01.26.22 Re A Major Shake Up Is Coming To The DOJ

IRNewswires: Special Corruption Investigations:
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland rumored

to be “in very hot water.”
Sources inside the DOJ have stated “a major

shake-up is coming … the President is not happy
with several U.S. Attorneys, in particular, Damian
Williams in New York. Damian has been a major
embarrassment for the President … he feels
Senator Schumer tricked him into nominating
Damian who is totally unqualified ….”
Alan Reitman, JD, LLM, Ph.D., summa cum laude, Managing Int’l Investigative reporter.
January 26, 2022
New York, NY
IRN’s sources within the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday informed IRN’s
lawyers and investigators under a condition of confidentially “ … the President is not
happy with how Garland is running things …. He moves too slow … he takes too
long … he was a bad choice for the job …. The Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian
Williams, Garland’s former law clerk, is even worst than Garland … the fruit does not
fall far from the tree … Damian is on very thin ice and it’s July ….” (quoting high-
ranking DOJ officials).
1|Page
26-Jan-22
IRN’s 2022 Ulysses T. Ware’s Innocence project.
The “shake-up” within the U.S. DOJ appears to center around two major
themes, (1) the criminal and civil contempt of the Brady Court Orders entered in the
Ware Cases: United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY), and (2) the Alpha Capital, AG, (Anstalt), et al., Hobbs Act, international
money-laundering racketeering conspiracy. See SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY)
(Ramos, J.).
IRN’s lawyers have confirmed that in each of the Ware Cases a written Brady
disclosure order was entered by the respective district court. Court records confirmed that
on May 19, 2006, Doc. 17, the Hon. William H. Pauley, III (deceased) in the 05cr1115
criminal proceeding ordered the Government to disclose “all” Brady and Giglio
“exculpatory” and “impeachment” evidence to Mr. Ware “prior to the start of trial”
then scheduled for January 16, 2007. Court records further confirmed that on August
10, 2007, Doc. 32, the Hon. Robert W. Sweet (deceased) in the 04cr1224 criminal
proceeding also ordered the Government to disclose “all Brady and Giglio evidence”
to Mr. Ware “prior to” trial then scheduled for November 2007.
Court records show and confirm that the DOJ’s prosecutors did not and have
not fulfilled their obligations to the District Court and Mr. Ware under the Brady
disclosure court orders. A very serious ethical violation, and civil and criminal contempt,
Title 18, Section 401(3), of court orders by Merrick Garland, Damian Williams, and
their surrogates.
The current fiasco inside the DOJ’s Manhattan, NY U.S. Attorney’s Office,
currently run by Damian Williams, is partially centered on the USAO’s egregioius civil
and criminal contempt of the two Brady disclosure orders. In the United States criminal
contempt, the willful resistance to, or violation of, a Brady disclosure order is a criminal
offense, Title 18, Section 401(3), that requires each of the persons who willfully or
recklessly resisted or violated the Brady disclosure orders to be “criminally prosecuted
in the U.S. federal courts just as a common criminal would be prosecuted.”
(quoting DOJ sources).
IRN’s lawyers and investigators have uncovered numerous items of Brady and
Giglio evidence that was not disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to” the trials in the criminal
proceedings in which he was a defendant. In particular, IRN lawyers and investigators
have uncovered indisputable Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence –that is, paragraph
33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint submitted (not actually
signed by an admitted SEC lawyer according to SEC sources) to the Las Vegas District
Court purported on July 14, 2003.
2|Page
26-Jan-22
Paragraph 33 is a judicial admission and confession by the lawyers for the United
States in a civil judicial proceeding regarding the same subject matter at issue in the 05cr1115
criminal proceeding –that is, the legal position of the United States in the Las Vegas
civil proceeding was that the alleged public disclosures of the publicly traded companies
(OTCBB tickers: INZS and SVSY) at issue there “did not have the intended effect
of increasing the stock’s price.” (quoting SEC lawyers). That dispositive revelation by
the SEC’s lawyers in 2003 in the Las Vegas civil proceeding pleaded the United States
(the real party in interest in the Las Vegas and the SDNY’s criminal proceedings) out
of the federal courts, judicial and equitable estoppel against the United States in any
subsequent proceeding, and is in direct contradiction to, and vitiated and abrogated the
DOJ’s trial theory and assertions in the Government’s 2005 05cr1115 arrest warrants,
complaint, and indictment.
According to U.S. constitutional law, the Brady v. Maryland decision, any
evidence that contradicts, abrogates, vitiated, undermines, or repudiates any portion
of the DOJ’s trial theory, element of trial proof, or impeaches the
credibility of its trial witnesses is considered Brady exculpatory or
impeachment evidence that must be disclosed to Mr. Ware, the defendant in
the criminal proceedings, before, during, or after trial, as ordered by the
District Courts’ Brady disclosure orders and DOJ policy. An objective standard of
compliance the DOJ’s internal Office of Professional Responsibility, DOJ official
Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, is required to investigate.
Court records uncovered by IRN’s investigators confirmed the USAO’s
prosecutors have concealed, suppressed, covered-up, and hid numerous items of Brady
exculpatory and Giglio impeachment evidence that was required to have been disclosed
to Mr. Ware before each criminal trial began., see attachments.
Sources tell IRN’s lawyers the fuss up and fiasco in the Manhattan office of the
USAO is that indisputable Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence has been
uncovered and presented to the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, to the
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, and to District Judge Edgardo
Ramos, and Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, that confirmed without
question that the “DOJ’s prosecutors and federal judges Edgardo Ramos and Laura Taylor-Swain
have willfully and knowingly aided and abetted, or actually violated and resisted the commands of two
Brady disclosure court orders. That is criminal contempt that requires all to be prosecuted under the law
… this is very serious ….” (quoting high-raking DOJ officials under a condition of
confidentiality).
3|Page
26-Jan-22
The current metaphysical dilemma facing the DOJ, Garland, Damian Williams,
and the District Courts (SDNY) is that all have been informed and have knowledge of the
existence of the undisclosed Brady and Giglio evidence, yet no one has taken any steps to officially
notify the District Courts or Mr. Ware of the Government’s breach and violation of the
Brady disclosure orders. Sources also told IRN’s lawyers and investigators:
“This is no doubt a … ‘cover up’ of the ‘cover up’ … by ‘high ranking’ …
purported law enforcement officers and officials, and federal judges of the United
States ….” “ … this is a career-ending fiasco that is going to get even worst
once all the evidence comes out that has been suppressed and concealed
from Mr. Ware and the Courts … this is a no-win situation for Damian
and Garland ….”
IRN’s investigators have uncovered numerous items of Brady exculpatory and
Giglio impeachment evidence that has been deliberately and intentionally suppressed and
concealed by Mr. Garland, Mr. Williams, and their subordinates, in particular, evidence
that has been suppressed and concealed by Mr. Garland and Mr. Williams, include, but
is not limited to, the September 2006 Rule 11 plea and USSG 5k documents of the
Government’s “principal witness” at trial in 05cr1115, Jeremy Jones; and the SEC’s
Brady exculpatory email sent to alleged co-defendant in 05c51115 Jeremy Jones by
disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris that absolved Jones and Mr. Ware’s
“employees” from all culpability regarding any alleged conspiracy.
Mr. Garland and Mr. Williams according to U.S. law, DOJ regulations, and the
Brady disclosure orders are required to immediately inform the District Courts once they
became aware that Brady and Giglio evidence in their actual or constructive possession had
not been disclosed to Mr. Ware as required by court order and DOJ regulations. A
search of court records confirmed that Merrick Garland nor Damian Williams have not
filed any docketed public filings in the District Courts that informed the Courts of the
DOJ’s willful, deliberate, and bad faith criminal and civil contempt breach and
violations of the Brady disclosure orders.
According to court records, neither Mr. Garland nor Mr. Williams has been
completely and uncompromisingly honest and forthright with the District Courts as a
government lawyer, officer of the court; and neither has fulfilled their duty “of complete
candor to the courts.” A very serious and major ethical violation by government
prosecutors; and willful and knowing resistance and violations of the Brady disclosure
orders. Criminal offenses according to U.S. federal law, Title 18 Section 401(3).
4|Page
26-Jan-22
IRN’s lawyers will continue to investigate the DOJ, Merrick Garland, Damian
Williams, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Alpha
Capital, AG (Anstalt), LH Financial Services, Ari Rabinowitz, Orinda D. Evans,
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Timothy C. Batten, Sr., the State Bar of Georgia, Kilpatrick,
Townsend, Stockton, LLP, Wendy L. Hagenau, Gerald B. Tjoflat, John M. McEnany,
Audrey Strauss, Edward T. M. Garland, Kenneth A. Zitter, convicted felon, Edward
M. Grushko, Esq., and others involved in the Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) Hobbs
Act, 18 USC 1962(a-d), international money laundering racketeering conspiracy.
5|Page
26-Jan-22
Offices of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
January 11, 2022
Personal and confidential
Via U.S. mail and via email to Jeffrey R. Ragsdale c/o

The Hon. Merrick B. Garland
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Request for the DOJ to Open a Criminal Investigation Regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY),
03-0831 (D. NV),1 03-93031 (BC NDGA),2 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY).3
RE: United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (Sweet, J.) (deceased), (“1224”); and United States v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.) (deceased), (“1115”), jointly, (the “Ware Cases”), demand for the United
States and its privies to disclose all Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment material pursuant to
the commands of the written Brady Court Orders, to wit: (1) Dkt. 32, August 10, 2007 (Sweet, J.)4 and (2)
May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9, (Pauley, J.)5, jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”), and Brady v. Maryland
and its progenies.
1
See Exhibits 7-1, and 8, infra.
2
See n. 42, infra.
3Mr. Ware is requesting that the United States Department of Justice refer this matter to the FBI
with a mandate to open a criminal investigation in regard to the persons and entities named in
Exhibit 15, infra, for crimes and offenses committed against and in violation of the laws of the
United States.
4 See Exhibit 1.
5 See Exhibit 2.
6|Page
26-Jan-22
Mr. Attorney General:
Ulysses T. Ware is writing to the Attorney General in your official capacity as an officer of
the court, and pursuant to 28 USC 5196 in regard to your statutory duties and responsibilities to
conduct and oversee all litigation in which the United States is a party, to wit, the Ware Cases
with regard to the United States reckless, flagrant, blatant, willful, deliberate, intentional, and in
bad faith resistance and violations of the Brady Court Orders’ written commands, and other
reckless, willful and bad faith instances and acts of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.
I.
A. The Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”)7, recklessly, knowingly,
deliberately, willfully, intentionally and in bad faith has egregiously, as an overt act in
furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and recklessly resisted and violated the express
commands of the Brady Court Orders, criminal contempt of court orders, 18 USC 401(3), and
obstructed the due administration of justice, criminal offenses.
1. Mr. Garland the evidence is overwhelming and cannot and has not been disputed by the
USAO in any judicial proceeding. The USAO knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and recklessly in
bad faith has resisted and violated the commands of the District Courts’ Brady Court Orders to
disclose all Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment material to Mr. Ware while aided and
6 Except as otherwise authorized by law, the Attorney General shall supervise all litigation to
which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, and shall direct all United States
attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and special attorneys appointed under section
543 of this title in the discharge of their respective duties.
7Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, David N. Kelley, Michael J.
Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, Damian Williams, Audrey Strauss, Jeffrey Berman, John M.
McEnany, Melissa Childs, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria
E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Andrew L. Fish, Steven R. Peikin, Daniel Gitner,
Margaret M. Garnett, Alexander J. Wilson; the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Probation Office, and FBI
employees David Makol and Maria E. Font, collectively, (the “DOJ Employees”).
7|Page
26-Jan-22
abetted by District Judges Pauley, Sweet, Edgardo Ramos, and Laura Taylor-Swain, jointly, (the
“Unindicted Co-conspirators”).
Mr. Garland, the USAO was ordered in pre-trial proceedings, which it did not oppose, to
disclose all Brady and Giglio material “prior to trial” (04cr1224), Exhibit 1; and “prior to the start
of trial” (05cr1115), Exhibit 2. Thus, there is no rational and good faith dispute by the USAO
regarding the ordered duties and responsibilities of the USAO to Mr. Ware, (the “Prevailing
Party”), concerning disclosure of “all” Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment materials.8
2. Subsequent to the trials in 1224 and 1115 conducted in 2007, Mr. Ware hired and
retained private investigators to conduct a thorough and complete investigation of the USAO,
Judges Pauley, Sweet, Edgardo Ramos9, Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain10, and others,
8 Prior to trial Mr. Ware moved the District Courts to order the USAO to disclose all Brady and
Giglio materials. In both 1224, Exhibit 1, and 1115, Exhibit 2, the Courts ordered and directed the
USAO to disclose “all” Brady and Giglio materials to Mr. Ware prior to trial; and if necessary after
trial, as Brady is a continuing obligation on the Government. See newly discovered Brady and
Giglio evidence not disclosed by the USAO, Exhibits, infra.
9 District Judge Ramos in July 2021 was allegedly “randomly” assigned both 1224 and 1115 after
the deaths of both Judge Sweet and Judge Pauley, respectively. Since being assigned 1224 and
1115 Judge Ramos has recklessly, knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, and with an evil and
insidious motive and objective, aided, abetted, obstructed, delayed, impeded, frustrated, and
attempted to cover-up the facts and evidence that conclusively proved the USAO and the
Unindicted Co-conspirators willfully resisted and violated the commands of the Brady Court
Orders, 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3), criminal offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors,
impeachable offenses. Federal Tort Claims Act claims are currently pending against Judge Ramos
at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for his negligent judicial misconduct.
10Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain has recklessly, knowingly, deliberately, intentionally,
and in bad faith obstructed, impeded, delayed, frustrated, and purposefully acted with an evil
and insidious motive and objective, judicial misconduct, to cover-up, suppress, and conceal the
indisputable facts the USAO and the Unindicted Co-conspirators lied, committed perjury, fraud
on the courts, conspired, and aided and abetted racketeering to commit Brady fraud in 1224 and
1115, judicial proceedings.
8|Page
26-Jan-22
including New York lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.11, Atlanta, GA lawyers Edward T.M. Garland,
Manny Arora, Donald F. Samuel, and David Levitt;12 and New York lawyers Michael F. Bachner,
and Gary G. Becker.
Mr. Ware’s investigators, in stark contradiction to the USAO’s lawyers’, officers of the
court, deliberate and intentionally false, misleading, fraudulent and perjurious statements made
in open court that no Brady material existed,13 Mr. Ware’s investigators have discovered
numerous dispositive Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment items of evidence that
11 Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., was appointed in 05cr1115 by District Judge Pauley, pursuant to the
Criminal Justice Act, 18 USC 3006A, CJA, to represent alleged co-defendant in 05cr1115, Jeremy
Jones, the government’s “principal witness,” cf., United States v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 445-46 (2d
Cir. 2009). Jones allegedly, in September 2006, cf., Exhibits 10 and 10-1, infra, with the fraudulent
advice of counsel, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., purportedly pleaded guilty to the superseding
indictment via a false and fabricated illegal and unethical Rule 11 plea (perjury) contract. The
alleged Rule 11 plea contract has to this day never been docketed in the record by the District
Clerk (SDNY), Ruby Krajick. Mr. Ware repeatedly has egregiously and deliberately been denied all
First and Fifth Amendments right of access to judicial records and access to Jones’ alleged Rule
11 plea (perjury) agreement, Jones’ allocution, and debriefings, i.e., Brady and Giglio exculpatory
and impeachment materials that were required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to the
start of trial” (see Exhibit 2), the Government’s secret September 15, 2006, USSG 5k cooperation
contract, and the Government’s USSG 5k letter submitted to the District Court (Pauley, J.) in 2008
in support of a downward departure at Jones’ sentencing, collectively, (the “Concealed and
Suppressed Jeremy Jones Brady Exculpatory and Impeachment Materials”).
12
Mr. Ware retained Garland, Arora, Samuel, Levitt, and Bachner as Sixth Amendment counsel to
represent his legal interests in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115; and Becker was appointed by District
Judge Pauley as a mole to spy on Mr. Ware’s defense after Mr. Ware fired Bachner for disclosing
confidential trial strategies to the USAO and refusing to file a motion to suppress evidence. Mr.
Ware subsequently entered his appearance as pro se counsel in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115. Mr.
Ware also terminated the Garland law firm after Garland refused to file any discovery motions,
motion to dismiss, or to represent Mr. Ware at all stages of the proceedings. Mr. Garland
abandoned Mr. Ware and forced Mr. Ware to appear in 04cr1224 as pro se counsel. Professional
misconduct complaints are currently pending against Garland, Arora, Samuel, and Levitt at the
State Bar of Georgia.
13
See Exhibit 2-1, infra, the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9 (05cr1115) transcript, false and fraudulent representations
of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and the USAO, “The government has acknowledged its continuing duty to turn over
exculpatory material and [AUSA Southwell lies and] asserts it is not aware of any material of the current time.”
(quoting Pauley, J.) (emphasis added).
9|Page
26-Jan-22
palpably were deliberately and willfully suppressed and concealed by the USAO and the
Unindicted Co-conspirators; Brady and Giglio evidence that was required to have been disclosed
to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” according to the commands of the Brady Court Orders.
II.
A. Newly discovered USAO and Unindicted Co-Conspirators’ suppressed and concealed
dispositive Brady and Giglio evidence in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
1. Mr. Garland, Exhibit 3-1, FINRA’s May 17, 2021,14 certification of unregistered broker-
dealer status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in paragraph 8 of the USAO’s bogus and
fabricated indictment, Exhibit 3-2, USAO suppressed dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence,
confirmed that before, during and after trial in 1224 the “Civil Plaintiffs” were not lawfully
registered in the United States as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), as brokers or
dealers; and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law, the underlying district court, 02cv2219
(SDNY) (Sand, J.), (deceased), lacked both Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity subject matter
14 The USAO and the Unindicted-Co-conspirators conspired to fraudulently wrongfully convict

and incarcerate Mr. Ware from November 27, 2007, until May 24, 2019, in the Bureau of Prisons
concentration camps. During that wrongful incarceration Mr. Ware was denied all access to
communicate with the Courts and have his claims adjudicated on the merits, cf., Dkt 222
(05cr1115) (Pauley, J.) and Dkt 160 (04cr1224) (Sweet, J.) (the imposition of a null and void ab
initio filing sanctions in the complete absence of due process of law to deny Mr. Ware his First
and Fifth Amendment right of due process of law and access to the court). Mr. Ware was
egregious and insidiously denied and not allowed any opportunity to oppose the filing sanctions
prior to imposition. District Judge Edgardo Ramos has since July 2021 denied Mr. Ware all access
to the District Court (SDNY), despite knowing that the fraudulent and void filing sanctions are null
and void ab initio, Ramos acting as a co-conspirator with the USAO, in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy to obstruct justice has, recklessly and in bad faith refused all attempts by Mr. Ware to
present the newly discovered dispositive Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment
evidence, Exhibits 3, etc., infra, to the Court for assessment and for Mr. Ware to enforce the
Brady Court Orders. A clear-cut indisputable conspiracy to obstruct justice by a sitting federal
judge.
10 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
jurisdiction over its respective proceedings, orders15, and judgments.16 Therefore, ipso facto, as
a matter of law rendered the USAO’s alleged probable cause on November 17, 2004, null and
void ab initio. And, accordingly, ipso facto, rendered the 1224 indictment’s charges in Counts I,
II, and III, null and void ab initio.17
Mr. Garland, as the current U.S. Attorney General, (the “USAG”), it is implied and a
presumption that you are knowledgeable and competent in the law; and as a former D.C. Circuit
federal appellate judge, it is also expected and presumed that you have and will exercise
15 The USAO predicated lawful probable cause and its charges in the 1224 indictment on the
alleged “lawful” judgments, orders and proceedings entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY), e.g., 1224 trial
exhibits GX-7 (Count I), GX-11 (Count II) and GX-24 (Count III). Exhibit 3-1, FINRA’s certification of
unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs,” indisputably dispositive Brady
and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment evidence willfully concealed, suppressed and covered-
up by the USAO and the Unindicted Co-conspirators, was required to have been disclosed to Mr.
Ware “prior to trial.” Cf., Exhibit 1. It was not disclosed by the USAO in willful and bad faith
resistance and violation of the 1224 Brady Court Order, 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt of a
Brady court order. Moreover, Exhibit 3-1, the FINRA certification, as a matter of law, ipso facto,
annulled and vitiated the USAO’s entire prosecution in 04cr1224. Unregistered broker-dealers
and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs,” are legally
ineligible for any Rule 144(k) exemption from Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act’s strict-liability
registration requirements. Accordingly, it is not a 28 USC 547(1) and 18 USC 3231 “offense” for
Mr. Ware to not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to aid and abet the “Civil
Plaintiffs” named in paragraph 8 of the USAO’s bogus indictment, see Exhibit 3-2, criminally
circumvent federal law, and enable an illegal unregistered public offering of his (Mr. Ware’s)
client’s (GPMT’s) unregistered securities, GX 1-4 (the Convertible Notes). CF., SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995).
16
GX-7, Count I, the alleged “lawful” judgment entered in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings is
null and void ab initio as a matter of law. Unregistered broker-dealers lack Article III standing to
appear as a plaintiff in federal court seeking judicial relief to enforce illegal and bogus contracts,
e.g., 04cr1224 Government trial exhibits GX 1-4 (the Convertible Notes) and GX-5 (the so-called
Subscription Agreement, i.e., a void, illegal, and unenforceable underwriting contract).
17
All proceedings, orders, and judgments entered in both 02cv2219 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY)
are null and void ab initio, and moot. Mr. Ware’s bogus and fabricated conviction and sentence
entered in 04cr1224 are null and void ab initio; and the 1224 indictment failed to charge an 18
USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense and is moot for lack of 18 USC 3231 subject matter
jurisdiction.
11 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
uncompromising integrity in the enforcement of the law. However, both of those presumptions
are being challenged by your current ostensible lazy and disinterestedness “in applying the law
to the fact and following the evidence to wherever it may lead”18 that will legally require and
cause your closest colleagues19 to be prosecuted for criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3),
and other crimes for the knowing and willful resistance and violation of the Brady Court Orders.
Mr. Garland, suddenly, you do not appear so eager and ready to “apply the law to the
facts” and “follow the evidence wherever it goes”20 especially when those closest to you, i.e.,
Damian Williams of the USAO, in your personal capacity, are in severe career-ending legal
jeopardy for their crimes committed under the color of law as agents for the United States.
Furthermore, you have also publicly stated, “that no man is above the law.” Thus, Mr. Garland,
you have placed yourself in a very dubious metaphysical dilemma.
On the one hand, the law and the facts indisputably require you, if your public statements
have any veracity and integrity, to prosecute the USAO’s Damian Williams, et al., for their willful
and reckless criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders; but on the other hand, you are
personally conflicted and you know and aware that unless you publicly prosecute Damian
Williams and the USAO’s prosecutors for criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders, you and
the DOJ have lost all public credibility and your personal integrity is forever questioned and you
will be vilified as a Judas to the rule of law. That is a very heavy cross to bear. “The die has been
cast.”21
18 Public statements of Merrick B. Garland during the Bannon criminal contempt of Congress
investigation.
19
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams, the former law clerk of Circuit Judge (D. C. Circuit)
Merrick B. Garland, et al.
20It appears that Merrick B. Garland will make a deliberate detour when the evidence points to
a path straight to his door at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. and straight to the door
of the USAO.
21Reportedly stated by Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon and launched the Roman civil war
that ended the Republic.
12 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Mr. Garland the only questions that remain are whether or not like Caesar, Will you cross
the judicial and prosecutorial Rubicon and prosecute Damian Williams, the USAO, et al. for their
criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders entered in the Ware Cases? Or will you undertake
the impossible and risibly attempt to justify the insidious, overt, reckless, and flagrant
prosecutorial misconduct and criminality of the USAO, the Unindicted Co-conspirators, and the
DOJ personnel?
Or will you be lazy, do nothing and appear on CNN proclaiming:
“ … we at the DOJ apply the law to the facts and follow the evidence wherever it might
lead. I want the American people to know that no man is above the law in the United
States … the rule of law shall be applied impartially, without bias, and according to the
founding principles of this great Republic … the American people can hold me, the Attorney
General for all the people, accountable if that does not occur ….”
The American people shall see if Merrick B. Garland is true to his public words by deed of
action.
2. Nevertheless, Mr. Garland, Mr. Ware draws your attention to Exhibits 4, infra, para.
10.1(iv) of Government trial exhibit GX-5 (04cr1224). At trial, the Government admitted into
evidence GX-5 through, now newly discovered Giglio evidence, Exhibit 5, unregistered
investment advisor (Giglio impeachment evidence)22 Ari Rabinowitz, Tr. 190.23
Para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, Exhibit 4-1, was disastrous and indisputably fatal to the
Government’s probable cause, indictment, and case-in-chief; and, moreover, had dire and
devastating civil monetary and penal consequences24 for the USAO and the Unindicted Co-
22 See Exhibit 5, infra. In SEC v. Honig, 18cv08175 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) (Previously USAO suppressed
and concealed Giglio information was uncovered that Government 04cr1224 trial witness Ari
Rabinowitz was not lawfully registered as an investment advisor as required by federal law
when he testified for the Government in 2007), cf., n. 16, supra.
23 In 04cr1224 (SDNY) at Tr. 291-294 the Government introduced GX-7, the alleged final judgment
in 02cv 2219(LBS) Dkt 54; GX-5, the so-called “Subscription Agreement” was introduced through
Rabinowitz Tr. 190; cf., Exhibit 3-3, infra, Rabinowitz’s admission and confession of unregistered
broker-dealer status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs,” and ineligibility for Rule 144 exemption from
Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act strict-liability registration requirements.
24 Willful and knowing criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), of the Brady Court Orders.
13 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
conspirators.25 Thus, District Judge Ramos has a disqualifying, 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b)(1-5),
clear, actual, and substantial apparent conflict of interest, actual bias, and prejudice, and an
extreme and substantial probability of a bankrupting financial interest in the outcome of any
issue, matter or proceeding raised by Mr. Ware concerning 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 in regard to
the suppressed and concealed Brady and Giglio materials recklessly and willfully covered-up,
suppressed and concealed by the USAO and the Unindicted Co-Conspirators. Judge Ramos is
constitutionally and statutorily prevented and prohibited from being a judge in his own case. 26
25 Lacking probable cause or an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense” in 04cr1224 the USAO
and the Unindicted Co-Conspirators are civilly monetarily liable to Mr. Ware in their personal and
individual capacities in the sum certain amount of $2.225 billion dollars, jointly and severally. See
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge [Sweet, Ramos, Jones, Hall, Katzmann, Sand,
and McMahon] will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or
was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the "clear
absence of all jurisdiction."). (emphasis added). Cf., Exhibit 12, infra, the December 20, 2007,
Dkt. 90, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, after the statute of
limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, i.e., ipso facto, as a matter of law, a dismissal
with prejudice, a final judgment on the merits in favor of the defendants and their privies, to wit:
GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”). A final
judgment on the merits that terminated all subject matter jurisdiction of the District Courts over
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings. CF., A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498,
501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of lawsuit annulled and vitiated all prior
orders, judgments, and proceedings therein as if the lawsuit had never been filed; terminated the
court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, and rendered the proceedings moot). (emphasis
added).
26In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) (“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement
of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But
our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this
end, no man [Edgardo Ramos and Laura Taylor-Swain] can be a judge in his own case, and no
man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be
defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered.”). (emphasis
added).
14 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, upon admittance into evidence at trial by the Government in
04cr1224, Tr. 190 (Ari Rabinowitz), as a matter of law, the District Court’s 18 USC 3231 27 subject
matter jurisdiction was annulled and terminated by acts of the Government’s lawyers.28 Para.
10.1(iv) of GX-5 is a binding judicial admission and confession by the Government, judicial and
equitable estoppel, that each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” (cf., Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2,
infra) were in fact 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Convertible Notes (GX 1-
4); and accordingly, SEC Release 33-7190, n. 17 (1995)29 required and mandated, without
exception, that each “Civil Plaintiff” was required to “register” with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, (the “SEC”), pursuant to 15 USC 77e, Section 5, and Sections 77x and 78ff, all
distributions of GPMT’s securities, GX 1-4.30
Ergo, as a matter of law, ipso facto, the Government’s reckless, bogus and fraudulent
04cr1224 indictment failed to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense.31 It is not an
27
“The [04cr1224 and 05cr1115] district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United
States.” (emphasis added).
28 U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia, and AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin, and Maria E. Douvas.
29“Public resales in the United States by persons that would be deemed underwriters under
Section 2(11) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77b(11)] would not be permissible without
registration or an exemption from registration. Footnote 110 of the Adopting Release, which
addresses the restricted periods, should not be read to provide otherwise. Accordingly, any
distributions by a statutory underwriter [the 02cv2219 “Civil Plaintiffs”] must be registered
pursuant to Section 5. United States v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779, 782 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied,
394 U.S. 946 (1969).” (emphasis added) (brackets in original).
30
See Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (same) (referencing SEC Release 33-7190, n.17 (1995) (Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters required to register all distributions [public offering] of securities; else be in criminal violation, 15 USC
77x and 78ff, for the offering and/or sale of unregistered securities, Government trial exhibits GX 1-4 (04cr1224))
(emphasis added).
31The 04cr1224 (SDNY) District Court (Sweet, J.), now Ramos, J., only has 18 USC 3231 subject
matter jurisdiction over “offenses” against the laws of the United States; and the USAO is only
lawfully authorized, has standing, to prosecute “offenses” against the laws of the United States,
see 28 USC 547(1): “28 U.S. Code § 547 – Duties Except as otherwise provided by law, each United
States attorney, within his district, shall—(1) prosecute for all offenses against the United State.“
15 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
“offense” for Mr. Ware, GPMT’s securities counsel, to not criminally violate the federal securities
laws, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, and not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to
the “Civil Plaintiffs” judicially admitted Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s
unregistered securities, GX 1-4; as well as admitted unregistered broker-dealers, Exhibit 3-1,
according to the May 17, 2021, certification by FINRA.32
3. Mr. Garland, Mr. Ware draws your attention to Exhibit 12, the December 20, 2007, Dkt
90, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte, covert, 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs’” voluntary
dismissal, after the statute of limitations had run on all claims in 02cv2219 (SDNY), filed by
Government 04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.
Mr. Zitter’s voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of the 02cv2219 lawsuit and proceedings
was with prejudice, i.e., a final judgment on the merits for GPMT, Mr. Ware, and Elorian and
Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”). Mr. Garland I am sure that you are aware that
a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of their own lawsuit, i.e., 02cv2219 (SDNY), pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) annulled and vitiated all prior orders (GX 11 and GX-24), judgments (GX-7), and
proceedings therein as if the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit “had never been filed,” terminated the
court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings, and rendered the proceedings moot.
A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952).
Mr. Zitter’s December 20, 2007, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
lawsuit had dire and disastrous consequences for the Government’s case in chief, its indictment,
its prosecutors, and its alleged probable cause.
(emphasis added). Thus, the USAO’s 04cr1224 bogus and fraudulent proceedings lacking an
“offense” indictment, probable cause, conviction, and sentence are as a matter of law null and
void ab initio. All proceedings, orders, and judgments entered therein are moot and
unenforceable by any federal or state court or agency.
32Exhibit 3-1, the FINRA certification, is indisputable dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence the
USAO was required to have disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” according to the commands of
the Brady Court Order, Exhibit 1. Moreover, Exhibit 3-1, annulled and vitiated all probable cause
on November 17, 2004, allegedly, for the USAO (David N. Kelley and AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell), cf., Exhibit 11-3, infra, to have sought the bogus and fraudulent 04cr1224 indictment.
16 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
a. First, the record is not subject to dispute. Exhibit 12 is a certified copy of the December
20, 2007, Dkt. 90, final order/judgment that dismissed with prejudice the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
lawsuit; and by operation of law, ipso facto, annulled and mooted all orders (GX-11 and GX-24)
and judgments (GX-7) utilized by the Government to procure its comical and reckless 04cr1224
indictment.
Moreover, Exhibit 12 is Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment evidence the
USAO was obligated to disclose to Mr. Ware after trial pursuant to the August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32
(Sweet, J.) 04cr1224 Brady Court Order, Exhibit 1. The USAO and Damian Williams have not
disclosed the Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment to Mr. Ware in willful and reckless resistance
and violation of the Brady Court Order, 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt of a lawful court order.
b. Mr. Garland, as of December 20, 2007, the entry of final judgment in 02cv2219 (SDNY) for
the Prevailing Parties, all aspects of the Government’s trial theory, indictment, trial evidence,
PSR, and sentencing memoranda were rendered null and void ab initio; notwithstanding the
indisputable fact, the 02cv2219 district court initially lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
unregistered broker-dealers, the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in the Government’s indictment at
paragraph 8, Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2. Moreover, the alleged conviction and sentence entered therein
04cr1224 also were rendered null and void ab initio as a matter of law, ipso facto. A.B. Dick, 197
F.2d at 501-02.
Mr. Garland no excuse exists for the Government to not have notified the Court and Mr.
Ware immediately after December 20, 2007, their purported judgments of conviction and
sentence were rendered moot on December 20, 2007, by the actions of the Government’s own
04cr1224 trial witness, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. Indisputable Brady exculpatory evidence that was
deliberately, intentionally, and recklessly negligently suppressed and concealed by the USAO and
the Unindicted Co-Conspirators in criminal contempt of the Brady Court Order, Exhibit 1.
Furthermore, I am sure you will appreciate the subtlety that as a result of, (1) FINRA’s
May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status, Exhibit 3-1, for each of the “Civil
Plaintiffs,” Exhibit 3-2; and (2) as a result of the Government’s admission into evidence GX-5, Tr.
190 (04cr1224), conferred Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter status on each “Civil Plaintiff”
the Government’s indictment ipso facto failed as a matter of law and is moot. Thus, the District
17 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Court, without doubt, lacked 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction to enter any judgment of
conviction or sentence. Mr. Ware’s purported conviction and sentence are null and void ab initio,
and moot.
III.
A. Newly discovered USAO and Unindicted Co-Conspirators’ suppressed and concealed

dispositive Brady and Giglio evidence in United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).
1. Mr. Garland, like the moot 04cr1224 criminal contempt proceedings, the USAO in the
moot 05cr1115 (Pauley, J.), alleged conspiracy criminal proceedings33 were ordered by the
District Court (Pauley, J.), Exhibit 2, on May 19, 2006, long before trial first in January 2007, and
after a mistrial, again in April 2007, to disclose and turn-over to Mr. Ware all Brady and Giglio
material “prior to the start of trial.” The Government’s lawyers, AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell
and Nicholas S. Goldin acknowledged the Government’s “continuing duty” and obligation to
disclose all Brady and Giglio material. Exhibits 2, infra.
However, on May 19, 2006, AUSA Southwell and the USAO, then, had in their possession
secreted dispositive Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment evidence, e.g., Exhibit 634,
obtained from the SEC, which annulled and vitiated all probable cause with respect to the
33 Cf., n. 27 and n. 28, supra, Exhibit 6, the Suppressed SEC Brady Exculpatory Email.
34Exhibit 6 is disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris’ official SEC email addressed to
05cr1115 alleged co-defendant Jeremy Jones (paraphrased). SEC lawyer Norris informed Jones
that he was not added to the SEC’s civil lawsuit, 03-0831 (D. NV) “… because the Commission
believed your deposition testimony that you and the employees were not involved in any
conspiracy with Mr. Ware and you [Jones and the employees] would not have gotten involved if
you had known of any conspiracy ….” (emphasis added) (paraphrased), (the “Suppressed SEC
Brady Exculpatory Email”).
18 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
05cr1115 indictment’s trial theory of an alleged conspiracy35 to “artificial inflate”36 the “stocks’
prices” of INZS and SVSY’s securities by the issuance of false and misleading material press
releases.37
The record, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-9, Exhibit 2, infra, established that AUSA Southwell knowingly,
deliberately, and willfully in bad faith deceived, misled, lied, and committed perjury in open court
on May 19, 2006. AUSA Southwell lied and committed perjury when he stated as an officer of the
35 The Suppressed SEC Brady Exculpatory Email, Exhibit 6, vitiated the Government’s conspiracy
theory, and as a matter of law annulled and voided all probable cause for the USAO to have
obtained arrest warrants and its fraudulent indictments in 05cr1115 for Jeremy Jones and Mr.
Ware in 2005. CF., Exhibit 8, Jones’ lawyer, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., December 20, 2005, letter
addressed to District Judge Pauley and AUSA Southwell, which corroborated that Jones was not
named in the SEC’s Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) litigation. Furthermore, Exhibit 7, para. 33 of the
SEC’s unsigned and thus, moot, Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) litigation’s complaint, annulled and
vitiated that portion of the Government’s risible, reckless, and bad faith trial theory that alleged
the “artificial inflation” of INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ prices. Thus, lacking the core components of
the trial theory vitiated by the SEC’s litigation, judicial and equitable estoppel against the United
States, the real party in interest in both 03-0831 (D. NV) and 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY), the
Government’s case-in-chief in 05cr1115 (SDNY) suffered a fatal and devastating blow upon the
July 14, 2003, filing of the SEC’s Las Vegas litigation’s frivolous and reckless complaint.
36 See Exhibit 7, the SEC ‘s 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint’s paragraph 33. A binding judicial admission
and confession by the United States, the real party in interest, which constituted equitable and
judicial estoppel against the United States and its privies in subsequent litigation, that the
alleged press releases the subject matter in both 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) “did not,
artificially or otherwise, increase or inflate INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ prices.” (paraphrased)
(emphasis added).
37See 05cr1115 (SDNY) superseding indictment, September 2006. Fraudulently superseded by

the USAO after Mr. Ware disclosed confidential trial strategy to his retained lawyer, New York
lawyer Michael F. Bachner, Esq., an officer of the court. Bachner violated and breached and
egregiously disregarded his ethical and fiduciary duties to Mr. Ware, his client, by disclosing to
AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and the USAO, the confidential communications Mr. Ware had
shared with Bachner. Bachner’s treachery and perfidy against the legal interest of Mr. Ware led
Southwell and the USAO to delay trial scheduled for September 2006, and file a bogus
superseding indictment. To competently protect his legal interests Mr. Ware subsequently
terminated Bachner and entered his appearance in 05cr1115 as pro se counsel.
19 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
court ”there is no Brady or Giglio evidence that I am aware of.”38 (paraphrased)(emphasis
added). On May 19, 2006, the SEC had already secretly turned over to the USAO its entire file
collected in 03-0831 (D. NV) under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in its Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) civil litigation.
Mr. Garland, the record evidence shows that the SEC acted and functioned as a covert
agent of the USAO, and knowingly and deliberately obtained its file in 03-0831 (D. NV) in clear
violation of due process of law.39 Obtained without first giving Mr. Ware, a defendant in both
actions, 03-0831 (D. NV) (civil) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) (criminal), and the District Court, actual
notice of the Government's USAO’s intentions to bring criminal charges against Mr. Ware in
04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) regarding the same subject matter at issue in the SEC’s Las Vegas
03-0831 (D. NV) alleged civil litigation.40
38 See May 19, 2006, Dkt 17, transcript, Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2, for AUSA Southwell’s reckless,
flagrant, deliberate, and bad faith known perjury and lies, blatant and fragrant prosecutorial
misconduct, stated to deceive and mislead the District Court (Pauley, J.). In fact at the May 19,
2006, conference, Judge Pauley was then a knowing and eager member of the USAO’s conspiracy
to obstruct justice and conceal and suppress all Brady and Giglio exculpatory and impeachment
evidence in both 04cr1224 and 05cr1115.
39 See United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 24 (1970) (The Court noted and explained the
legal concept of due process of law regarding disclosure in civil proceedings that ultimate result
in criminal proceedings regarding the same subject matter: “We do not deal here with a case
where the Government has brought a civil action solely to obtain evidence for its criminal
prosecution or has failed to advise the defendant [Mr. Ware] in its [03-0831 D. NV] civil
proceeding that it contemplates his criminal prosecution [in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115]; nor with
a case where the defendant is without counsel or reasonably fears prejudice from adverse
pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; nor with any other special circumstances that might
suggest the unconstitutionality or even the impropriety of this criminal prosecution.”). (emphasis
added). The Court cited approvingly three cases, cf., n. 24, where it had been ruled that due
process notice is required in the civil proceedings the same sovereign contemplates the criminal
prosecution of the defendant named in the civil proceeding.
40 The subject matter at issue in both the Las Vegas civil and the New York 05cr1115 (SDNY)
criminal proceedings were the immaterial and therefore not actionable (civilly or criminally)
press releases of INZS and SVSY. The USAO and the SEC recklessly, knowingly, deliberately, and
in bad faith illegally used the Federal Rules of Civil Proc. as its illegal and unconstitutional grand
jury proceedings to obtain unlawful evidence that the USAO intended and did use at the grand
20 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
2. Mr. Ware’s investigators have also uncovered the USAO, and Unindicted Co-Conspirator
suppressed and concealed Brady and Giglio materials41 required to have been disclosed
according to the May 19, 2006, Dkt 17, Brady Court Order, Exhibit 2.42
Mr. Garland, Mr. Ware draws your attention to Exhibit 11, infra, the undisclosed and
willfully in bad faith suppressed and concealed Government official emails between AUSA
Alexander H. Southwell and disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris43 regarding the SEC’s
jury and at trial in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 to illegal indict, convict and sentence Mr. Ware in
contradiction to due process of law, n. 24 in Kordel; see also n. 36, supra.
41 Exhibit 9 is Jones’ CJA court appointed lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq’s., an officer of the court,
April 30, 2008, letter addressed to the District Court (Pauley, J.) and copied to AUSA Steven D.
Feldman of the USAO. Kirton for the first time, in 2008 after trial in 2007, admitted and disclosed
that Jones had in fact officially “cooperated” with the Government in 05cr1115 pursuant to a
September 22, 2006, Rule 11 plea (perjury) contract. Kirton also admitted and disclosed that
Jones cooperated pursuant to a secret agreement dated September 15, 2006, that has never
been disclosed or docketed in 05cr1115. Kirton, also disclosed that the Government provided
Jones a covert and secret USSG 5k downward departure letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.)
in 2008 for the District Court to take into consideration Jones’ known and suborned perjury and
lies told at trial in 05cr1115 to support the Government’s risible and moot trial theory vitiated
and abrogated by the SEC’s 03-0831 (D. NV) Las Vegas civil litigation. CF., Exhibits 6, 7, and 11-1
infra.
42 Exhibit 10 is an excerpt of the purported September 22, 2006, Dkt 24 (05cr1115), Jones’ alleged
(there is no proof this proceeding actually occurred) Rule 11 plea transcript. Exhibit 10 has never
been disclosed by the USAO or the District Court (Ramos, J.). Referenced in Exhibit 10 was a
purported “September 15, 2006,” USSG 5k cooperation (perjury) agreement that was arranged,
orchestrated, implemented and sanctioned by the USAO, the District Court (Pauley, J.), and
Jones’ lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., all officers of the court with a duty of complete candor and
fidelity to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the New York State Bar Association, the ABA
Professional Rules of Conduct, and regarding Judge Pauley, the Rules and Canons of Conduct for
Federal Judges. The USAO, the District Court, and Kirton conspired and arranged for Jones to
knowingly and fraudulently lie and commit perjury and admit he was a participant in a
nonexistent conspiracy. An alleged conspiracy the SEC had already absolved Jones of any
liability for in 2003 via the Suppressed SEC Brady Exculpatory Email, Exhibit 6, which was in the
possession of the USAO on September 22, 2006.
43 Norris was terminated by the SEC in 2009 for admitted and confessed official misconduct
regarding his SEC email account. The USAO knowingly and deliberately concealed and suppressed
this Giglio impeachment evidence concerning Norris’ official misconduct and bad acts during the
21 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) commingled litigation and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings.
Southwell’s official DOJ emails AUSA Southwell stated in open court on May 19, 2006, Tr. 5-9,
knowingly lied and committed perjury by stating his own official DOJ emails “did not exist.” Cf.,
also Dkt. 44, January 5, 2007, transcript of the conference (Pauley, J.).
Southwell again recklessly, flagrantly, knowingly, intentionally, and in bad faith lied and
committed perjury regarding his own official DOJ emails and their contents to and from the SEC.
Flagrant, egregious, and blatant prosecutorial misconduct and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
IV.
A. Conclusion.
Mr. Garland, in the event the Government disagrees with or opposes any aspect of this
memorandum, Mr. Ware is requesting that, jointly, he and the Government notify the District
Court (SDNY), Chief District Judge the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain and the Chief Circuit Judge the
Hon. Debra A. Livingston, and request reassignment of 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) because
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain and District Judge Edgardo Ramos will be subpoenaed
and called by Mr. Ware as a material fact witness regarding Government trial witness Ari
Rabinowitz and other matters, at any evidentiary hearing set by the Court; and therefore, as a
matter of law Judge Ramos and Taylor-Swain are disqualified from judicially participating in the
proceedings.
Also Mr. Ware will request that a briefing schedule be set by the Court to allow the parties
to present their arguments and legal analysis on the issues contained in this memorandum.
04cr1224 proceedings. The USAO’s prosecutors Michael J. Garcia, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E.
Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, and others, knowingly,
willfully, deliberately, and recklessly covered-up, suppressed and concealed the fact that Norris
has been officially sanctioned and fined by the SEC in 2007, for official bad acts, prior to Norris
testifying in 04cr1224 (SDNY) in November 2007 as the Government’s FRE 404(b) ‘bad acts’
witness regarding the bogus and fraudulent SEC’s Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) litigation. See Exhibit
14, infra, willfully concealed and suppressed Giglio impeachment evidence subject to the Brady
Court Order, Exhibit 1, infra.
22 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Please notify the undersigned not later than 12:00 noon on January 21, 2022, time of the
essence, via email at utware007@gmail.com, U.S. mail, and file on the dockets in 04cr1224 and
05cr1115 (SDNY) your official response to the allegations contained herein.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

___________________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
January 11, 2022
Brooklyn, NY
Cc: The Judicial Conference of the United States

The Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First St, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
The Hon. Debra A. Livingston

Judicial Conference of the Second Circuit
Chief Circuit Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Sq.
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
New York, NY 10007
Damian Williams, Esq.

Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY)
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Law office of Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.

230 Park Ave.
Ste 1000
New York, NY 10169
The Hon. Edgardo Ramos

United States District Judge (SDNY)
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
The Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain

Chief United States District Judge (SDNY)
23 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
The Hon. Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Executive Director
Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts
1 Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, DC 20544
24 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibits
25 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 1-1
26 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 1-2
27 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 2-1
28 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 2-2
29 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 3-1
FINRA’s May 17, 2021, Certification of
Unregistered Broker-dealer Status
30 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 3-2
U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Indictment.
31 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 3-3
The Government’s judicial admission of unregistered broker-dealer status of
each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” and annulment of probable cause and 18 USC 3231
subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings.
32 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 4-1
Para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5
Gov’t judicial admission and affirmative defense of 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory
underwriter status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs.”
33 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 4-2
34 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 5
35 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 6
36 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 7
37 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 8
38 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 8-1
39 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 9
40 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 10
41 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 10-1
42 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 11-1
43 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 11-2
44 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 11-3
45 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 12
46 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 13
47 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 14
48 | P a g e
26-Jan-22
Exhibit 15
1. Merrick B. Garland, Lisa O. Monaco, Vanita Gupta

2. Jeffrey R. Ragsdale;
3. David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, Jeffrey Berman, Audrey
Strauss, Damian Williams;
4. Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E.
Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Margaret M. Garnett, Daniel Gitner, Alexander J. Wilson,
Steven R. Peikin, David Makol, Maria E. Font, Andrew L. Fish, Melissa Childs, John M.
McEnany, the U.S. Marshals Service (NDGA) and (SDNY);
5. Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, William H. Pauley, III, Robert W. Sweet, Michael H.
Dolinger, Andrew J. Peck, Ruby Krajick;
6. Timothy C. Batten, Sr., Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Orinda D. Evans, Marvin H. Shoob, James
N. Hatten, Julie E. Carnes;
7. the State Bar of Georgia, Paula Fredrick, Bill NeSmith, Jenny Mittlemen, Adrienne Nash,
William A. Myers, Jonathan Hewitt, Dan O’Sullivan;
8. Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, David Levitt, Michael F.
Bachner, Gary G. Becker, Lisa Scolari, James H. Roth, Marlon G. Kirton;
9. Michael Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Cathleen Tyler;
10. Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, Kent J. Dawson, Steven Korotash, Steven Webster,
John C. Martin, Robert C. Hannan, Joan E. McKown;
11. Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, Barbara S. Jones;
12. Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt)44, Ari Rabinowitz, Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, LH
Financial Services, Kenneth A. Zitter, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Dennis S.
Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV;
13. Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, C. Ray Mullins, Wendy L. Hagenau, Patricia Sinback,
M. Regina Thomas; and
14. Jeremy Jones, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, Carlton Epps, Charles H. Jackson.
15. James Olas, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and John Doe #3, (U.S. Marshals, NDGA)
44The international money laundering criminal enterprise located in New York and managed by
LH Financial Services and unregistered investment advisor government 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial
witness Ari Rabinowitz. See Exhibits 3-1, 3-3, and 5, supra.
49 | P a g e
26-Jan-22

01.26.22 Re A Major Shake Up Is Coming To The DOJ

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

01.26.22 Re A Major Shake Up Is Coming To The DOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRNewswires: Special Corruption Investigations:

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland rumored

Sources inside the DOJ have stated “a major

January 11, 2022

Personal and confidential

Via U.S. mail and via email to Jeffrey R. Ragsdale c/o

14 The USAO and the Unindicted-Co-conspirators conspired to fraudulently wrongfully convict

A. Newly discovered USAO and Unindicted Co-Conspirators’ suppressed and concealed

37See 05cr1115 (SDNY) superseding indictment, September 2006. Fraudulently superseded by

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Cc: The Judicial Conference of the United States

The Hon. Debra A. Livingston

Damian Williams, Esq.

Law office of Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.

The Hon. Edgardo Ramos

The Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain

The Hon. Roslynn R. Mauskopf

1. Merrick B. Garland, Lisa O. Monaco, Vanita Gupta

You might also like