IRNewswires: News Flash

The Downfall of New York law firm

Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher, LLP’s
partner former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell.

“And Brutus and Cassius were honorable men.”

IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigations Group
Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., Int’l Investigative Reporter
November 17, 2021
London, UK

Page 1 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 The Autopsy of a DOJ Perjury Conspiracy.
IRN’s lawyers and investigators have uncovered the U.S . Dept. of Justice’s
“principal witness” Jeremy Jones, secret, suppressed, and concealed purported Rule 11
plea transcript dated October 17, 2006, Dkt 24. Jones’ alleged Rule 11 plea purportedly
was entered in secret on September 22, 2006, before Magistrate Judge Michael H.
Dolinger in the U.S. District Court (SDNY), U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia
Garcia (approved the illegal and fraudulent Rule 11 plea and USSG 5k
cooperation agreement’s terms and benefits), AUSA Alexander H. Southwell (the
ringleader of the conspiracy), and Jones’ lawyer Martin G. Kirton, Esq., (a
government agent and a facilitator).

According to the transcript, Dkt 23, the trial judge William H. Pauley covertly
arranged the secret Rule 11 plea proceeding, III (deceased).1 The U.S. DOJ had
previously testified to under oath before the U.S. SEC that he was “unaware [palpably
if Jones and Mr. Ware’s employees were unaware of any conspiracy they as a
matter of law and fact could not be guilty of knowingly entering and
participating in an unknown conspiracy] of any conspiracy … and had he been
aware he would not have taken part in the alleged conspiracy ….” with financial benefits
and a promise that Jones would not be prosecuted and serve any prison time if Jones
lied, committed perjury, and provided known to be false and misleading testimony as a
government witness during the trial of Mr. Ware.
Notably, the SEC’s lawyers that participated in the SEC’s Las Vegas civil
litigation, SEC v. Small Cap Research Group, Inc., case no. 03-0831 (D. NV)
(Dawson, J.), actually believed Jones’ sworn deposition testimony that “ … he and Mr.
Ware’s employees were unaware of any conspiracy, and would not have gotten
involved had they been aware ….” (paraphrased) (emphasis added). Clearly, Jones’ SEC
deposition testimony contradicted Jones' allocution in the Rule 11 plea that he was

1
According to court records Jones’ September 22, 2006, alleged Rule 11 plea proceedings were not
placed on the public docket in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For no other
evil and unethical reason than to prevent Mr. Ware and the public from attending the bogus and
fraudulent proceedings orchestrated by District Judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased), U.S. Attorney
(SDNY) Michael J. Garcia. AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, and Jones’ lawyer Marlon G. Kirton,
unindicted co-conspirators.

Page 2 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
knowingly involved in a conspiracy to “inflate stock prices.” However, Jones did not
name the person or persons that he participated in the alleged conspiracy to “artificially
inflate” stock “prices.” Why didn’t Jones name Mr. Ware if he was actually and
knowingly involved in a conspiracy with Mr. Ware?
According to persons familiar with Jones’ bogus Rule 11 proceedings who spoke
to IRN’s lawyers under a strict confidentiality agreement, IRN was informed that AUSA
Southwell and District Judge Pauley arranged for the SEC and District Judge Kent J.
Dawson (D. NV) to enter a default in the SEC’s Las Vegas litigation as the illegal means
to pressure Mr. Ware to also enter a plea of guilty to the fabricated charges in the
05cr1115 indictment. IRN’s lawyers were also informed that Mr. Ware’s retained
lawyers Edward T.M. Garland, Manny Arora, David Levitt, Donald F. Samuel, and
Michael F. Bachner, also colluded and conspired with AUSAs Southwell and Nicholas
S. Goldin and pressured Mr. Ware to plead guilty on the bogus and fabricated charges
in 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY).

AUSA Southwell arranged, facilitated, and conspired with Marlon G.

Kirton, Esq. to have Jeremy Jones knowingly lie, commit perjury, and give
known false and misleading testimony at the Rule 11 allocution and at trial.

What is most troubling and cannot be rationally explained regarding Jones’

alleged Rule 11 guilty plea is that everything that Jones allocuted to was contradicted
and impeached, Brady exculpatory and Giglio impeachment evidence, by the SEC’s
lawyers (Norris, Hannan, Webster, Martin, and Korotash) involved in the Las Vegas
litigation. IRN’s investigators have learned that Mr. Ware intended to subpoena and
compel the SEC’s lawyers involved in the Las Vegas litigation and the trial judge Kent
J. Dawson as Sixth Amendment witnesses to give Brady exculpatory evidence but
was prohibited by District Judge Pauley’s January 5, 2007, order, Dkt. 35, “ … from
calling any SEC employee as a Brady exculpatory and Giglio impeachment
witness to give testimony that impeached and contradicted Southwell’s bought
perjury and misleading testimony orchestrated and paid for by secret
“nonprosecution and cooperation agreements” provided to Mr. Ware’s employees.
(paraphrased). (emphasis added).
As an example the SEC lawyers involved in the Las Vegas litigation all agreed
that (i) Jones and Mr. Ware’s employees were not involved in any conspiracy and did

Page 3 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
not add Jones or Mr. Ware’s employees to the Las Vegas complaint; and (ii) they also
pleaded and stated in their 03-0831 complaint at paragraph 33 “ … the press releases
[of INZS and SVSY at issue in the civil and the 05cr1115 criminal proceedings] did not
have the intended effect of increasing the stock’s price.” Indisputable Brady
exculpatory and Giglio impeachment evidence that Mr. Ware had a Sixth Amendment
constitutional rights to present to the jury.
The deliberate and intentional exclusion of obvious Brady exculpatory and Giglio
impeachment evidence from the trial by Judge Williams H. Pauley, III (deceased)
that was clearly favorable to Mr. Ware, evidence that completely undermined and
devastated the DOJ’s trial theory raises very troubling questions regarding District
Judge William H. Pauley’s fidelity, integrity, credibility, prejudice, and bias exhibited
against Mr. Ware’s legal interests; and furthermore, raises the very serious issue
whether or not the U.S. DOJ specifically racially profiled and intentionally
targeted Mr. Ware as a racially-motivated hate crime political retaliatory
vendetta?
The evidence uncovered by IRN’s lawyers and investigators clearly establishes a
nefarious illegal plot and scheme to violate Mr. Ware’s constitutional rights viciously
and egregiously to a fair trial, the effective assistance of counsel, an impartial and
unbiased judicial officer, and the disclosure of favorable and impeachment evidence.
None of those constitutional safeguards were complied with, and all were perfidiously
violated by the DOJ’s prosecutors and the federal judges involved in the Law Vegas
litigation and involved in the New York 05cr1115 (SDNY) and related appeals.
According to official court documents, Jones was advised to enter into the illegal
agreement by his court-appointed Criminal Justice Act (CJA) lawyer Marlon G. Kirton,
Esq., an officer of the court, and a direct participant in the conspiracy to obstruct justice,
witness tampering, and to commit a fraud on a United States federal court.
Very serious federal offenses that if prosecuted and convicted Kirton, Southwell,
Feldman, Fish, Douvas, Goldin, Strauss, McEnany, Childs, Williams, Joon Kim, Preet
Bharara, Garcia, Jones, Edward T.M. Garland, Esq., Michael F. Bachner, Esq., Gary G.
Becker, Esq., Manny Arora, Esq., Donald F. Samuel, Esq. David Levitt, Esq.,

Page 4 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
employees of the State Bar of Georgia’s Office of the General Counsel,2 and others
could face a sentence of 360 months to a life sentence in federal prison for kidnapping,
conspiracy to kidnap, racketeering to kidnap, money laundering, conspiracy to obstruct
justice, witness tampering, bribery, perjury, grand jury fraud, bankruptcy fraud3
conspiracy, and other felony offenses.
IRN has also learned that Jones’ court-appointed lawyer Marlon G. Kirton’s
compensation was approved under the CJA by the trial judge William H. Pauley, III, a
form of bribery or kickback, a federal criminal offense. Kirton was compensated,
bribed, for arranging and encouraging his client Jeremy Jones to join the conspiracy as
a co-conspirator and knowingly commit perjury on behalf of the United States
government. A very sorry state of affairs in the Manhattan federal courts and
prosecutor’s office, then led by Michael J. Garcia, who approved the illegal and
unethical contract with Jones and Kirton.
IRN is calling on the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, as is necessary to
assure that those responsible for the crimes committed against the American people
and the rule of law are held accountable. Mr. Garland has repeatedly stated on the
record that the US DOJ “will follow the facts and apply the law.” The facts lead
directly to Mr. Garland’s door at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. The
only remaining question is whether or not Mr. Garland has the required executive
leadership character in his DNA to actually do what he says he will do? That is the
question that Merrick Garland will have to answer, or he likely will be held
accountable for the crimes committed by the DOJ’s USAO (SDNY) prosecutors
and rogue, racist, prejudiced, and incompetent federal judges William H.
Pauley, III, Robert W. Sweet, Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A.
Katzmann, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-
Swain, Cathleen McMahon, Michael H. Dolinger, Andrew J. Peck, and others.

2
Paula Fredericks, Jenny Mittlemen, William A. Myers, William NeSmith, Jonathan Hewitt, William
P. Smith, III, (deceased), Carmen Rojas-Rafter, and others to be identified and included in most likely
a civil racketeering lawsuit.
3
Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, C. Ray Mullins, M. Regina Thomas, Patricia Sinback, Wendy L.
Hagenau, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV, Sims Gordan, Jr., and the Atlanta,
GA law firm of Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, regarding the In re Group Management
Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 proceedings.

Page 5 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Docket NO: 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) (53A-2)

Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
_____________________________
Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Prevailing Party”), Petitioner
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
Submitted on November 16, 2021

In the United States District Court

For the Southern District of New York
____________________________
53A-2 to September 28, 2021, 51J-10, (Taylor-Swain, CJ) re: Request for Supervisory Writ and
October 25, 2021, 52B-1 re: Emergency Motion for Leave to Compel the United States to file all
USSG 5K documents,4 filings, pleadings, memorandums, Brady, Giglio, Rule 16 materials, Rule 11
plea or cooperation agreements,5 and/or promises related to United States v. Ulysses Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) regarding Government “principal witness” Jeremy Jones,
or any other person, pursuant to the US Attorney’s Manual Sections 9-5.001, the First
Amendment right of access to judicial public records, and New York Bar Assn. Rule 3.8.i
_________________________
DOJ’s Damian Williams, Merrick Garland,6 Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-
Swain, William H. Pauley, III, and others Conspiracy to Suborn Perjury, Obstruct Justice, Commit

4 The Government’s suppressed and willfully concealed September 15, 2006, USSG 5k agreement,

understanding, perjury contract for Jeremy Jones to knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith commit
perjury, and give false, fraudulent, and materially misleading, deceitful, and material
misrepresentations as a government witness at trial in 05cr1115 (SDNY). See Exhibit 2, infra.

5 See Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, infra.

6See USAG (then D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Circuit Judge) Merrick Garland’s opinion in In re
Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (Gov’t Brady obligations in regard to
cooperation agreements).

Page 6 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
a fraud on the District Court (SDNY), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. v.
Ware, 07-5222cr, and the Supreme Court of the United States in case no. 10-6449, Ware v.
United States, by the willful, deliberate, and bad faith suppression and concealment of the
illegal, unethical, null and void ab initio September 15, 2006, cooperation agreement 7, an illegal
perjury contract, entered into by the United States, the DOJ, the SEC, Jeremy Jones, Marlon G.
Kirton, Michael H. Dolinger, Andrew J. Peck, and William H. Pauley, III, jointly individually, and
severally, (the “Unindicted Co-conspirators”).8

Certificate of Service

I Ulysses T. Ware have this 16th day of November 2021, served the United States
DOJ’s lawyer, Damian Williams (SDNY), with a copy of this pleading via email to
Damian.Williams@usdoj.gov, Jeffrey R. Ragsdale at Jeffrey.Ragsdale@usdoj.gov,
Chief District Court Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, SwainNYSDCorresp@nysd.uscourts.gov,
Edward T.M. Garland at etg@gsllaw.com, Manny Arora at manny@arora-law.com,
The State Bar of Georgia at Office of the General Counsel, Bill NeSmith at
billn@gabar.org, and Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. at kirtonlawfirm@gmail.com.

7 See Exhibit 4, Dkt 24 at Tr. 11 L 2-3:

8 See Exhibit 4, infra, referencing the USAO’s September 15, 2006, illegal perjury contract, the
USSG 5k cooperation agreement, Tr 11 L 2-3, entered into on behalf of the Government by U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Michael J. Garcia, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and his supervisor, the chief of
the USAO’s criminal division (as required by the U.S. Attorney’s Manual) with Marlon G. Kirton,
Jeremy Jones, Michael H. Dolinger, and William H. Pauley, III, as material constructive and actual
parties to the illegal Rule 11 plea agreement and the USSG 5K cooperation contract.

Page 7 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Memorandum
The Downfall of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell:
An enigma, a conundrum, a fool. 9
I.

New York law firm Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, LLP’s partner
former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell.

A. Opening statement.

“Often men try to do good, but fall short and instead do bad. If a man does not
correct his bad deed, a bad deed that he knows is bad, that man is of bad character, of
bad morals, and is a bad person. All the water in the Tiber can never wash away a bad
deed on a man’s character … he is marked for life as a bad man, and nothing can ever
change that ….” Cicero, Opening statement to the Roman Senate.

9 A modern-day Macbeth. Southwell sought power, money, fame, and fortune by any means
necessary. Never stopping to think that Fate was watching his every move, his every lie, his every
fraud, his every illegal plan and scheme. Fate set Southwell up to fail as a warning to others who
would tempt Fate, be irrationally ambitious, and fly too close to the Sun. You will get burned.

Page 8 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 AUSA Alexander H. Southwell “is marked for life as a bad man, and nothing can ever

change that” his fate is sealed. Southwell, gullible as a child, tempted by the Sirens, thought he

was immortal, flew too high to the Sun, like Icarus,10 foolishly tempted Fate, looked too long into

the abyss, the abyss looked back, and Southwell jumped head-first into the abyss never to be

seen again. CHECKMATE. Poor Alex.11 A fitting end to a sorry career of frauds, lies, conspiracies,

and obstruction of justice in many cases as a federal prosecutor.

Exhibit 1, infra, pages 2-3 of the Government’s lawyers’, AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin and

Andrew F. Fish’s, comical and frivolous appeal brief signed and filed in United States v. Ware, 07-

5222cr (2d Cir.), Ware-I, Ulysses T. Ware’s appeal of the conviction and sentence entered in

United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.). Note on page 2 the USAO (SDNY)

prosecutors notified the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) on November 7, 2008, in regard to the DOJ’s

10 In Greek mythology, Icarus (/ˈɪkərəs/; Ancient

Greek: Ἴκαρος, romanized: Íkaros, pronounced [ǐːkaros]) was the son of the master craftsman Daedalus,
the creator of the Labyrinth. Icarus and Daedalus attempt to escape from Crete by means of wings that
Daedalus constructed from feathers and wax. Daedalus warns Icarus first of complacency and then
of hubris, instructing him to fly neither too low nor too high, lest the sea's dampness clog his wings or the
sun's heat melt them. Icarus ignores Daedalus’s instructions not to fly too close to the sun, causing the
wax in his wings to melt. He tumbles out of the sky, falls into the sea, and drowns. The myth would later
be coined in the idiom, "don't fly too close to the sun".

11 Southwell’s resume and professional bio in the New York law firm of Gibson, Dunn, and
Crutcher, LLP’s website claims he was graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University
and New York University Law School. However, a private investigator retained by IRNewswires
has interviewed several persons who claimed to have known Southwell at Princeton and on
condition of confidentiality stated, “ … Southwell was a jerk, I am not the least bit surprised that
he would attempt to rig and fix a case … that is who he is, a scumbag … I rather doubt that he
actually graduated magna, likely cheated for his grades … he is total scum he is not to be trusted
under any circumstance ….” (emphasis added).

Page 9 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
notice of appeal filed in United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (AUSA Steven D. Feldman), Dkt.

103.12

12 The USAO (AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin and Andrew F. Fish, deputy chief of appeals) informed the
Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) on behalf of the United States and its privies, the real party in interest,
(i.e., the USAO, the DOJ, the SEC, the FBI, the BOP, the USPO, the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, all United States federal courts and agencies, and their employees) the United States
had decided to waive, forfeit, abandon, abort, terminate, and dismiss with prejudice its Fed. R.
App. P. Rule 28.1 “cross-appeal” filed in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I:
a frivolous appeal of the 05cr1115 District Court (Pauley, J.) October 2007 rulings in favor of
Ulysses T. Ware, to wit, Dkt 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25 (R-1); S. Tr. 35-36 (R-2); and S. Tr. 73-76 (R-3),
(the “Pauley Double Jeopardy Acquittal Verdicts”).

Ipso facto, as a matter of law, the USAO’s 11/07/2008 Article II appellate political decision, the
voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the USA’s “cross-appeal” Gov.-I, (i) affirmed R-1, R-2, and
R-3 in favor of Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Prevailing Party”); (ii) triggered the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s protections in favor of Mr. Ware regarding all aspects of the 05cr1115 proceedings; (iii)
triggered res judicata and collateral on all issues, facts, and claims actually or necessarily resolved
by R-1 (market inefficiency), R-2 (the government’s risible “fraud on the market” trial theory
confirmed), and R-3 (the government’s insufficient trial evidence on market efficiency); (iv)
terminated the Court of Appeals’ subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Ware’s Ware-1 direct
appeal, 07-5222cr; (v) established the “law of the case” as resolved by R-1, R-2, and R-3 (i.e., the
markets for INZS and SVSY’s securities were inefficient, and consequently, as a matter of law the
Government’s risible “fraud on the market,” trial theory, see S. Tr. 35-36 (R-2) and S. Tr. 73-76
(R-3) (October 12, 2006 transcript), lacking an efficient market for INZS and SVSY’s securities
failed miserably, and fell flat as a pancake); and (vi) terminated the 05cr1115 district court’s
Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the moot proceedings. The
Government’s 11/07/2008, Article III appellate political decision to voluntarily dismiss with
prejudice its 07-5670 Gov.-I “cross-appeal” of R-1, R-2, and R-3 had dire, disastrous, and
irreversible fatal consequences on the United States and its privies. The USAO’s prosecutors
checkmated the United States and blew up their own frivolous and risible case. A deserving
ending to a comical case tried by incompetent prosecutors (i.e., AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell,
Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, Joon
Kim, Preet Bharara, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, and Damian Williams); and
a delusional and schizophrenic district judge, William H. Pauley, III (deceased) and now the
“error-prone” criminal Edgardo Ramos.

Page 10 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 According to magistrate judge Michael H. Dolinger, Dkt. 24, the USAO entered into the

illegal USSG 5K perjury cooperation agreement with its “material witness” Jeremy Jones and his

CJA court-appointed lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., an officer of the court, on “September 15,

2006.”13

Moreover, the District Judge, Pauley, J. secretly, without docketing the matter, arranged

for Jones to enter the bogus and fraudulent Rule 11 plea, see Exhibits 3 (Tr. 3-4); and furthermore,

on 10/11/06, Dkt. 23,14 Pauley, J. ratified, accepted, Jones’ bogus, bad faith, illegal, and

fraudulent Rule 11 plea, and cooperation agreement “prior to the start of trial”15 in 05cr1115.16

13 See Exhibit 4, Tr. 11 L 2-3.

14 Pauley, J. ratified and officially accepted Jones’ bogus, fraudulent, and illegal contract to
knowingly commit perjury, and to knowing with the consent and approval of the DOJ’s USAO
(SDNY) testify falsely, fraudulently, in a misleading, deceitful, and vindictive manner in exchange
for financial benefits, no prison time, and other illegal gratuities. Cf., Exhibit 2, infra, Kirton’s
letter dated April 30, 2008, acknowledged the USPO recommended that Jones be made
responsible for more than $700k in penalties which were forgiven by the USAO and Pauley, J.
pursuant to the suppressed and concealed USSG 5K cooperation agreement. Material
impeachment evidence to impeach Jones’ credibility and provide a motive for his lies, and false
and misleading trial testimony.

15Cf., Pauley, J., May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-6, Brady Court Order, see Exhibit 7 and 7-1, infra,
which ordered the USAO to disclose to Ulysses T. Ware all Brady and Giglio evidence “prior to the
start of trial.” (emphasis added).

16 See Dkt. 23, cf., Exhibit 6, infra. Pauley was clearly aware of his own Brady Court Order, see n.
12, supra, and in general aware of the Government’s duties and obligation to disclose Jones’ Rule
11 plea and cooperation agreement to Ulysses T. Ware. However, rather than protecting Mr.
Ware’s Constitutional rights to a fair trial, Pauley joined force with the USAO and the SEC, and
rigged and fixed the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings to ensure that Mr. Ware was wrongfully
convicted based on knowing false, misleading, and perjured trial testimony obtained from the
Government’s bought and paid for trial witnesses. Currently, federal judges (SDNY) Edgardo

Page 11 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 As of today November 16, 2021, the USAO nor the District Court (SDNY) have made

available Jones’ USSG 5K cooperation agreement, contract, benefits, and other materials17

related to the negotiation and agreement reached to obtain Jones’ known perjured, false,

misleading, and fraudulent testimony knowing suborned and admitted in United States v. Ware,

05cr1115 (SDNY). Moreover, the District Court and the USAO have not publicly filed and docketed

Jones’ and the DOJ’s trial witnesses’ “nonprosecution agreements” and benefits received and the

requirements to receive the nonprosecution and cooperation agreements.18

Ramos and Chief District (SDNY) Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, have acted and functioned not as
Article III federal impartial, unbiased, and competent judicial officers, but rather as extreme
partisans, biased, prejudiced, and with an evil Jim Crow racially-motivated perfidious and
pernicious motive and agenda, in their personal and individual capacities, in the “clear absence
of all jurisdiction” over the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) moot proceedings. Egregious judicial
misconduct and violations of the Federal Tort Claim Act.
17Brady exculpatory impeachment, and Giglio impeachment materials the subject matter of the
May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, (Pauley, J.) Brady Court Order, Exhibits 7 and 7-1; and the subject matter
of Ulysses T. Ware’s motions to hold the Damian Williams, Merrick Garland, Edward T.M.
Garland, USAO, Edgardo Ramos, and Laura Taylor-Swain, et al. in civil and willful criminal
contempt of the Brady Court Order.

18See Exhibit 1, infra, Page 3 of the Government’s United States v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2dCir.)
appeal brief: “The evidence at trial included the testimony of Ware’s former employees, who
[knowingly and while suborned by the USAO] testified [falsely and committed perjury with the
knowledge and consent of the USAO’s prosecutors and their supervisors] pursuant to
cooperation and nonprosecution agreements[.]” Brady and Giglio impeachment evidence
required to have been disclosure to Mr. Ware “prior to the start of trial” pursuant to the written
commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-6 (Pauley, J.), Exhibits 7 and 7-1. (emphasis
added). Indisputable civil and willful criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), of the Brady Court
Order.

Page 12 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
Page 13 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 1

Page 14 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 2

Page 15 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 3
Jones’ concealed and suppressed purported Rule 11 proceedings was arranged and
coordinated by the trial judge William H. Pauley, III, AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
and Jones’ CJA court-appointed lawyer, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. as a fraud on the
court, and as a conspiracy to violate Ulysses T. Ware’s Giglio and Brady rights.

Page 16 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 4

Page 17 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 5
The illegal and unethical process utilized in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. Rules 43(a)(1), (2),and
(3)19 and 5520 by the USAO to knowingly and in bad faith suppress and conceal Jones’s illegal
USSG 5K Rule 11 plea and cooperation agreements and proceedings from Ulysses T. Ware and
the public in violation of the First Amendment.

19 Rule 43. Defendant’s Presence.

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must
be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
(3) sentencing.
20
Rule 55. Records.

The clerk of the district court must keep records of criminal proceedings in the form prescribed
by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The clerk must enter in
the records every court order or judgment and the date of entry. (emphasis added).

Page 18 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 6

Page 19 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 7

Page 20 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
 Exhibit 7-1

Page 21 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
i
Brady and Giglio Material Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny,
including Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976),
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), and New
York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, Ulysses T. Ware requests immediate identification and
disclosure of all documents and information (in whatever form) that are favorable to the defense
or that would tend to exculpate Ulysses T. Ware Jeremy Jones, or mitigate their culpability with
respect to the charges in the United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and United States v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) indictments, that would tend to impeach any potential witness against Ulysses
T. Ware, or that are relevant to the issue of sentencing, including but not limited to the following:

1. Any document or information indicating or tending to establish that any of the allegations in
the indictments are not true.

2. Any document or information indicating or tending to establish that any meeting,

conversation, use of words, practice, or conduct that is the subject of the indictment or forms
the basis of the indictment did not violate government laws, regulations, standards or established
business practices.

3. Any document or information indicating or tending to establish that Ulysses T. Ware believed
that any meeting, conversation, use of words, practice, or conduct that is the subject of the
indictment or forms the basis of the indictment did not constitute a crime.

4. Any document or information indicating or tending to establish that any other person
(including but not limited to the alleged co-conspirators) believed that any meeting,
conversation, use of words, practice, or conduct that is the subject of the indictment or forms
the basis of the indictment did not constitute a crime.

5. Any documents or information indicating or tending to establish that Ulysses T. Ware did not
instigate, control, authorize, approve, or acquiesce in the practices that are the subject of the
indictment.

6. Any documents or information indicating or tending to establish that the alleged false or
fraudulent pretenses were not false.

7. Any documents or information indicating or tending to establish that the alleged false or
fraudulent pretenses were not material.

Page 22 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
8. Any documents or information indicating or tending to establish that a third person was
responsible for the financial transactions or press releases, or Rule 144(k) legal opinions at issue
in any count of the indictment.

9. Any document or information indicating or tending to establish that Ulysses T. Ware engaged
in any conduct that forms the basis of the indictment in reliance upon advice provided by counsel,
accountants, or Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules, regulations, or published policies,
e.g., SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995); or 15 USC 77b(a)(11).

10. Any document or information (in whatever form) that could be used to impeach any potential
government witness, or any person whose statements will be introduced pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), including but not limited to:

a. Any document or information relating to any conviction, arrest, or criminal record of, and any
criminal charge brought against, any potential government witness;

b. Any document or information relating to promises, consideration, or inducements made to

any potential government witness, whether directly to the witness or indirectly to the witness’
attorney, friends, family, employer, business associates, or other culpable or at risk third-party.
“Consideration” means anything of value or use, including immunity grants, whether formal or
informal, witness fees, transportation or relocation assistance, money, dropped or reduced
charges or suggestions of favorable treatment with respect to any federal, state or local criminal,
civil, or administrative matter, expectations of downward departures or motions for reduction of
sentence, considerations regarding forfeiture of assets, or stays of deportation or other
immigration status considerations;

c. Any document or information tending to show the bias of a potential government witness,
including animosity toward Ulysses T. Ware, animosity toward any group or entity of which
Ulysses T. Ware is a member or with which Ulysses T. Ware is affiliated, a relationship with the
alleged victim, or known but uncharged criminal conduct that may provide an incentive to curry
favor with a prosecutor;

d. Any document or information affecting the reliability of a potential government witness’s

testimony, including known alcohol or abuse, mental health issues or other issues that could
affect the witness’s ability to perceive and recall events (e.g., the SEC’s professional misconduct
discipline imposed on the Government’s 04cr1224 (SDNY) FRE 404(b) bad acts witness former
SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris’ own ‘bad acts’);

e. Any document or information relating to any inconsistency in statements given by any

potential government witness;

Page 23 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
f. Any document or information relating to any inconsistency between agents’ and/or
prosecutors’ rough notes and FBI 302s or other memoranda of interviews of any potential
government witness;

g. Any document or information bearing adversely on the character or reputation for truthfulness
of any potential government witness; and

h. Each specific instance of conduct from which it could be inferred that any potential
government witness is untruthful.

11. The date of and participants in each and every interview (including not only interviews
conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but also
interviews conducted by third parties), debriefing, “queen for a day” session, proffer, deposition,
or other statement or description of the alleged facts made by each potential government
witness (whether directly or indirectly, such as a proffer made by counsel).

In addition, please specify, as to each such witness, the first date on which the witness made any
allegation that Ulysses T. Ware engaged in any allegedly unlawful conduct or any conduct alleged
in the indictment. As you are aware, New York has adopted Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8,
entitled “Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors and Other Government Lawyers,” which
provides that a prosecutor “shall make timely disclosure to [the defense] of evidence or
information known to the prosecutor or other government lawyer that tends to negate the guilt
of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the sentence . . . .” Rule 3.8(b).

The Supreme Court has recognized that Rule 3.8 imposes a higher standard on prosecutors than
the standards mandating disclosure of exculpatory evidence under Brady. See Kyles, 514 U.S.
at 437 (“[Brady] requires less of the prosecution than the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice,
which call generally for prosecutorial disclosures of any evidence tending to exculpate or
mitigate.”); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and Defense Function 3-
3.11(a) (3d ed. 1993) (“A prosecutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the
defense, at the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which
tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would tend to
reduce the punishment of the accused”); ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) (1984)
(“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence
or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates
the offense”).

We contend that the foregoing categories of information constitute Brady and Rule 3.8(b)
material, and that disclosure should take place immediately. Ulysses T. Ware further requests
that the government identify with particularity and provide copies of all materials that qualify as
Brady and Rule 3.8 material, as described above. Please advise us promptly whether the

Page 24 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.
government will be producing Brady material immediately even if it is contained in what might
otherwise be considered as Jencks material, or whether you take the position that you are not
obligated to produce such material at this time.

We also request the underlying source material for any Brady and Rule 3.8(d) information, as
opposed to any summary letter or paraphrased description of the information. Please advise us
promptly whether the government will not be producing underlying source material. For
purposes of the Brady doctrine, “the format of the information does not determine whether it is
discoverable.” U.S. Attorneys’ Manual § 9-5.002.B.5 (2018). For example, material exculpatory
information that is provided “during a conversation with an agent or a witness is no less
discoverable than if that same information were contained in an email.” Id. We therefore request
that all such information be memorialized and produced to Ulysses T. Ware.

Page 25 of 25
17 November 2021
IRN’s 2021 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence Project.