07.30.21 (51A) 07.30.21 Declaration of Good Cause LLJ Irreparable Harm LLJ Prevail On The Merits

From: Ulysses T.
Ware
To: The Hon. District Judge Edgardo Ramos
Date: July 30, 2021
RE: Please file the enclosed pleading on the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) dockets:
(#51) Ulysses T. Ware’s 07.30.21 Declaration of Good Cause, Irreparable Harm, Newly
Discovered Brady Exculpatory Evidence and Prevail on the Merits Facts in Support of a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 1 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021
Discovered Brady Exculpatory Evidence and Prevail on the Merits in Support of a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Case Nos. 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) (51)
Submitted on July 30, 2021, to: Pro_SE_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov

ChambersNYSDRamos@nysd.uscourts.gov
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260 phone
utware007@gmail.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Defendant, Petitioner,
And Cross Respondent.
Discovered Brady Exculpatory Evidence and Prevail on the Merits Facts in Support of a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Certificate of Service
I Ulysses T. Ware certify that I have this 30th day of July 2021 served the following DOJ
employees, to wit:
AUSA Melissa Childs, AUSA John M. McEnany, Acting USA Audrey Strauss,
AUSA Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Counsel, DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility
The Hon. USAG Merrick Garland; and
The Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Executive Director.
Ulysses T. Ware’s 07.30.21 Declaration of Good Cause, Irreparable Harm, Newly Discovered
Brady Evidence, and Prevail on the Merits Facts in Support of a Motion for Leave to Proceed
in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
I, Ulysses T. Ware, under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal
knowledge of the facts, hereby this 30th day of July 2021, set my hand and seal, and pursuant to
28 USC 1746, make this sworn Declaration, and say the following:
Fact #1.
I hereby incorporate by reference herein, in heac verba, Dkt. Declarations, Dkt. 257, 259,
262, 272, 280-84, and 303 as the factual basis for the Court to accept and adjudicate to final order
the Emergency Pending Motions.
Fact #2.
Petitioner incorporates by reference Dkt. 296, Declaration of Irreparable Harm, Injury,
and Damages. Petitioner is, has been, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, injury, and
damages unless the court immediately adjudicates the merits of the Emergency Rule 33 and
other Pending Motions.
Fact #3.
Petitioner has presented to the court undisclosed material Brady exculpatory and
exoneration evidence, Dkt. 272, 273, 274, 293, 294, 297, 301, 303, and 304, (the “Suppressed
Brady Evidence”), the subject matter of the Brady Orders, which has been maliciously and
willfully suppressed and concealed by the Government’s lawyers and officials as the means and
illegal methods to obstruct justice and cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Petitioner
is the prevailing party to the Brady Orders, and has therefore has an absolute legal right to
enforce the Brady Orders via civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3).
Fact #4.
The Government was ordered to disclose all exculpatory Brady material to the Petitioner
“prior to trial” in both 04cr1224 (Dkt. 32 at page 2)1 and in 05cr1115 (Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9).2
Fact #5.
The Government’s lawyers3 knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith, acted in
concert, intentionally and deliberately, knowingly concealed and suppressed material Brady
exculpatory evidence in its actual or constructive possession that was completely dispositive to
the Government’s factual elements of trial proofs.
Fact #6.
The Government’s Lawyers knew the suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence was subject
to the written Brady Orders, yet, nevertheless, all knowingly and maliciously decided to willfully
1
See Exhibit 51-4, infra.
2
See Exhibit 51-3, infra.
3
AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Steve R. Peikin,
Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, and U.S. Attorneys David N. Kelley,
Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, and Audrey Strauss, jointly, (the “Government’s Lawyers”).
resist and disobey the written Brady Orders in civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), lawful
court order.
Fact #7.
The legal standard, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progenies, to be
applied to the facts contained in the Declarations is not in rational debate. The Due Process
Clause and fundamental fairness required the Government’s Lawyers to have disclosed to
Petitioner, as ordered by the Brady Orders, “prior to trial” all favorable, exculpatory,
impeachment, and other evidence that undermined any portion of the government’s evidence
and/or trial theory regarding the charges in the 1224 and 1115 indictments.
Fact #8
Attached hereto as Exhibit 51-1, is a sworn certification from FINRA, dated, May 17, 2021,
newly discovered and available material Brady exculpatory evidence that conclusively
established that each of the four plaintiffs in Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v. IVG Corp., a/k/a GPMT,
et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), (“2219”),4 on February 01, 20015, and all-time thereafter, have never
4
Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd, Amro International, S.A., and their
unregistered investment adviser, LH Financial Services, jointly, (the “Unregistered Broker-Dealers”).
5
“February 2001” is the date alleged in the Government’s 04cr1224 indictment that the 2219 plaintiffs
entered into the GPMT’s Notes, GX 1-4, and the Subscription (Underwriting) Agreement, GX-5, jointly,
(the “Illegal Contracts”). The Illegal Contracts are per se unenforceable by unregistered broker-dealers in
an Article III United States federal court. The 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, its judgment (GX-7) and its orders
(GX-11 and GX-24), Counts I, II, and III, respectively, in the 04cr1224 indictment, accordingly, was and are
null and void ab initio.
been registered as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and therefore, as a matter of law,
ipso facto, have been and currently are per se unregistered broker-dealers, operating in criminal
violation of the federal securities law, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. Per se Material Brady
exculpatory evidence required to have been disclosed by the Government’s Lawyers “prior to
trial” in 04cr1224.
Fact #9
Exhibit 51-1 is suppressed material Brady exculpatory evidence that vitiated and annulled
any and all probable cause, and all elements of the Government’s trial burden of proof; and
vitiated all rational reasoning for the Government’s Lawyers, David N. Kelley, et al., on November
17, 2004, to have sought and procured a criminal contempt indictment against the Petitioner.
Fact #10
Attached hereto as Exhibit 51-2, the official SEC email of former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B.
Norris sent to government 1115 trial witness co-defendant Jeremy Jones,6 is without rational
dispute favorable, exculpatory, impeachment, and vitiating suppressed material Brady
exculpatory evidence. Brady material exculpatory evidence that was willfully suppressed and
concealed by the Government’s Lawyers in willful violation of the Brady Orders terms and
6
According to Circuit Judge Kearse’s opinion in 07-5222 (2d Cir.), Jones was the government’s “principal
witness” at trial in 1115. Thus, any evidence in the possession, actual or constructive, of the Government
that vitiated or impeached Jones or its conspiracy trial theory was material Brady evidence covered by the
Brady Order (Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-7), and was ordered to have been disclosed “prior to trial.” It was and has never
been disclosed by the Government.
requirements Exhibit 51-3.1. Favorable to the Petitioner and exculpatory on the government’s
trial theory there was a conspiracy between the Petitioner and the Government’s trial witnesses
who were called to testify and knowingly, while suborned by the Government’s Lawyers, willfully
committed perjury in violation of 18 USC 2, 201, 241, 242, 371 and 1612; and 401(2) and 401(3).
Fact #11
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 51-5 is indisputably suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence
that was in the possession of the SEC and the USAO prior to trial in 05cr1115 and thus, required
to have been disclosed to Petitioner which was not done. Paragraph 33 in the unsigned complaint
in SEC v. Small Cap Research Group, Inc., 03-0831 (D. NV), (“0831”), is a binding judicial admission
on the United States,7 was favorable to the Petitioner, and discredited and undermined the
government’s trial theory that INZS and SVST’s press releases “artificially inflated” the “stock
prices” as charged in the 1115 indictment and perjured affidavit of FBI special agent David Makol
used to obtain unlawful arrest warrants for the Petitioner based on misleading the magistrate
judge (Peck, J.); and misleading the grand jury on material elements of the government’s burden
of proof.
7
The United States is the real party in interest in 03-0831, 1224 and 1115, and was bound by judicial and
equitable estoppel as a result of pleading para. 33, a binding judicial admission, and Article II litigation
position, in the 0831 complaint in federal court.
2. The SEC’s lawyers8 believed in 2003 there was no conspiracy between the Petitioner and
the 1115 government trial witness (cf., Exhibit 51-2); and also believed there was no “artificial
inflation9” of the “stock prices” for INZS and SVSY’s securities. Suppressed Brady exculpatory
evidence that completely vitiated and impeached the government’s entire trial theory and case
in 1115.
Fact #12
Petitioner asserts as fact that he will prevail on the merits of the Pending Motions if the
court “first” as a “threshold issue” finds that it has Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter
jurisdiction over the 1224 and 1115 proceedings, and then adjudicates to final order the merits
of Petitioner’s Pending Motions.
Fact #13
8
Petitioner intended to compel the 0831 SEC lawyers as Brady exculpatory trial witnesses in 1115 and
1224, but District Judge Pauley violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights, Jan. 6, 2007, order, Dkt. 35,
by preventing Petitioner from putting on a “complete defense” by compelling the SEC lawyers to testify
regarding para. 33 and Jeffrey B. Norris testifying regarding his email sent to co-defendant Jeremy Jones,
Exhibit 51-2.
9
In 2003 the SEC, on behalf of the United States, pleaded binding judicial admissions at para. 33, that
pleaded the United States out of the federal courts, there was no “increase” (i.e., inflation, “artificial” or
otherwise) in the “stock prices.” Ergo, as a matter of law and fact the United States in 2003 conceded INZS
and SVSY press releases were immaterial, and therefore, not civilly or criminally actionable in 0831 or
1115. Accordingly, as a matter of law, ipso facto, probable cause to charge securities fraud was a legal
impossibility; per se the 1115 indictment failed to charge a securities fraud offense; and consequently,
the 1115 district court lacked all 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction to enter any judgment of
conviction and sentence. The 1115 proceeding is moot and required to be dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner asserts as facts that the ends of justice demand and require that the court
under the emergency procedures of the District Court (SDNY) in fulfillment of its constitutional
duty and obligation as an Article III United States federal court, “first” confirm its subject matter
jurisdiction over the pending proceedings, then adjudicate the merits to final order concerning,
all outstanding Pending Motions before the court given that Petitioner’s liberty and pecuniary
interests are directly affected by the outcome of the Pending Motions.
Fact #14
Petitioner asserts as fact that a gross fundamental miscarriage of justice exists and will
continue to exist that directly, negatively, affect his liberty and pecuniary interest in a pejorative
matter and he is currently suffering irreparable harm to his liberty and pecuniary interest caused
directly by the court delaying adjudication of the Pending Motions.10
Fact #15
Petitioner asserts as fact the Government’s Lawyers have been ordered to disclose all
“Brady Material” to the Petitioner by lawful court order, Dkt. 32 (04cr1224), Exhibit 51-4, and
Dkt. 17 (05cr1115), Exhibit 51-3.
Fact #16
Petitioner asserts as fact that the Government’s Lawyers’ Brady duty is a continuing duty
and obligation that applies at all stages of any proceeding in 1224 and 1115, including in regard
10
See Dkt. 296.
to the adjudication of the Pending Motions. See Exhibit 51-3.1 (“The government has
acknowledged its continuing duty to turn over exculpatory material and asserts that it is unaware
of any materials of the current time.”) (quoting Pauley, J., May 19, 2006, Brady Order).11
Fact #17
Petitioner asserts as fact that the Government and its lawyers have not fulfilled their
Brady disclosure obligations imposed under court orders, the Brady Orders, and currently are in
willful and bad faith resistance and disobedience, civil and criminal contempt, of the continuing
and initial disclosure requirements of the Brady Orders.12
Fact #18
Petitioner asserts as fact that the Government and its lawyers currently have in their
possession the emails and other communications (faxes, letters, reports, SEC analysis, trial, and
litigation strategy, etc.) between former AUSAs Steve R. Peikin, Steven D. Feldman, Alexander
H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas,13 and other DOJ employees (i.e., former FBI
11
Former AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell and Nicholas S. Goldin prepared the Government’s response to
Petitioner’s Brady motion filed in 1115; and both attended the May 19, 2006, motion hearing, Dkt. 17
(transcript).
12
See 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) criminal contempt.
13
See Exhibit 51-6, infra, the perjured affidavit of former AUSA Maria E. Douvas submitted to the Court of
Appeals in United States v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.): Petitioner’s appeal of the fraudulent 04cr1224
conviction and sentence. Douvas, the Government’s trial counsel in 04cr1224, intentionally lied and
committed a fraud on the court of appeals while she knew that GX-5, para. 10.1(iv) and SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995) were Brady materials covered by the Brady Order (Sweet, J.) and were required to have
been disclosed “prior to trial.”
special agent David Makol and FBI analyst Maria Font), and employees (former and current) of
the SEC (including former SEC chief counsel Joan E. McKown, Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C.
Barasch, et al.) that constitutes Brady materials that are covered by the Brady Orders and
required to have been disclosed “prior to trial” and are currently required to be disclosed, the
“continuing duty,” in regard to the adjudication of the merits of Petitioner’s Pending Motions.
Fact #19
Petitioner asserts as fact the Government, its privies, and its lawyers are currently and
have since the entry of the Brady Orders, acted in concert, aided, abetted, hindered, frustrated,
lied, committed perjury in open court, concealed, suppressed, hide, and conspired to possibly
destroy Brady materials; and all knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally, and in bad faith
actively resisted and disobeyed the commands of the Brady Orders, jointly and severally; done
as overt criminal acts in furtherance of a covert conspiracy to obstruct justice and violate
Petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process of law.
Fact #20
Petitioner asserts as fact the Government, its privies, and its lawyers knowingly, willfully,
deliberately, and in bad faith concealed, suppressed, and hid the dispositive material Brady
exculpatory and exoneration evidence, Exhibit 51-1, Brady evidence that each of the four (4)
plaintiffs in 02cv2219 (SDNY) and LH Financial Services were unregistered broker-dealers on
February 01, 2001; and therefore, the 02cv2219 lawsuit, its judgments (GX-7), orders (GX-11 and
GX-24), the basis for Counts I, II, and III, respectively, in the 1224 indictment, were as a matter of
law, ipso facto, null and void ab initio.
Fact #21
Petitioner asserts as fact the Government, its privies, and its lawyers knowingly, willfully,
deliberately, and in bad faith concealed, suppressed, and hid the dispositive material Brady
exculpatory and exoneration evidence, Exhibit 51-7, (para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5), infra; material,
dispositive, exculpatory Brady evidence that each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s plaintiffs as
a matter of law and fact were judicially admitted 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of
IVG’s, a/k/a GPMT’s unregistered securities, GX 1-4, and therefore, ipso facto ineligible for Rule
144(k) exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act’s strict-liability registration
requirements.14
Fact #22
Petitioner asserts as fact that the Government, its privies, and its lawyers, knew, or
recklessly refused to know, the alleged facts of its trial theory in 04cr1224, that its trial witness
Ari Rabinowitz and his company, LH Financial Services15 were unregistered broker-dealers,
unregistered investment advisers,16 and sold GPMT’s unregistered securities in June 2003 in
14
See Dkt. 294, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) (Statutory underwriters required to register all
distribution of securities).
15
See Dkt. 306, Exhibit 51-1.1, infra; see also Exhibit 51-9, infra.
16
See Exhibit 51-8, infra; see also Exhibit 51-1.1, infra.
criminal violation of Sections 5, 77x, and 78ff of the federal securities laws. Material Brady
exculpatory evidence that was not disclosed “prior to trial” as ordered by Sweet, J., Dkt. 32 (Aug.
10, 2007, order), Exhibit 51-4.2, infra.
Fact #23
Petitioner asserts as fact that former government prosecutors Steve R. Peikin, Michael J.
Garcia, David N. Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E.
Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, Audrey Strauss, Preet Bharara,
Steven D. Feldman, and Andrew L. Fish, knew, and/or recklessly refused to know para. 33 (all had
actual or constructive possession of para. 33 (See Exhibit 51-5, infra) of the SEC’s 03-0831 (D. NV)
unsigned complaint “prior to trial” (and currently) in 05cr1115) was material exculpatory Brady
evidence covered by the Brady Order (Pauley, J.), May 19, 2006, Exhibit 51-3.1, infra, required to
have been disclosed to Petitioner.17
17
The Government’s lawyers knew and/or was recklessly negligent in not knowing the SEC’s 03-0831 (D.
NV) complaint was null and void ab initio, pleaded the United States out of the federal courts, annulled
all probable cause to arrest, indict, or prosecute the Petitioner in 05cr1115; and moreover, all knew the
SEC and the USAO (SDNY) illegally covertly, colluded, acted in concert, aided, abetted, and actively
assisted each other during the 03-0831 and 1115 proceedings as the unconstitutional and illegal means
and methods to circumvent Petitioner’s right to remain silent under the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution of the United States. Put another way the SEC and the USAO lawyers, officers of the court,
covertly, without notice to Petitioner, orchestrated and coordinated the 03-0831 proceedings to have
Petitioner self-incriminate himself and to gather evidence in the contemplated retaliatory 05cr1115 and
04cr1224 criminal proceedings in violation of the precedent, in circumvention of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, set in United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11-12, n. 24 (1970) (“We do not deal here
with a case where the Government … has failed to advise the defendant in its civil proceeding [SEC v.
Small Cap Research Group, Inc, 03-0831 (D. NV)] that it contemplates his criminal prosecution [in
04cr1224 and 05cr1115.]” (emphasis added); Cf., Dkt. 276 (Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Kordel
Relief).
Fact #24
1. Petitioner asserts as fact that if the District Court convenes an evidentiary hearing on the
Government’s required Brady disclosures, and on its required Kordel disclosures dispositive
material evidence will be uncovered that proves beyond any doubt the Government’s lawyers
and others known and unknown acted in concert, illegally colluded, and conspired to obstruct
justice and commit a fraud on the United States federal courts.
2. Petitioner asserts as fact the conspiracy was perpetrated by the Government’s lawyers
and others to have Petitioner falsely arrested, indicted, prosecuted, sentenced, and imprisoned
in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) as a racially-motived retaliatory Jim Crow hate crime for
Petitioner’s adamant refusal to draft, sign, and issue bogus, fraudulent, and illegal, Rule 144(k)
legal opinions18 to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs.19
18
See SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) In paragraphs 86-87 (Exhibit 51-10, infra) of the
complaint the SEC alleged, which Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) has agreed to entry of a consent judgment,
Dkt. 92, that Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) procured a false and fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinion from a
lawyer, under fraudulent pretenses, to enable it to engage in an illegal unregistered public offering of
“Company A’s” unregistered securities in [criminal] violation of Section 5, [77x, and 78ff] of the federal
securities laws. Judge Edgardo Ramos, a United States federal judge, has signed the consent agreement,
Dkt. 92, and thus, has direct knowledge of the crimes of Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt). Judge Ramos will be
able to offer credible fact and expert testimony that Counts I, II, and III of the 1224 indictment failed to
charge an “offense” as alleged in the indictment.
19
See Exhibit #51-1.1. Each plaintiff in 02cv2219 has been certified by FINRA to have been an unregistered
broker-dealer on “February 2001” the date they entered into the unenforceable Illegal Contracts, GX 1-4
and GX-5; see also Exhibit 51-7, para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, which conferred Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriter status and per se ineligibility for Rule 144(k) on each 02cv2219 plaintiff. Which rendered the
04cr1224 indictment’s Counts I, II, and III null and void ab initio, and annulled by operation of law.
END OF DECLARATION
Signed this 30th day of July 2021, under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury
pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

_____________________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
July 30, 2021
Exhibit 51-1.1
Suppressed Material Brady Exculpatory Evidence
Exhibit 51-1.2
Exhibit 51-1.3
Exhibit 51-2
Exhibit 51-3.1
05cr1115, Dkt. 17, Brady Order
Exhibit 51-3.2
Exhibit 51-4.1
Exhibit 51-4.2
Exhibit 51-5
Para. 33 of the unsigned 03-0831 (D. NV) SEC’s complaint.
Exhibit 51-6.1
Perjured affidavit of AUSA Maria E. Douvas filed in United States v.
Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) as a fraud on the court of appeals.
Exhibit 51-7
Para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, the so-called “Subscription Agreement”, an

illegal contract, conferred Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter status
on each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff and annulled and vitiated, as a
matter of law, all probable cause to have indicted Ulysses T. Ware on
Nov. 17, 2004, for 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt.
Exhibit 51-8
Exhibit 51-9
Exhibit 51-10.1
Paragraphs 86 and 87 of the SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY)
(ER) complaint.
Exhibit 51-10.2

07.30.21 (51A) 07.30.21 Declaration of Good Cause LLJ Irreparable Harm LLJ Prevail On The Merits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07.30.21 (51A) 07.30.21 Declaration of Good Cause LLJ Irreparable Harm LLJ Prevail On The Merits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: Ulysses T.

To: The Hon. District Judge Edgardo Ramos

Date: July 30, 2021

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Page 1 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Submitted on July 30, 2021, to: Pro_SE_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

Page 2 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

the Emergency Pending Motions.

Petitioner incorporates by reference Dkt. 296, Declaration of Irreparable Harm, Injury,

other Pending Motions.

Page 3 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

the Government’s factual elements of trial proofs.

Page 4 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Page 5 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

dispute favorable, exculpatory, impeachment, and vitiating suppressed material Brady

Page 6 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 51-5 is indisputably suppressed Brady exculpatory evidence

Page 7 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

of Petitioner’s Pending Motions.

Page 8 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

interests are directly affected by the outcome of the Pending Motions.

directly by the court delaying adjudication of the Pending Motions.10

Dkt. 17 (05cr1115), Exhibit 51-3.

Page 9 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

and initial disclosure requirements of the Brady Orders.12

Page 10 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process of law.

plaintiffs in 02cv2219 (SDNY) and LH Financial Services were unregistered broker-dealers on

Page 11 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

law, ipso facto, null and void ab initio.

144(k) exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act’s strict-liability registration

Page 12 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

10, 2007, order), Exhibit 51-4.2, infra.

have been disclosed to Petitioner.17

Page 13 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

justice and commit a fraud on the United States federal courts.

legal opinions18 to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs.19

Page 14 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Page 15 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Suppressed Material Brady Exculpatory Evidence

Page 16 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Suppressed Material Brady Exculpatory Evidence

Page 17 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Suppressed Material Brady Exculpatory Evidence

Page 18 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Suppressed Material Brady Exculpatory Evidence

Page 19 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

05cr1115, Dkt. 17, Brady Order

Page 20 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

05cr1115, Dkt. 17, Brady Order

Page 21 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Page 22 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

04cr1224, Dkt. 32, Brady Order

Page 23 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Page 24 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Page 25 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021

Para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, the so-called “Subscription Agreement”, an

Page 26 of 31 Friday, July 30, 2021