IRNewswires Special Public Corruption Reports

Judge Edgardo Ramos’ Judicial Career Hangs in the Balance.

NYC “Error-prone” federal judge Edgardo Ramos committed
numerous legal errors and is implicated in a conspiracy to obstruct
justice and cover-up FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of
unregistered broker-dealer status for Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), and
others. See Doc. 306 in 05cr1115. (SDNY).

"Error-prone" NYC Federal Judge Edgardo Ramos’ (SDNY) Fate is Sealed.

IRNewswires Public Corruption Reports

Alan Reitman, JD, Ph.D., Esq., summa cum laude, Public Corruption Investigative Reporter
Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., Esq., Public Corruption Investigative Analyst
Harold Morey, Executive Editor
Peter Bonn, JD, Ph.D., Esq., summa cum laude, Public Corruption Forensic Analyst
John Smith, Public Corruption Investigator
August 6, 2021
New York, NY

Page | 1
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 IRN’s lawyers have obtained a copy of Ulysses T. Ware’s August 6, 2021, latest filings in
the ongoing public corruption saga between the USAO, Mr. Ware, and “error-prone” NYC federal
Judge Edgardo Ramos. Judge Ramos is universally acclaimed according to persons interviewed by
IRN’s investigators as “the most incompetent federal judge ever to sit in the Southern District.”

IRN has learned that Mr. Ware submitted pleadings to the court for adjudication,
however, IRN’s investigators were informed by persons employed in the courts that Judge Ramos
is very upset and is having a nervous breakdown regarding Mr. Ware’s filings and ordered the
clerk to not file any of Mr. Ware’s pleadings. According to persons working inside the court IRN’s
investigators currently on assignment in New York, NY were informed,
“ … no one will miss Judge Ramos if he is forced to resign or kicked out for the obvious
obstruction of justice crimes that he has committed … he is a terrible person and even worst
judge … a complete embarrassment to the court … there is something very wrong with how he
is handling the matter regarding Alpha Capital, AG … he is certainly hiding something ….”
Judge Edgardo Ramos is an enigma, a conundrum, and a riddle all at the same time; and
he is universally disliked and assailed for his judicial incompetence and disregard for precedent
according to individuals that claim to know his track record. What is certain is that Judge Ramos
made many legal errors in his orders dated July 28, 2021, Doc. 304, and again on August 5, 2021,
Doc. 307; notwithstanding the most fundamental legal error, the court lacked all subject matter
jurisdiction over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings to enter 304 and 307.
The law regarding Article III subject matter jurisdiction is not debatable. The Supreme
Court of the United States has ruled consistently since 1789 that the Article III federal courts are
constrained to adjudicate only “live cases or controversies” over which the court has confirmed
its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims, and the party moving for relief in the federal
courts [the Government in Doc. 250] bears the burden of production and proof to “first” as “a
threshold issue” to establish its standing to appear in a federal court and seek relief. That is the
law that Judge Ramos is wholly unfamiliar with and refuses to apply in the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115
proceedings. Thus, the obvious question is, Why is Judge Ramos so adamant in not confirming
the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the cause filed by the Government, Doc. 250, when
binding precedent requires that he do so? What will a jurisdictional proceedings expose that
Judge Ramos does not want exposed that is so damaging to Jude Ramos, Alpha Capital, AG
(Anstalt), the USAO, and others that have influence over Judge Ramos? His puppet masters
palpably have much to hide and conceal from the public’s eyes and have employed Judge Ramos
to obstruct justice, commit clear legal error, and willingly participate in a Hobbs Act international
extortion and money laundering RICO conspiracy run by Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), former U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley, and his law firm Dechert, LLP. Else why would a federal judge
involve himself in the merits and facts of matters that FINRA certified on May 17, 2021, see Doc.
Page | 2
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
306, each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs were unregistered broker-dealers; and therefore,
ipso facto, as a matter of law, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) and 04cr1112 (SDNY) proceedings were per
se null and void ab initio.
Even more puzzling is that Judge Ramos has refused to enforce Dkt. 17 (05cr1115) and
Dkt. 32 (04cr1224), the Brady Orders, yet he is comically seeking to enforce moot “leave to file
orders” that were entered in violation of due process of law. Which calls into question whose
interests have priority before Judge Ramos? Mr. Ware’s or unregistered broker-dealer Alpha
Capital, AG, et al.?
IRNewswires’ lawyers and investigators are on assignment in New York, NY, and have
been approached by persons that claim to possess the top-secret membership list of The Gotham
Society; a purported secret and exclusive social club for white male only judges, prosecutors,
lawyers, investment bankers, politicians and other moguls that engage in homosexual and illicit
sexual activities with each other. It has been disclosed to IRNewswires lawyers, which have
verified the existence of The Gotham Society, by persons not authorized to speak publicly on
behalf of The Gotham Society that former federal judges William H. Pauley, III, Leonard B. Sand,
Robert W. Sweet, Robert A. Katzmann, and Peter W. Hall were members of the Gotham Society;
as are Judges Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, Robert D. Sack, Andrew J. Peck, and Edgardo
Ramos; former federal prosecutors Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, David N. Kelley,
Steve R. Peikin, Andrew J. Levander, and Michael J. Garcia; as was convicted pedophiles Jeffrey
A. Epstein, sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, a very important high-ranking United States
senator and other politicians of lesser ranking.
IRN’s lawyers were also informed of another secret society, The Centurions, which had
former District Judge Robert W. Sweet1 as a member, and numerous former and current New
York federal judges and prosecutors as members. IRN’s lawyers and investigators are continuing
to investigate the background of Judge Edgardo Ramos, Robert W. Sweet, William H. Pauley, III,
Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, David N. Kelley, Andrew J. Levander, and others with ties and
connections to unregistered broker-dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), the Austrian bank
BAWAG and defunct broker Refco, Inc.

1
IRN’s lawyers confirmed that former District Judge Robert Workman Sweet was in fact a member of The Centurions,
and that Judge Sweet used his influence with the New York law firm of Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, (“STB”),
to have his law clerks employed at STB, and used his influence to have Nicholas S. Goldin, one of the prosecutors
for the Government in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), to be employed at STB, as an illegal gratuity, a
kickback, a payoff for Goldin obstructing justice and concealing and suppressing material Brady exculpatory evidence
that was required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial”; and Judge Sweet used his influence to have
Judge Edgardo Ramos nominated as a district judge for future rigging and fixing cases that benefited particular
interests of the members of The Centurions and The Gotham Society. A covert RICO criminal conspiracy to obstruct
justice and motive for Judge Ramos to dive headfirst into the abyss without any consideration of the courts’ Article
III subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Ramos is compromised, has an actual and apparent conflict of interest, and is
judicially disqualified from all judicial involvement in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115.
Page | 3
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 “And Brutus and Cassius were honorable men.”
(Julius Caesar)
Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved
Cleared for domestic and international distribution in all channels.

Page | 4
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
From: Ulysses T. Ware

Date: August 6, 2021

RE: Please file the enclosed pleading on the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) dockets.

If the Court would address the inquiries via order or letter to the parties not later than 4:00 p.m.
on August 6, 2021, time of the essence, the parties will be positioned to seek emergency legal
relief and remedies in higher courts.

(#51D) Ulysses T. Ware’s 08.06.21 Letter #3 to The Hon. District Judge Edgardo Ramos re
Article III and 18 USC 3231 Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
Proceedings Per Se as a Matter of Law is Lacking, the Proceedings are Currently Moot and
Required to be Dismissed with Prejudice.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Page | 5
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 Case Nos. 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) (#51D)

Submitted on August 6, 2021, to: Pro_SE_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov

ChambersNYSDRamos@nysd.uscourts.gov

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Ulysses T. Ware, individually, and as
the legal representative for the estate
of third-party surety Mary S. 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, Petitioner,
Cross Respondent,

v.

Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

Defendant, Respondent,
And Cross Petitioner.
(#51D) re Ulysses T. Ware’s 08.06.21 Letter #3 to The Hon. District Judge Edgardo Ramos re
Article III and 18 USC 3231 Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
Proceedings Per Se as a Matter of Law and the Proceedings are Currently Moot and Required
to be Dismissed with Prejudice.
Certificate of Service
I Ulysses T. Ware certify that I have this 6th day of August 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.

Page | 6
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.,
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com

August 6, 2021

via email: ChambersNYSDRamos@nysd.uscourts.gov

Pro_SE_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov

The Hon. Edgardo Ramos

U.S. District Court (SDNY) Judge
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007

RE: United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), jointly,
(the “Ware Cases”) Article III and 18 USC 3231 Subject Matter Jurisdiction is Per Se Lacking over
the Proceedings which are Currently Moot and are required to be Dismissed with Prejudice.

Judge Ramos:
I.
A: Dispositive Jurisdictional issues that remain unresolved as of August 6, 2021.

Mr. Ware is writing to you in regard to the above Ware Cases adjudication. As you know
Mr. Ware has filed several urgent motions that currently are pending before the Court: (i) Rule
33 motion for a new trial for Brady violations, Dkt. 263; (ii) Emergency Motion for Kordel Relief,
Dkt. 276; (iii) (07.19.21) Emergency Motion to Dismiss the 04cr1224 Indictment with Prejudice,
Dkt. 300,2 and has submitted to the court for docketing 51A, 51B, and 51C which have not been
filed nor docketed according to the ultra vires Orders Dkt. 220 (1115) and 160 (1224).

First, Mr. Ware will draw your attention to the Court’s statement in Doc. 307:

“Pursuant to earlier orders [220 in 1115 and 160 in 1224] in these cases from Judge Pauley
[(deceased)] and Judge Sweet [(deceased)], Ware is not permitted to open3 any further

2
Mr. Ware submitted the Emergency Motion to Dismiss the 04cr1224 Indictment on July 19, 2021.

3
The court is confused and made a clear factual error: Mr. Ware did not “open” Dkt. 250, the petitioner was the
Government’s AUSA Melissa Childs who opened Dkt. 250. Therefore, the Government, the petitioner, must establish
Article III standing over each element of its claims to have lawfully “open[ed]” Dkt. 250, before the court is permitted
Page | 7
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 motions without leave of the Court. See Case No. 04 Cr. 1224 Doc. 160; Case No. 05 Cr.
1115 (instructing Ware to cease his frivolous motion practice).”

Judge Ramos, as the Court should be aware Article III subject matter jurisdiction must be
confirmed in “every cause4” (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause
[i.e., Dkt. 250].”) (quoting former Justice Scalia in Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95) then before the
court regardless of what has happened in any prior cause.

It appears that the Court is either confused regarding the legal standard to be applied to
Mr. Ware’s defenses raised in Dkt. 267 (Mr. Ware’s Rule 46(g), Challenge to Subject Matter
Jurisdiction, and response in opposition to Dkt. 250) or has overlooked relevant Supreme Court
precedent directly on point to the issues currently pending in the court.

Second, it again appears that the Court has made another legal error regarding whether
or not it is required to confirm its subject matter jurisdiction after entry of Dkt. 220 and 160 in
prior causes. The answer is yes. Every Article III federal court is required to at all times have
jurisdiction over the subject matter then before the court.5

However, whether or not Mr. Ware raised the jurisdictional issues the Court was duty-
bound to sua sponte confirm the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the then-pending cause
before proceeding to the merits of Dkt. 250.6 In Arbaugh, n. 4, infra, the Court explained the

to adjudicate the merits of Dkt. 250, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. Mr. Ware as a matter of law is permitted to raise
any lawful defense to Dkt. 250, including a challenge to the Government’s Article III standing, a challenge to the
court’s subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of Dkt. 250, or any other defense, i.e., the 1224 and 1115
indictments failed to charge an “offense” and therefore as a matter of law are moot and null and void ab initio. The
court committed clear legal error in its ultra vires Dkt. 304 and 307 and is required to sua sponte vacate both.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in Arbaugh, n.5, infra, any party can raise (open) a challenge to a federal court’s
subject matter jurisdiction at any time, or the court is required to sua sponte raise the issue before proceedings to
the merits, Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95; or after the merits are reviewed, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
is permitted to be raised by Mr. Ware, or the court, sua sponte. Arbaugh, Id.

4
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 93-95 (1998) ("Without jurisdiction the court cannot
proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function
remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506,
514 (1869). "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this
court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for
itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it." Great Southern
Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter
"spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without
exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).” (emphasis added).

5
Lujan, Id. at 561: (“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements [at all
stages of the proceedings]”). See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508.

6
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any
Page | 8
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
federal court’s jurisdiction is never presumed and also must exist then in the cause [Dkt. 250]
that is pending or had been pending in the court. What this obviously means is that the federal
court itself is constitutionally responsible for assessing its own jurisdiction whether or not the
parties raise the issue, and the federal court is required even after the fact to confirm its
jurisdiction to have adjudicated the cause. And if jurisdiction is found to be lacking “the court
shall dismiss the action.” (emphasis added). The operative words being “shall” dismissal is not
optional it is mandatory.

Judge Ramos, in Mr. Ware’s letter dated July 25, 2021, Dkt. 303, addressed to the Court,
he presented legal argument, facts, and the law that without any doubt raised dispositive
jurisdictional issues7 that called into question the court’s authority to adjudicate the cause [Dkt
250] then pending in the court. Those jurisdictional issues were not addressed, in legal error, by
the court prior to entry of Dkt. 304 on July 28, 2021. Binding Supreme Court precedent, Steel Co.,
supra, required the Court to stop, immediately, go no further, and confirm the Court’s
jurisdiction, lawful authority, to proceed and adjudicate the pending cause. This was judicial
misconduct of the most fundamental sort, judicial misconduct that was a clear legal error for the
court to ignore Mr. Ware’s challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and proceed to
conduct ultra vires and unlawful moot adjudication and the entry of null and void orders, Dkt.
304 and 307.

However, all is not lost. Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506, authorized the court to look back even
“after judgment” and confirm whether or not the court on July 28, 2021, and August 5, 2021,
possessed Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115
indictments. As a matter of law and fact on July 28, 2021,8 the Court “acted in the clear absence
of all jurisdiction” over 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, Regrettably, Dkt. 304 and 307 both are ultra
vires and moot, regardless of the prior entry of the moot Dkt. 220 and Dkt. 160. Obviously, given
that Dkt. 304 and 307 are moot and null and void ab initio, as a matter of law Dkt. 220 and Dkt.
160 both also are null and void ab initio, invalid and unlawful which leave the Court in a
metaphysical dilemma.

II.
A. Motion for leave to proceed.

stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment. Rule 12(h)(3) instructs: “Whenever it appears by
suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss
the action.” See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 455 (2004).”). (emphasis added).

7
The Supreme Court has issued opinions that require all federal courts to “first” as “a threshold issue” address the
court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the claims before addressing the merits of the claims. See Steel Co., 523 U.S.
at 93-95.
8
See July 25, 2021, Dkt. 303, letter addressed to the court.

Page | 9
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 Judge Ramos, Mr. Ware draws the Court’s attention to (#50) Dkt. 305 that was titled as a
“leave to proceed motion.”9 Thus, Mr. Ware is respectfully requesting that the Court address the
following questions regarding Dkt. 305 and other undocketed motions for leave to proceed that
have been submitted to the court.

1. What legal standard did the Court apply to not classify Dkt. 305 as a leave to
proceed motion?

2. What are the legal standards to be employed for the Court to accept and
adjudicate the defensive issues and claims raised in Dkt. 305?

3. Is the Court authorized to review the merits of any leave to proceed motion
without applying the Steel Co. protocol and “first” as “a threshold issue” confirm the court’s
subject matter jurisdiction over 1224 and 1115 causes?

4. Given the United States is the real party in interest in both 1224 and 1115, the
plaintiff, and the petitioner in Dkt. 250, the Court’s decision in Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, is the
United States Department of Justice required to establish Article III and 18 USC 3231 standing
and jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims and facts in its indictments prior to the
Court reaching the merits of Mr. Ware’s claims raised in any leave to proceed motion?

5. It is fact that the prior courts ruled in favor of Mr. Ware and ordered the
Government’s lawyers to disclose all “Brady exculpatory evidence”10 “prior to trial” see 1115,
Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-7 (Pauley, J.) and 1224, Dkt. 32, page 2 (Sweet, J.), jointly, (the “Brady Orders”). As
the prevailing party to lawful court orders, the Brady Orders, is Mr. Ware, (the “Prevailing
Party”), required to file a leave to proceed motion to enforce the commands of the Brady Orders?
Or will the Court sua sponte, in the interest of justice, and to prevent a fundamental miscarriage
of justice, enforce its own lawful Brady Orders and conduct civil and criminal contempt
proceedings against the Government’s lawyers and agents who willfully resisted, disobeyed, and
violated the Brady Orders?

9
“(#50) Ulysses T. Ware’s 07.29.21 Emergency Application in the interest of justice, for good
cause shown, and to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice by sworn Declarations, Dkt. 257, 259,
262, 272, and 280-84, for Leave to Proceed regarding his Emergency Rule 33 Motion for a New
Trial, Dkt. 263, 272, and 287, predicated on Government willful and bad faith concealment and
suppression of material Brady Exculpatory Evidence, Dkt. 272, 273, 274, 293, 294, 297, 301, 303,
and 304, the subject matter of written Brady Disclosure Orders, to wit; (i) August 10, 2007, Dkt.
32 (04cr1224) and (ii) May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9, jointly, (the “Brady Orders”).”

10
See Dkt. 261, 272, 273, 274, 290, 293, 294, 295, and 305, jointly (the “Concealed Brady Exculpatory Evidence”).
Page | 10
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project
 6. What is the process and procedure for Mr. Ware to utilize to have the court
adjudicate the merits of any prior or subsequent leave to proceed motion?

7. What is the process and procedure for Mr. Ware to use to have the court address
the merits of any leave to proceed motion under the emergency procedures of the court given
that Mr. Ware has, is currently, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, injury, and damages
to his liberty and pecuniary interests? See Dkt. 296 (Declaration of Irreparable Harm).

If the Court would address the above inquiries via order or letter to the parties not later
than 4:00 p.m. on August 6, 2021, time of the essence, the parties will be positioned to seek
emergency legal relief and remedies in higher courts.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

___________________________________
Ulysses T. Ware

Incorporated by reference Dkt. 303 and 305.

Page | 11
August 6, 2021
IRNewswires’ 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence and Exoneration Project