DKT 55 Ware v. USA, Et Al., 22cv3409 (SDNY)

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 55 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 13
Filed on 6/9/2022 12:55:22 AM

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (29)
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Ware v. United States, et al.
Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Thursday, June 9, 2022
________________
Criminal Fraud on the Court Inquiry to the USAO
Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for Damian Williams and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY), (the
“USAO”) to: (1) immediately disqualify themselves from 22cv3409 (SDNY) and (2) admit or deny
that Jennifer N. Wynn, Damian Williams, Charles Schumer, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos,
Laura Taylor-Swain, Jun Xiang, LaShann DeArcy Hall, Nina C. Gupta, Breon Peace, and Alpha
Capital, AG (Anstalt), Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, LH Financial Services, Inc., Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Patricia Sinback, Joyce
Bihary, C. Ray Mullins, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Michael
F. Bachner, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, Sarah E. Paul, Maria E.
Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Katherine Polk-Failla, Michael Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. McCarthy,
David Mulcahy, Barbara S. Jones, Peter W. Hall (deceased), Robert A. Katzmann (deceased),
William H. Pauley, III (deceased), Robert W. Sweet (deceased), Edgardo Ramos, and Laura
Taylor-Swain are liable as unindicted co-conspirators for aiding and abetting the violation of
N.Y. Penal Law, §190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, and 18 USC 1961(6)(A), the
aiding and abetting the collection of an unlawful debt.
Page 1 of 13
(29) 06.09.22 re Damian Williams, Jennifer Wynn, and the USAO’s conflict of interest.
The government was served with this pleading on 06.09.22 via Damian Williams at
damian.williams@usdoj.gov and Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov.
Page 2 of 13
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
via email and regular mail:

The Office of the United States Attorney
For the Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Damian Williams, Esq. (an officer of the court)
Re: Ulysses T. Ware:

Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY)
U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
Mr. Williams:
I.
Mr. Ware is writing to you in your personal and official capacity as the United States
Attorney (SDNY),1 (the “USAO”) concerning the above cases and your official responsibilities and
1
The USAO only has lawful statutory authority, 28 USC 547, to prosecute, i.e., indict, “offenses”
committed in the SDNY that are crimes against the laws of the United States; and moreover, the District
Court (SDNY), 18 USC 3231, only has lawful authority, subject matter jurisdiction, to adjudicate “offenses.”
Accordingly, the USAO, as the plaintiff in both 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, has
the burden of proof to establish both (i) Article III standing, and (ii) Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject
matter jurisdiction in regard to the proceedings sub judice.
Put another way, the USAO has the current constitutional and statutory burden of proof and production
to “affirmatively establish” in the District Court that a “live Article III case or controversy” presently exist
between Mr. Ware and the United States and its privies (the USAO) in regard to (1) whether or not GX 1-
4 and GX-5, the Illegal Contracts admitted in 04cr1224 are lawful and enforceable contracts? No.; (2)
Page 3 of 13
obligations as an officer of the court in regard to the outstanding Brady court orders, to wit: (1)
United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Dkt. 32, August 10, 2007 (Sweet, J.) (deceased) and (2)
United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Dkt. 17, May 19, 2006 (Pauley, J.) (deceased), jointly,
(the “Brady Court Orders”) and vis-à-vis 18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt, and civil contempt of
the Brady Court Orders.
Mr. Williams, the current record in 22cv3409 (SDNY), shows that the USAO knowingly and
willfully, in furtherance of the DOJ’s Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy
perpetrated against Mr. Ware for his refusal to issue bogus and fabricated Rule 144(k) legal
opinions to the Hobbs Act RICO criminal enterprise, has willfully concealed and suppressed
whether or not the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” were lawfully registered broker-dealers in 2001
when entering into GX 1-4 and GX-5? No according to FINRA’s May 19, 2021, certification—that is,
concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence by the USAO in criminal contempt
of the Brady Court Order entered in 04cr1224, Dkt. 32; and (3) whether or not the “prices” of INZS and
SVSY’s securities were “artificially inflated” by immaterial press releases? No. As a matter of law
immaterial press releases cannot “inflate” the “prices” of securities in an inefficient market.
Ergo, see 05cr1115 (SDNY) Pauley, J. October 2007 actual innocent inefficient market rulings, Dkt. 99,
S.Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr 35-36; and S. Tr. 73-76 (ruling the Government’s trial proof failed as a matter of fact
on the issue of market efficiency—that is, ipso facto, an acquittal of all charges in 05cr1115 and the
triggering of the absolute finality and res judicata of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which by necessary
implication rendered the USAO’s authority to appear and contest any claim in 22cv3409 ipso facto
prohibited by res judicata. Accordingly, application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the October 2007
Pauley actual innocent rulings, in October 2007, terminated any Article III “live case or controversy”
between Mr. Ware and the United States and its privies given the Second Circuit’s August 18, 2009, entry
of final judgment in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov. -I, i.e., the government’s abandoned and
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice cross-appeal of the District Court (Pauley, J.), October 2007 actual
innocent rulings.
The 05cr1115 proceedings are ipso facto per se moot given the USAG conferred prevailing party status
on Mr. Ware by its November 7, 2008, voluntary 18 USC 3742(b) and unreviewable and not judiciable
Article II appellate political decision to dismiss with prejudice the United States and its privies right to
appeal Judge Pauley’s October 2007 actual innocent inefficient market rulings vis-a-vis, U.S. v. Ware, 07-
5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I.
Page 4 of 13
dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence required to have
been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” per the commands of the Brady Court Orders.2
II.
A. Unwaivable conflict of interest of Damian Williams and the USAO.
Mr. Williams, given that you and your purported wife, Jennifer N. Wynn, have been
named as adverse parties, material fact witnesses, and unindicted co-conspirators in your
personal capacities regarding the adjudication of the Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY) and
related proceedings and matters, (the “Habeas Proceedings”), it is indisputable and palpable that
you are conflicted in your official position as the purported United States Attorney (SDNY); and
as a matter of law and fact, your office, the Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), the
USAO, is also conflicted and required to recuse itself from all matters that pertain to the
adjudication of the Habeas Proceedings pursuant to the Due Process Clause.
Mr. Williams, the Habeas Proceedings have reached a critical juncture given that as the
plaintiff in the criminal proceedings sub judice, 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, you and the USAO have
the Article III constitutional requirement to “affirmatively establish” both standing and the
subject matter jurisdiction of the district courts, which the USAO has not done.
Furthermore, Mr. Williams, according to the 22cv3409 docket, the USAO has not filed an
answer or any opposition to the actual innocent claims presented by Mr. Ware to the Court.
Regardless of whether or not the district court entered the required 28 USC 2243 show cause
order, Article III standing of the government and the subject matter jurisdiction of the district
courts in the sub judice criminal proceedings take precedence over the entry of the show cause
order, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95 (Subject matter jurisdiction is a “threshold issue” that
“first” must be “affirmatively established” by “every federal court [i.e., 02cv2219, 04cr1224,
2
See Dkt. 50 (22cv3409).
Page 5 of 13
04cv1115, and 22cv3409] before reaching the merits of the [22cv3409] cause” then before it
….”) (emphasis added).
Obviously, before the 28 USC 2243 show cause order is entered in 22cv3409, the Steel
Co. Article III jurisdictional protocol process binds the district court to proceed no further in
22cv3409.3 According to the rule of law expressed in Steel Co., Id. at 93-95, the district court is
strictly prohibited from the entry of any order regarding the merits of Mr. Ware’s actual
innocence claims. The district court must confine its lawful functions to jurisdictional matters
only and is required right now “as a [constitutional] threshold matter” to “affirmatively
establish” its lawful authority by4:
1. Entry of a show-cause order demanding the USAO to immediately5 come forth and
“affirmatively establish” its Article III standing and the district courts’ 18 USC 3231 subject
matter jurisdiction over their respective proceedings sub judice before reaching the
merits of the actual innocent habeas corpus claims;
2. and entry of a show cause order directing the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” to
immediately come forth and establish, (I) the Article III subject matter jurisdiction of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) district court and (II) the legality of the Illegal Contracts, GX 1-4 and GX-
5.6
3
The 22cv3409 district court is prohibited by the Steel Co. jurisdictional protocol process from taking any
action in 22cv3409 until the USAO, the plaintiff, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, in the criminal proceedings
sub judice, and the “Civil Plaintiffs” in 02cv2219 (SDNY) “affirmatively establish” Article III standing, and
Article III and statutory, 18 USC 3231, and 28 USC 1332(a), subject matter jurisdiction, respectively.
4
The 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409 (SDNY) district courts are lawfully prohibited from exercising
any Article III judicial authority over any cause until such time as they “affirmatively establish” their
subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, issues, and facts within the cause. Steel Co., Id.
5
Mr. Ware moved the District Court for the entry of the required Steel Co. jurisdictional show cause order,
see Dkt. 10 (03/31/22). The government has not responded or offered any opposition to the requested
relief.
6
The 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” as a matter of law, see December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, voluntary Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice of the 02cv2219 proceedings, are prohibited from appearing in
the district court (SDNY) or in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11
Page 6 of 13
A legal impossibility given:

i. the Court of Appeals (2d Circuit) decision in Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSys ID, Inc.,
18cv3023 (2d Cir.), March 15, 2022, opinion;7
ii. given the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) covert, voluntary, ex parte
dismissal with prejudice superseding final judgment entered in 02cv2219 by the “Civil
Plaintiffs;
iii. given FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification8 of unregistered broker-dealer status for
each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs;” and
iv. given SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) (Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters [the
“02cv2219 Civil Plaintiffs, cf., GX-5 at ¶10.1(iv)] are required to register with the SEC
all distribution of securities pursuant to Section 5 of the 1933 Act).9
III.
A. Conclusion.
proceedings, and asserting or arguing any matter actually or necessarily resolved by the December 20,
2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment in favor of Group Management Corp. or Ulysses T. Ware, (the
“Prevailing Parties”).
7
The February 1, 2001, illegal transactions conducted by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” and the
attendant Illegal Contracts, GX 1-4 and GX-5, constituted a criminal violation of N.Y. Penal Law, §190.40,
the criminal usury law, a class E felony; moreover, constituted a violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(A) the
creation and collection of an unlawful debt, racketeering criminal offenses as defined at 18 USC 2, 157,
371, 1341, 1343, 1956-57 and 1962(a-d); and were on March 15, 2022, ruled by the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, a binding judicial decision, to be null and void ab initio, unenforceable, and a criminal violation
of the N.Y. state criminal usury law, a class E felony; and by extension, once §190.40 was violated, the dire
RICO consequences of 18 USC 1961(6)(A) were triggered (3x civil damages, punitive damages, etc.).
8
Suppressed and concealed dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” as ordered by the Brady Court Orders entered
in 04cr1224 (SDNY), Dkt. 32 (August 10, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (deceased).
9
See Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220 (referencing SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995)).
Page 7 of 13
Mr. Williams, given that the above analysis is indisputable and cannot be challenged by
you and the USAO in any Article III United States federal court in good faith, you and the USAO
are in essence in a jurisdictional checkmate. The Article III jurisdictional issues in 02cv2219
(SDNY) and 04cr1224(SDNY) were dispositively resolved by the March 15, 2022, Adar Bays
decision by the Second Circuit in regard to the Illegal Contracts, GX 1-4 and GX-5.
Second, the jurisdictional issues regarding 05cr1115 were resolved on November 7, 2008,
upon the USAG’s 18 USC 3742(b), Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), and Article II appellate prosecutorial
political decision to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice the government’s United States v. Ware,
07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, cross-appeal of the 05cr1115 (SDNY) district court’s (Pauley, J.)
October 2007 dispositive actual innocent rulings, Dkt. 99: S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-36; and S.
Tr. 73-76.
As a matter of law on November 7, 2008, the USAG irreversibly conceded 05cr1115 and
triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality and res judicata, voluntarily, against the
United States and its privies, i.e., the USAO and Damian Williams, in all subsequent proceedings
[05cr1115 and 22cv3409] between Mr. Ware, and the United States and its privies.10
10
See Federated, 452 U.S. at 398-402 (all matters resolved by final judgment are absolutely binding on all
courts [22cv3409] and the parties and their privies [Damian Williams and the USAO] in all subsequent
proceedings between the parties; and all matters are “forever settled” that were actually or necessarily
resolved by final judgment). (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals August 19, 2009, entry of final judgment in Gov.-I (07-5670), against the United
States and its privies (the USAO, Damian Williams, the FBI, the SEC, the USPO, the Admin. Office of the U.
S. Courts, the Bureau of Prisons, etc.) “forever settled” in favor of Ulysses T. Ware all issues, facts, and
claims that were in whole and/or in part “actually or necessarily resolved” by [the August 19, 2009] final
judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I.
Accordingly, Mr. Ware is currently and “forever” protected from all fact-finding regarding all issues, facts,
and claims “actually or necessarily resolved” by the August 19, 2009, final judgment entered in 07-5670cr
(XAP)(2d Cir.).
Page 8 of 13
Mr. Williams, given that you and the United States are strictly prohibited by the Double
Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality and res judicata from appearing in 05cr1115 and 22cv3409
and attempting to establish the required and mandatory constitutional standing and jurisdiction
of the district courts, the government and the district courts are currently, and have been since
November 7, 2008, in Article III jurisdictional checkmate, and in criminal violation of 18 USC 241
and 242, due process of law. Perpetrated as overt acts in further of the DOJ and SEC’s Jim Crow
racially-motivated hate crime RICO conspiracy, of which Damian Williams, Jennifer N. Wynn,
Charles Schumer, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, and many others are
knowing and willing participants in the conspiracy. All done to attempt to satisfy an insatiable
avariciousness, extreme irrational hubris, and greed, which cannot ever be satisfied.
Like Icarus, Mr. Williams, you tempted Fate and flew too close to the sun, and now you
have been burned by your own hubris and greed.
Mr. Williams, given the USAO has no legal authority or argument that can be lawfully
presented and accepted by the District Courts in 02cv2219, 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409,11
and given the final judgments that have been entered in Mr. Ware’s favor as the prevailing party,
obviously the prevailing party has the legal right to enforce the final judgments through the civil
Consequently, the USAO and the government’s Article III standing, and the district court’s Article III
jurisdiction fails as a matter of law given the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s and res
judicata of the August 18, 2009, final judgment in Gov.-I.
The USAO is strictly prohibited from advancing or asserting any argument or any affirmation of its Article
III standing and the District Court’s Article III subject matter jurisdiction regarding 05cr1115. The
proceedings as a matter of law are moot, and applying the Steel Co. rule of law, Id. at 93-95, to the above
analysis, the “only function remaining to the district court (Ramos, J.) or whomever, is to announce the
fact jurisdiction is absent and dismiss the [04cr1224 and 05cr1115] cause[s]” and immediately grant
Ulysses T. Ware the writ of habeas corpus and set this matter down for fraud on the court, and
prosecutorial and judicial misconduct sanctioning proceedings. (emphasis added) (paraphrased).
11
As a matter of law the District Court cannot “affirmatively establish” its mandated Article III subject
matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff, the United States, the real party in interest, as a matter of law, on
November 7, 2008, voluntarily conceded and withdrew from the 05cr1115 proceedings by voluntarily
dismissal of its 07-5670 cross-appeal.
Page 9 of 13
and Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 42 criminal contempt processes, it would behoove you and the USAO to
immediately stand down and immediately notify all courts the United States and the USAO will
not challenge or oppose the 22cv3409 court from granting the writ not later than June 10, 2022,
at 12:00 pm, and the dismissal with prejudice, nunc pro tunc, November 17, 2004 (04cr1224)
and September 2006 (05cr1115) of the moot indictments entered in the criminal proceedings
sub judice.
Mr. Williams, your hubris, and avarice have placed you and your family in personal penal
and pecuniary jeopardy for RICO civil charges; and has created an irrefutable conflict of interest
that requires that you immediately recuse yourself and the USAO from all adversarial
prosecutorial matters that affect the current proceedings. Your hubris, avarice, weak character,
and corrupted moral compass allowed you and the USAG Merrick B. Garland to be used as
pawns and played as fools in Senator Charles Schumer’s RICO extortion, money laundering, and
obstruction of justice criminal swindles.
Please notify Mr. Ware, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of the
Chief District Judge (SDNY), and the Office of the Chief Circuit Judge (2d Circuit) of your decision
regarding the matters in this inquiry not later than Friday, June 10, 2022, 12:00 pm.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
Jennifer N. Wynn, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and NY Senator Charles Schumer
Page 12 of 13
End of
document
Page 13 of 13

DKT 55 Ware v. USA, Et Al., 22cv3409 (SDNY)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

DKT 55 Ware v. USA, Et Al., 22cv3409 (SDNY)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 55 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 13

Filed on 6/9/2022 12:55:22 AM

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

Thursday, June 9, 2022

via email and regular mail:

Re: Ulysses T. Ware:

A legal impossibility given:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

You might also like