believe an 18 USC 371 conspiracy offense had been committed or existed between Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq., Jeremy Jones, and/or the government’s 1115 trial witnesses who were employed by
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. Probable cause would not have been independently found by the magistrate
court, and arrest warrants not issued to the United States but for the fraud, perjury, lying, fraud
on the court, and conspiracy to commit perjury by the United States agents before the magistrate
court, the grand jury, and the trial court.
Signed this 22nd day of January 2023 in Brooklyn, NY under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury,
having personal knowledge of the facts, and pursuant to 28 USC 1746.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
January 22, 2023.
Page 179 of 198

The reasons why relief is required to be granted Discussion and analysis.
The requested relief, the briefing schedule, the required Franks evidentiary hearing, and
dismissal with prejudice of the 1115 indictment are required to be granted because the affiant,
former FBI special agent, AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin,
Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Michael J. Garcia, and Andrew J. Peck, all
agents and privies of the United States, all bound absolutely by ¶33, Ex. 3, and Ex. 8’s, infra,
preclusive effects on the United States, its agents, and privies; and each, knew and/or in reckless
disregard for the truth knowingly lied and committed perjury in the magistrate court, before the
grand jury, before the trial jury, and before the court of appeal in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d
Cir.)..
The affiant (Makol) and Southwell deliberately lied, committed perjury, and knowingly in
bad faith concealed and suppressed the substance and legal effects of ¶33, see Ex. 3, on the
United States ability to prosecute regarding the Moot Subject Matter—the INZS and SVSY’s press
releases, and both Makol and Southwell agreed, colluded, and conspired to commit a conspiracy
to obstruct justice, and a fraud on the magistrate court by concealing and suppressing Ex. 8 (the
United States concealed Brady exculpatory actual innocent email to Jeremy Jones), and Ex. 3 (the
actual innocent judicial admission that mooted and vitiated all probable cause to arrest or indict
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., and Jeremy Jones).
Page 180 of 198

Summary and conclusions.
The record presented herein this application for a Franks hearing is fully supported by
Exhibits 1-8, and the record facts in the attached Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware, has presented
a prima facie case of government illegality and fraud on the magistrate court apropos its probable
cause affidavit for arrest warrants in 2005, Ex. 4, infra. Moreover, the United States was also
precluded from presenting to the grand jury for probable cause any assertions that contradicted
or was impeached or precluded by the July 14, 2003, ¶33, Ex. 3, binding judicial admission and
confession, and by the facts in Ex. 8 regarding Jeremy Jones and the government’s 1115 trial
witness who were employed by Mr. Ware.
The Franks decision specifically requires an “evidentiary hearing,” Id. at 155-56, when the
applicant presents to the court evidence supported by facts the government’s agents lied, and or
in reckless disregard for the facts and truth misled, misrepresented the facts, or concealed and
suppressed material information from the magistrate court which compromised the magistrate
court’s independence to assess the facts that supported probable cause. Id. Therefore,
accordingly, the requested reliefs are required to be granted.
Submitted by:
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 181 of 198

The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on January 23,
2023.

States
The New York Times
John W. Mills, III
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 182 of 198

Exhibit 1: 1115 indictment---2005 Perjured, bogus, fabricated, and fraudulent U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment’s alleged “scheme to defraud” regarding the Las Vegas DOJ-
SEC Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings: the DOJ’s and District Court’s intentionally perjured
and materially false allegations of (i) “engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of and market demand for INZS stock” and (ii) “artificially pumping up the price and
volume of the INZS stock ….” Required to be proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt via
expert testimony, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Fraudulent Indictment”).
Page 183 of 198

Exhibit 2-1: FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony in 05cr1115 under brutal cross-
examination by Ulysses T. Ware, in tears, capitulated, confessed, and admitted there was
no evidence that anyone ever read any “press releases” or that the volume or price was
“artificially inflated” or affected by “press releases”—Brady exculpatory and impeachment
actual innocent evidence—Jencks Act and Giglio evidence.
Page 184 of 198

Exhibit 2-2: Regarding GX 92 and GX 93—the government’s counterfeit, Fugazi, fabricated,
and fraudulent U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial exhibits entered via AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell through FBI analyst Maria A. Font.
Page 185 of 198

Exhibit 2-3 (Con’t) from Ex. 2-2 regarding FBI analyst Maria A. Font’s trial testimony
regarding GX 92 and GX 93, the alleged proof of “artificial” “inflation” of INZS and SVSY’s
stocks’ “prices” “caused by” “press releases” disseminated by INZS and SVSY.
Page 186 of 198

Exhibit 3: Para. 33 (03-0831)--Concealed and suppressed Brady exculpatory actual
innocent evidence--2003 Las Vega 03-0831 (D. NV) DOJ-SEC illegal and unconstitutional
Boot Leg Grand Jury proceedings bogus and fabricated complaint’s para. 33, a binding
judicial confession and admission—collateral estoppel on the United States and its privies
in the 03-0831 (D. NV), U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and
In re Ware, State Bar of GA proceedings (2008).
Page 187 of 198

Exhibit 4-1: FBI’s and DOJ’s Fraudulent and bogus affidavit for the 2005 Complaint for
arrest warrants. Intentionally perjured and materially misleading affidavit of FBI special
agent David Makol, Andrew J. Peck, Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the SEC, and
AUSA Alexander H. Southwell—perjured and fabricated probable cause for arrest warrants
for Ulysses T. Ware and Jeremy Jones, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Kidnapping Warrants”) based
on the SEC and DOJ’s unconstitutional and illegal conspiratorial Las Vegas Bootleg Grand
Jury proceedings to fraudulent convict Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.—a retaliatory SEC-DOJ Jim
Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy.
Exhibit 4-2 (con’t).
Page 188 of 198

Page 189 of 198
Exhibit 4-3 (con’t)
Page 190 of 198

Exhibit 4-4 (con’t)
Page 191 of 198

Exhibit 4-5 (Con’t): FBI special agent David Makol’s deliberate and intentional perjury, lies,
material misrepresentations, and fraud committed with the consent of the SEC, AUSA
Alexander H. Southwell, U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia, William H. Pauley, III, the
SEC, and magistrate judge Andrew J. Peck. Makol asserted that he “reviewed” the SEC’s
03-0831 (D. NV) complaint’s ¶33, see Ex. 3, supra, and nevertheless lied and committed
perjury in the affidavit as a retaliatory Jim Crow racially-motivated DOJ-SEC hate crime
conspiracy.
Page 192 of 198

Exhibit 5: Fraudulent and fabricate “scheme to defraud” manufactured by AUSA Alexander
H. Southwell, and FBI special agent David Makol’s known and intentionally perjured, and
materially false, and fraudulent testimony before the grand jury for 2005 05cr1115 (SDNY)
indictment for Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. in contradiction to ¶33 in the SEC-DOJ’s illegal and
unconstitutional Las Vegas 2003 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings
complaint. Contradicted and impeachment by, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, supra—concealed and
suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Page 193 of 198

Exhibit 6: Gov’t’s 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) perjured appeals brief prepared by AUSAs Nicholas S.
Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, with the consent and approval of U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia,
and their supervisors, excerpt regarding alleged “artificial” “inflation” of “increase” of
stocks’ “prices” and “volume” allegedly “caused by” “press releases.” The trial testimony
of FBI analyst Maria A. Font, Ex. 2, and the United States binding judicial admissions and
confession in ¶33, Ex. 3, supra, supra, vitiated, and impeached the gov’t bogus and
fraudulent assertions in its 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) trivially frivolous and fraudulent appeal
brief.
Page 194 of 198

Exhibit 7: Southwell (DOJ) and Norris’ (SEC) official email evidence dated October 6, 2004-
-actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence of the SEC and DOJ’s USAO
(SDNY) illegal communications, contact, and commingling of the 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings and the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, and 04cr1224
(SDNY) proceedings.
Page 195 of 198

impeachment evidence the SEC and DOJ concealed from the magistrate court, the grand
jury, the defense, and the trial jury in violation of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17 (Pauley,
J.).
Page 196 of 198

Page 197 of 198
End of Appendices
Page 198 of 198


(01RA) 04.16.23 Re Appendices E Thru T

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

(01RA) 04.16.23 Re Appendices E Thru T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

(01RA) 04.16.23 Re Appendices E Thru T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dockets 07-5222cr (Ware-I)/09-0851cr/11-4181 (01RA)

In the United States Court of Appeals

Respondents United States of America, Appellee, cross-appellant, Andre Damian

OMNIBUS ACTUAL INNOCENT, FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF

Respondents United States of America, Appellee, cross-appellant, and Edgardo

VERIFIED LEAVE TO FILE and APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

“Accordingly, such information [cooperation agreements between law enforcement

1948 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682).” (emphasis added)).

now U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s reasoning.

EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response to Applicant’s FOIA request.8

evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Respectfully submitted by:

cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Henderson and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Garland.

Garland, Circuit Judge:

View Case Cited Cases Citing Case

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

DYK, Circuit Judge.

See attachment for Appx. M

Submitted on May 25, 2021, by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

To: The United States Probation Office (SDNY)

From: Ulysses T. Ware

favorable, exculpatory, or impeachment evidence the Government was required to have

National U.S. Attorney’s Office Brady disclosure requirement policy

evidence. Moreover, according to DOJ regulations all “benefits” offered to or received by a

Orders, Kyles v. Whitney, and DOJ policy.37

1.5(b)(5), 1.5(d)(3) proceedings.

cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Thursday, April 13, 2023, 8:27:25 AM

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Respondents United States of America, Appellee, cross-appellant, and Edgardo

VERIFIED LEAVE TO FILE, APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF MANDATES,

Page 100 of 198

Page 101 of 198

Page 102 of 198

Page 103 of 198

Page 106 of 198

Page 109 of 198

Petitioners’ Declaration in support of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 injunctive relief,

Page 110 of 198

Page 111 of 198

Page 112 of 198

Page 113 of 198

A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit

Page 114 of 198

purported so-called Subscription Agreement, (the “Subscription Agreement”).

as (the “RICO Unlawful Debt Illegal Contracts”).

d. Paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement required GPMT to “register 200%” of

terms therein violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).

false, frivolous, and fraudulent complaint, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);

Page 115 of 198

Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;