Case Nos. 05Cr1115 (Sdny) and 04Cr1224 (Sdny) (#51J-10) : Chambersnysdramos@Nysd - Uscourts.Gov

Case Nos.
05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) (#51J-10)

Submitted on September 28, 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., and
State Bar of Georgia agents and employees, et al.,
Respondents, (Unindicted Co-conspirators),
v.
Ulysses T. Ware,
Petitioner (Prevailing Party).
51J-10 re Request for Supervisory Writ directed to the District Court (Ramos, J.)
Certificate of Service
I Ulysses T. Ware certify that I have this 28th day of September 2021 served via email the
following persons or entities to wit:
Hon. Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain

AUSA Melissa Childs
AUSA John M. McEnany
Acting USA Audrey Strauss (SDNY)
AUSA Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Counsel, DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility
Edward T.M. Garland
Manibur S. Arora
Edgardo Ramos (in his personal and individual capacity, a material witness and interested party)
Page 1 of 20
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
September 28, 2021

Office of the Hon. Chief Judge
Laura Taylor-Swain (SDNY)
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS)(ER) and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) (WHP)(ER), jointly, (the “Ware Cases”): Request for entry of a Supervisory Writ directed
to the District Court (Ramos, J.).
Dear Chief Judge Taylor-Swain:

I.
A. Legal Standard.
Mr. Ware, the defendant in the Ware Cases, hereinafter, the Petitioner, is submitting
this Request for Entry of a Supervisory Writ, pursuant to the District Court’s supervisory
authority,1 directed to the District Court (Ramos, J.), which shall be titled: In re U.S. District
Court (SDNY), 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (Ramos, J.), Docket No. 21-_____-_____.
1. As the District Court is aware the Chief Judge has the authority and jurisdiction to
exercise the District Court’s supervisory authority to assure the orderly and proper
1
See United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 837 (2d Cir. 1988) (“The federal courts enforce
professional responsibility standards pursuant to their general supervisory authority over members of
the bar. In Re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645 n. 6, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 2881 n. 6(1985). In addition, the Eastern
District of New York, where this action arose, has adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility
through Local Rule 2 of its General Rules.”). (emphasis added); Cf., Local Rule District Court (SDNY) Rule
1.5(b)(5) read in pari materia with Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5(f) and Exhibits 1 and 2, infra, extant Brady
Court Orders.
Page 2 of 20
administration of criminal justice in the District Court by assuring public judicial integrity that all
Brady Court Orders2 and Court Judgments are fully complied with and enforced by the various
district courts and the Government’s prosecutors.
II.
A. Requested Relief.
Accordingly, Mr. Ware, the Petitioner herein, moves the District Court (SDNY) to
exercise that supervisory authority in regard to the Ware Cases and enter a Supervisory Writ
directed to the District Court (Ramos, J.), and; acting United States Attorney (SDNY) Audrey
Strauss and purported “criminal evidence coordinator” John M. McEnany, Straus and McEnany
jointly, (the “USAO”), to under oath subject to the penalty of perjury to not later than on
Monday, October 4, 2021, at 12:00 noon, time of the essence:
A. compile a certified inventory that lists all matters, filings, submissions, requests,
motions, applications for leave to proceed, or any other paper submitted by
Ulysses T. Ware in the Ware Cases since May 12, 2021;
B. as part of that inventory direct the District Court and the USAO to identify the
date submitted to the District Court, the docket number if docketed, and if not
docketed and filed, for the District Court to identify the alleged valid and lawful
legal authority relied on by the District Court to not docket, file, and adjudicate
to final order or judgment each matter or cause currently pending in the District
Court;
C. for the District Court and the USAO to compile a separate inventory of all
submissions submitted to the District Court that requested the enforcement of
2
On October 21, 2020, President Trump signed the Due Process Protections Act (the Act), which
amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 to require district courts to issue, at the first court
appearance in every criminal case, an order confirming the prosecutor’s disclosure obligations
under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences of
violating such order. The Act also requires each circuit judicial council to promulgate a
model Brady order for district courts to consider, e.g., U.S. v. Rodriguez-Perez, 10cr00905 (SDNY) (LTS),
Dkt. 2354, Nov. 4, 2020, Brady Court Order. Cf., Exhibit 1, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS), Dkt. 32,
August 10, 2007, Brady Court Order; and Exhibit 2, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (WHP), Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-
9, May 19, 2006, Brady Court Order.
Page 3 of 20
any Brady Court Order entered in the Ware Cases3, the date the enforcement
request was submitted to the District Court, the docket number, and any actions
taken regarding enforcement of the Brady Court Orders;
D. for the District Court and the USAO to compile a separate inventory listing each
and every application or motion to show cause to enforce the Brady Court
Orders, Court Judgments, or Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2) final order-judgment4
by civil or criminal contempt proceedings submitted by Ulysses T. Ware since
May 12, 2021;
E. for the District Court and the USAO to compile an inventory of alleged lawful
and/or unlawful “leave to file orders” entered in the Ware Cases; the required
show cause orders entered prior to the entry of any alleged “leave to file order”;
a transcript of all proceedings regarding all alleged “leave to file orders”;
identification of all pleadings, submissions, papers, or requests that formed the
alleged basis for entry of all alleged “leave to file orders” entered in the Ware
Cases;
F. for the District Court (Ramos, J.) to disclose any and all actual and/or apparent
undisclosed conflicts on interests, biases, prejudices, or any other undisclosed
relationships or interests he has with any individual or entity named as an
interested person, entity, respondent, or party to any submission made in the
District Court by Ulysses T. Ware or GPMT;
G. for Ramos, J. to compile an inventory of all ex parte communications he has had

with any party, interested person, respondent, or entity named in any
submission submitted in the Ware Cases by Ulysses T. Ware;
3
A Brady Court Order was entered in United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (WHP), Dkt. 17, May 19,
2006, Tr. 5-9; and a Brady Court Order was entered in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS),
Dkt 32, August 10, 2007, jointly (the “Brady Court Orders”).
4
The District Court (Sand, J.) (deceased) entered the ex parte secret December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule
41(a)(2) superseding final judgment, Exhibit 6, pursuant to the December 20, 2007, ex parte voluntary
demand to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice by the “Civil Plaintiffs” (cf., Exhibit 7, unregistered broker-
dealers and Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters legally ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to
Section 5 registration requirements, see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995)) in Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v.
IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management (GPMT), et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY) (LBS), after the statute of
limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 complaint, i.e., a final judgment on the merits in favor of
IVG Corp, a/k/a GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, (the “Prevailing Parties”).
Page 4 of 20
H. for Ramos, J., and the USAO to prepare an inventory of all potential Brady
evidence that they have learned and have access to regarding Alpha Capital, AG
(Anstalt), a defendant in SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.),5 or any
other issue or matter related to the Ware Cases.6
I. For Ramos, J. and the USAO to compile an inventory of all Brady jurisdictional
issues that currently exist with respect to the Ware Cases, e.g.,
a. whether or not the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment actually charged

an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense” as required by 18
USC 3231 given FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification, Exhibit 3?;
b. and given the Government’s affirmative defenses pleaded on the

face, para. 9, of the 04cr1224 indictment regarding para. 10.1(iv)
of GX-5, that the “Civil Plaintiffs” were, in fact, Section 2(a)(11)
statutory underwriters legally ineligible for Rule 144 exemption?
7;
5
In SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.), the district court learned that Alpha Capital, AG
(Anstalt) the New York-based unregistered broker-dealer was managed by “New York-based
unregistered investment adviser” Ari Rabinowitz, the Government’s trial witness in United States v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), suppressed material Brady impeachment evidence required to be disclosed
pursuant to the August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Brady Court Order, 04cr1224. Ramos, J. will be subpoenaed
and called to testify at any evidentiary hearing as a material witness; thus, Ramos, J. is statutorily and
ethically judicially disqualified from all judicial activity and functions regarding the Ware Cases. All prior
purported orders entered by Ramos, J. in the Ware Cases are null and void ab initio due to his
deliberate, intentional, and bad faith concealment and suppression of his status as a Brady evidence
material witness in the Ware Cases.
6
Ramos, J. has learned and has in his current possession definitive proof and evidence, see Dkt. 295 and
Dkt 306, 05cr1115, that Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and the plaintiffs named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224
(SDNY) indictment, Exhibit 7, the “Civil Plaintiffs”, according to FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification,
Exhibit 3, suppressed and concealed dispositive material Brady exculpatory evidence, have never been
lawfully registered as broker-dealers as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), a criminal offense
required to be reported and disclosed to the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and the SEC’s
Division of Enforcement.
7
SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), definitive material Brady exculpatory evidence, as public policy
required that Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, i.e., the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the
04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, see Exhibits 3, 6 and 7, register with the SEC all sales and distribution of
GPMT’s securities prior to the offer or sale of said securities, GX 1-4. Ergo, the “Civil Plaintiffs” as a
matter of law, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, see para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, government trial
Page 5 of 20
c. whether or not the 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment actually and
sufficiently charged a securities fraud “offense” given the binding
judicial admission pleaded in para. 33 of the U.S.8 SEC v. Small
Cap Research Group, 03-0831 (D. NV), July 14, 2003, unsigned
complaint, Exhibit 5, that INZS and SVSY’s disclosures “ … did not
[] increas[e] the company’s stock price.” (emphasis added),
suppressed and concealed material exculpatory Brady evidence;9
d. and whether or not the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, superseding
Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, Exhibit 6, as a matter of law
annulled and vitiated all probable cause and 28 USC 1332(a) and
Article III subject matter jurisdiction10 of the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
and 04cr1224 (SDNY) district courts to adjudicate their respective
proceedings?11
exhibit entered in 04cr1224, were legally ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption; and therefore as a
matter of law, the 04cr1224 indictment was fatally flawed and ipso facto per se failed to charge an 18
USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense.” The 04cr1224 indictment is null and void ab initio, the
purported conviction and sentence entered in 04cr1224 are null and void ab initio; and Ulysses T. Ware
is factually and actually innocence of all charges in the indictment. The 04cr1224 case is moot and
required to be immediately dismissed with prejudice. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95.
8
The United States is the real party in interest in 03-0831 (D. NV), 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115
(SDNY), and bound by its judicial admissions and confessions, equitable and judicial estoppel, made in
the respective proceedings.
9
Disclosures that do not “increase” the “stock price” as a matter of law and fact are immaterial and are
not civilly (03-0831 (D. NV)) or criminally (05cr1115 (SDNY)) actionable subject matter in the Article III
federal courts. Ipso facto, as a matter of law, probable cause and 18 USC 3231 subject matter
jurisdiction did not exist and does not currently exist over the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings. The United
States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings are null and void ab initio, and moot required to be
dismissed with prejudice.
10
Palpably the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and probable cause renders the 04cr1224 proceedings
null and void ab initio: a “threshold matter” that “first” must be “affirmatively determined” before the
merits of the proceedings are reached. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95 (Scalia, J.). A Brady evidence
jurisdictional issue which the District Court (Ramos, J.) is required by Article III of the Constitution of the
United States and binding Supreme Court and circuit precedent to “first” “affirmatively determine”
either sua sponte, or when raised by Ulysses T. Ware, see Dkt. 272, 299, 300, 303, and 305 in 05cr1115.
11
The 02cv2219 (SDNY), Sand, J. (deceased) district court on December 20, 2007, upon the voluntary
request of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, see Exhibits 3, 6,
Page 6 of 20
III.
A. Summary and conclusion.
Chief Judge Taylor-Swain, as the District Court can see clearly, given the overwhelming
suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory evidence that has been obtained post-trial by Mr.
Ware, Brady evidence that was required to have been disclosed by the USAO “prior to trial”,
there are numerous irregularities and outright frauds, collusion, and conspiracy that involved
District Judge Edgardo Ramos, and government prosecutors Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany,
Melissa Childs, former District Judges Pauley and Sweet, former Government prosecutors
Alexander H. Southwell, Steve R. Peikin, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E.
Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet
Bharara, Andrew L. Fish, FBI analyst Maria Font, and FBI special agent David Makol; SEC lawyers
involved in the 03-0831 (D. NV) bogus litigation, Jeffrey B. Norris, et al.; alleged co-defendant
Jeremy Jones and his CJA lawyer Marlon Kirton; and Mr. Ware’s retained lawyers Edward T.M.
Garland, Manibur S. Arora, David Levitt, and Michael F. Bachner, and CJA count-appointed
government agent Gary G. Becker, Esq., all officers of the court.
Chief Judge Taylor-Swain time is of the essence regarding this urgent matter. Mr. Ware
has, is currently, and will continue to suffer tremendous irreparable harm, injury, and monetary
damages that are directly and proximately caused by the ongoing and uninterrupted civil and
criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders, the Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment, the
August 18, 2009, final judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), (2d Cir.),
Gov.-I, and other null and void fabricated purported court orders and judgments by the officers
of the court, and by lawyers that appeared before the District Court (SDNY) regarding the Ware
Cases. And thus subject to the District Court’s supervisory authority and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule
5(f).
and 7, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, dismissed
the lawsuit with prejudice, a final judgment on the merits, triggered res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
conferred prevailing party status on IVG Corp., GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers,
jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”); and as a matter of law, ipso facto, the December 20, 2007,
superseding rule 41(a)(2) final judgment annulled and vitiated all prior judgments, GX-7, and orders, GX-
11 and GX-24 that formed the basis for the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment; and terminated all courts’
(04cr1224) subject matter jurisdiction over the 02cv2219 proceedings, see A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197
F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (voluntary dismissal of lawsuit by [the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8
of the 04cr1224 indictment] annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and proceedings just as
if the lawsuit had never been filed; and terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the proceeding, the
matter is moot). (emphasis added).
Page 7 of 20
The evidence is overwhelming that the above lawyers, officers of the court, which
appeared before the District Court (SDNY) knowingly, willfully, egregiously, and blatantly
violated Local Rule 1.5(b)(5) and the Rules of Professional Conduct of the New York State Bar
Association and/or the Department of Justice’s Rules on Professional Responsibility. That is
without question. Moreover, it is also without question that District Judge Edgardo Ramos and
the USAO (SDNY) have inherent actual and apparent conflicts of interest regarding the Ware
Cases, and both are required to be disqualified with respect to the adjudication of the Ware
Cases.
Chief Judge Taylor-Swain in the interest of justice and to prevent a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, Mr. Ware is respectfully requesting that the District Court (SDNY),
pursuant to its supervisory authority, enter the requested Supervisory Writ and direct District
Judge Edgardo Ramos to fulfill his Article III judicial and ethical duties and obligations regarding
the Brady Court Orders, Exhibits 1 and 2, and his judicial duties and obligations that concern his
personal and professional actual and apparent conflicts of interests; and direct the USAO’s
prosecutors to comply fully with the Brady Court Orders and Court Judgments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

______________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
Cc: Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Hon. Merritt Garland, the Attorney General of the United States
General Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee
Alan Reitman, Esq., Public Corruption Investigative Reporter
Page 8 of 20
Exhibits:
Suppressed and concealed material
Brady exculpatory evidence
Page 9 of 20
Exhibit 1
Page 10 of 20
Exhibit 1-1
Page 11 of 20
Exhibit 2
Page 12 of 20
Exhibit 2-1
Page 13 of 20
Exhibit 3
Suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory evidence
Page 14 of 20
Exhibit 4
Page 15 of 20
Exhibit 5
Page 16 of 20
Exhibit 6
Page 17 of 20
Exhibit 7
Page 18 of 20
Exhibit 8
Page 19 of 20
Exhibit 9
Page 20 of 20

Case Nos. 05Cr1115 (Sdny) and 04Cr1224 (Sdny) (#51J-10) : Chambersnysdramos@Nysd - Uscourts.Gov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Case Nos. 05Cr1115 (Sdny) and 04Cr1224 (Sdny) (#51J-10) : Chambersnysdramos@Nysd - Uscourts.Gov

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

Case Nos. 05Cr1115 (Sdny) and 04Cr1224 (Sdny) (#51J-10) : Chambersnysdramos@Nysd - Uscourts.Gov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Nos.

05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) (#51J-10)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Hon. Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain

September 28, 2021

Dear Chief Judge Taylor-Swain:

G. for Ramos, J. to compile an inventory of all ex parte communications he has had

a. whether or not the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment actually charged

b. and given the Government’s affirmative defenses pleaded on the

Chief Judge Taylor-Swain in the interest of justice and to prevent a fundamental

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Cc: Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

You might also like