DKT 123 Re CIC Supp #4.0, 22cv3409 (SDNY)

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 123 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 36
Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (82.0)

Filed on 11/17/2022 12:45:22 AM
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York
Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain.

___________
Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Thursday, November 17, 2022
__________________
Re: In re Ulysses T. Ware
October 20, 2022, Conviction Integrity Committee (SDNY) Petition for actual and
factual innocent review.
_______________________________
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware--November 17, 2022, Supplemental Submission #4.0:
USAO’s intentionally and deliberately concealed and suppressed actual and factual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, Ex. A, Ex. B, and Ex. 8.1
1 The USAO’s prosecutors’ (AUSAs Southwell, Feldman, Goldin, Douvas, Fish, Garcia, Bharara,
Kim, Strauss, Berman, Williams, Gitner, Garnett, McEnany, et al.) deliberate, willful, and
continuing suppression, and concealment of the Brady evidence was and is an ongoing willful
and bad faith resistance, and disobedience of the 05cr1115, May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady Court
Order, Pauley, J., (deceased), and the 04cr1224, August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Sweet, J. (deceased),
18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt of a court order.
Page 1 of 36
(82) re: 4th request for confirmation of receipt of 10.20.22 petition and Supplement #4.0 (actual
innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence intentionally suppressed by the USAO (SDNY)
prosecutors and District Judge Robert W. Sweet, and the Securities and Exchange Commission in U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)).
Conviction Integrity Committee 11.17.22 filing.

Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com

Office of the United State Attorney
For the Southern District Of New York
Conviction Integrity Committee
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Re: In re Ulysses T. Ware

October 20, 2022, Petition for actual and factual innocent review.
_______________________________
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware--November 17, 2022, Supplemental Submission #4.0:
USAO’s intentionally and deliberately concealed and suppressed actual and factual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, Ex. A, Ex. B, and Ex. 8.2
_______________________________
2 The USAO’s prosecutors’ (AUSAs Southwell, Feldman, Goldin, Douvas, Fish, Garcia, Bharara,
Kim, Strauss, Berman, Williams, Gitner, Garnett, McEnany, et al.) deliberate, willful, and
continuing suppression, and concealment of the Brady evidence was and is an ongoing willful
and bad faith resistance, and disobedience of the 05cr1115, May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady Court
Order, Pauley, J., (deceased), and the 04cr1224, August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Sweet, J. (deceased),
18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt of a court order.
Page 2 of 36
Table of Contents
Conviction Integrity Committee 11.17.22 filing. ......................................................................................... 2

A. The relevancy of the new Brady Actual Innocent Exculpatory Declarations, and Ex. 8 on the
Government’s risible trial theory alleged in the moot 04cr1224 indictment, (the “Moot Indictment”),
predicated on the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5......................................................... 5
B. Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Certificate of Service .................................................................................................................................. 14
I. Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware .......................................................................................................... 15
Request for confirmation of 10.20.22 petition and supplements. ....................................................... 15
Required Brady disclosures pursuant to Brady court Order, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY),
Sweet, J., deceased, August 10. 2007. ................................................................................................... 15
II. Ineffective assistance of counsel required declaration of Sixth Amendment counsel. ................... 16
Mr. Ware’s retained Sixth Amendment legal counsels, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Michael F.
Bachner, Esq. (NYC), have not submitted the required declarations denying their performance was
defective and prejudiced Mr. Ware’s legal rights required by the approved procedures in
Strickland—the IAC claims cannot be assessed without the required declarations from each Sixth
Amendment counsel. ............................................................................................................................. 17
III. USAO’s Brady disclosure certification in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). ................................... 18
At this stage of the proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) ipso facto, as a matter of law
there is no Article III justiciable “live” Article III controversy with respect to the Annulled Orders—at
this stage of the 04cr1224 and 02cv2219 proceedings an adverse party-plaintiff does not exist that
suffered a “concrete-injury-in-fact” apropos the criminal usury unlawful debt null and void ab initio
contracts, GX 1-4 and GX 5. See Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSys ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022). ........ 19
The 02cv2219 (SDNY), U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010)
proceedings went moot on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 3, infra, Rule 41 Final Judgment; and were no
longer “extant”—that is, presented a justiciable controversy during the alleged appellate stage of
review in 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), and during the post-trial proceedings in 04cr1224. The matters are
moot. ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusion. ............................................................................................................................................. 22
IV. Concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
newly discovered after trial in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). ............................................................... 25
Exhibit 1: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff which vitiated the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment. ....................................... 26
Page 3 of 36
Exhibit 2: Ari Rabinowitz’s Nov. 2007 04cr1224 trial testimony that confessed and admitted
unregistered broker-dealer and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter status for he and Alpha
Capital, AG (Anstalt). .............................................................................................................................. 27
Exhibit 3: 12.20.07 Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY) which ipso facto annulled
and vitiated the gov’t 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment and trial evidence. .............................................. 28
Exhibit 4: Jeffrey B. Norris the gov’t FRE 404(b) witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) concealed
and suppressed Brady impeachment evidence bad acts. ..................................................................... 29
Exhibit 4-2: Norris was under the care of a psychiatrist and was prescribed medicine that affected
his memory which the USAO suppressed and concealed in violation of the Brady court order, Dkt.
32. ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 5: SEC confirmed unregistered investment adviser for Ari Rabinowitz which the USAO
suppressed and concealed during 04cr1224 trial.................................................................................. 31
Exhibit 6-1: Brady order, Dkt. 32, entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007. ........ 32
Exhibit 6-2: Brady order, Dkt. 32, entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007. ........ 33
Exhibit 7: SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, gov’t FRE 404(b) witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) to
internal SEC lawyers regarding Ulysses T. Ware’s legal argument in the SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas 2003 03-
0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional bootleg grand jury. ............................................................. 34
Exhibit 8: GPMT’s Form SB-2 registration for $2,675, 238, more than 2x, of its conversion shares as
repayment of interest and principal on the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt. ....................................... 35
End of document. ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Page 4 of 36
Mr. Williams:
Enclosed are newly discovered Brady actual innocent exculpatory evidence Ex. A, the
Declaration of GPMT’s outside securities counsel Lawrence B. Mandala, Esq., Ex. B., the
Declaration of GPMT’s former CEO Elorian Landers, (the “Declarations”), and Ex. 8, GPMT’s Form
SB-2 registration statement excerpt that was filed with the SEC in 2001, jointly, (the “New Brady
Evidence”). The Declarations and the Form SB-2 are indisputably Brady actual innocent
exculpatory and impeachment evidence which the USAO was required to have disclosed and
produced to Mr. Ware “prior to trial,” see Ex. 6-2, infra, as ordered by the district court, Sweet,
J., on August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32 (04cr1224). Moreover, given that the USAO’s Brady disclosure
obligations are “continuing” obligations, the USAO currently is required to disclose “all” Brady
evidence in its or its privies possession.
A. The relevancy of the new Brady Actual Innocent Exculpatory

Declarations, and Ex. 8 on the Government’s risible trial theory alleged in
the moot 04cr1224 indictment, (the “Moot Indictment”), predicated on
the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5.
Mr. Williams, within the Moot Indictment’s allegations, ¶¶8-12, the government’s
prosecutors, and their supervisors deliberately, intentionally, in bad faith, and as overt acts in the
conspiracy to obstruct justice, to have Mr. Ware falsely and fraudulently convicted, lied,
committed perjury, and deliberately misled the courts regarding material elements of its risible
trial theory—that is, the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5, purportedly, which is
Page 5 of 36
a legal impossibility, required Mr. Ware and GPMT to criminally violate 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff,
and issued bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 2219 plaintiffs, unregistered
broker-dealers, see Ex. 1, infra, and judicially admitted 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters
of GPMT’s Notes, see Indictment’s ¶¶8-11, and also see the testimony of government witness
Ari Rabinowitz, Ex. 2, infra.3
The government’s prosecutors and their supervisors knowingly, willfully, in bad faith,
and intentionally lied and committed egregious perjury before the grand jury, at trial, and on
appeal (09-0851cr 2d Cir.) regarding actual innocent exculpatory facts—the government’s
prosecutors risibly pleaded, binding judicial admissions, the 02cv2219 (SDNY), (“2219”), plaintiffs
on or about February 2001 purported to lend GPMT $1.1M as recorded in four convertible
promissory notes instrument, (the “Criminal Usury Notes”), GX 1-4, purchased according to the
3 At trial in Nov. 2007 under brutal cross-examination by Mr. Ware Ari Rabinowitz crumbled,
capitulated, and in tears mea culpa and confessed that he and Alpha Capital, AG were in fact
unregistered broker-dealers and statutory underwriters regarding the Criminal Usury Subject
Matter. Which then in Nov. 2007 before the jury acquitted Mr. Ware of all charges in the Moot
Indictment—Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters as a matter of law, SEC Release 33-7190 n.
17 (1995),cf., Berckeley, 455 F. 3d at 220 (same), are strictly legally ineligible for any Rule 144
exemption to 15 USC 77e strict-liability registration requirements. Accordingly, the Moot
Indictment failed as a matter of law and fact to plead an 18 USC 401(3) “offense,” and therefore,
ipso facto, see 28 USC 547(1) and 18 USC 3231 the USAO lacked standing to have “prosecuted”
04cr1224, and the district court (Sweet, J.), respectively, lacked Article III and statutory
jurisdiction over the Criminal Usury Subject Matter to have adjudicated the Moot Indictment’s
allegations which failed to charge an “offense”—that is, the government and the district court
lacked a justiciable controversy with respect to the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and
GX 5, on which the government based its risible moot claims. The Moot Indictment, conviction,
and sentence in 04cr1224 are null and void ab initio, moot, and lack preclusive effect.
Page 6 of 36
terms contained in the alleged Subscription Agreement, GX-5, ¶10.1(iv), (the “Criminal Usury
Underwriting Contract”), jointly, (the “Criminal Usury Subject Matter”).4
The government’s prosecutors’ perjurious judicial admissions pleaded before the grand
jury, pleaded in the Moot Indictment, binding judicial admissions, made in risible and deliberately
misleading arguments before the petit jury, and made in the government’s risible brief filed in
U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) appeal, collectively, (the “Government’s Lies and
Perjury”), as a matter of law and fact acquitted Mr. Ware of all charges in the Moot Indictment—
that is, it is a fact, it is not an 18 USC 401(3) “offense” for Mr. Ware to not criminally and civilly
violate the federal securities laws, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, and draft, sign, and issue bogus
and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the unregistered broker-dealers, and Section
2(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s criminal usury Notes, i.e., the 2219 plaintiffs.
Rather than fraudulently and racially-motivated prosecuting Mr. Ware on bogus and
trumped up charges, the government’s USAO’s prosecutors should have prosecuted the white
persons--the 2219 plaintiffs, Ari Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Inc., Kenneth A. Zitter,
convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, David N. Kelley, Alexander H.
4See Adar Bays LLC v. GeneSys ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) (held convertible promissory
notes that charged more than twice the legal 25% interest rate were criminal usury loans which
are null and avoid ab initio, unenforceable, not subject to repayment, and violated NYS Penal
Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony; and implicitly, the collection of the
unlawful debts violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B), see U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d
conviction, sentence, and RICO forfeiture judgment, +$3.0 billion, for unlawful debt collection
activities).
Page 7 of 36
Southwell, Robert W. Sweet, Leonard B. Sand, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Dennis S. Meir, John W.
Mills, III, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S.
Goldin, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and Michael J. Garcia for perjury, obstruction of
justice, grand jury fraud and perjury, hate crimes, and conspiracy to collect the criminal usury
unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(b), Grote, Id.
Mr. Williams, the USAO has a very serious existential credibility and integrity crisis that
has festered into a gangrenous malignant rotten corpus—what motivated the USAO’s
prosecutors, and their supervisors to deliberately, intentionally, and willfully lie and commit
perjury numerous times before a federal grand jury, a federal trial court (04cr1224), and a federal
appeals court (09-0851 2d Cir.)? Clearly, the USAO has a systemic lying and perjury problem
regarding prosecutions of persons who are nonwhite, based on lies, perjury, fantasy, and
Orwellian Newspeak no/yes, yes/no delusional assertions and conjectures of WHITE
SCHIZOPHRENIC CRIMNALS—that is, racially-motivated prosecutions not based on evidence and
facts, but rather politically-motivated persecutions based on inherent systematic WHITE
ECONOMIC EXTORTION racial prejudice and unconstitutional prosecutorial Apartheid political
values and motivations.
In fact, it appears, and the empirical evidence supports, the deductive inference that the
USAO’s prosecutors employed what Orwell in the dystopian novel, 1984, termed Newspeak
yes/no logic—that is, no really is yes, and yes really is no regarding the activities of “loyal party
members [USAO prosecutors and their supervisors].” According to Newspeak logic the USAO’s
Page 8 of 36
prosecutors’ perjury and lies are the truth, and Adar Bays, FINRA’s certification, and SEC Release
33-7190 n. 17 (1995) facts are false and lies which does not apply to the 2219 plaintiffs’ and
Colleen McMahon/Frank V. Sica’s criminal usury loan sharking and money laundering criminal
enterprise’s activities, cf., GX 1-4 and GX 5, and Dkt. 139, 139-1, and 139-2 (02cv2219). Else, why
has the USAO not moved against the McMahons and Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), et al., if federal
RICO law, 18 USC 1961(6)(B,) applies to the 2219 lawsuit, and Dkt. 139, etc., that sought to collect
the Criminal Usury unlawful debt?
The answer is palpable—the USAO and the NYC federal courts (USDC and USCA) are
nothing more than the prosecutorial and judicial corruption protection arm of the Alpha Capital,
AG (Anstalt) and the Colleen McMahon/Frank V. Sica’s RICO loan sharking and money
laundering criminal enterprise. Nothing more, nothing less. That is what it is. As your homeboy
Biggie Small would say, “If you didn’t know, now you know.” Thus, what are you going to do about
it? Nothing at all if you want a career in a big NYC law firm after the USAO job is over. That is a
fact.
Mr. Williams, Winston Churchill was noted for saying, “Facts are very stubborn things,
whether we like them or not, they have to be taken into account in the analysis.” With that being
said, these are the FACTS as the new Brady actual innocent exculpatory evidence establish—
unless to be exculpatory is inverted to be inculpatory according to Orwellian Newspeak no/yes,
yes/no judicial and prosecutorial logic:
Page 9 of 36
1. the USAO has violated and is currently resisting not one, but two Brady Court Orders.
That is a fact.
2. The 2219 plaintiffs are unregistered broker-dealers and always have been.
3. The USAO’s prosecutors pleaded the United States and its privies out of the federal courts
on November 17, 2004, by risibly pleading actual innocent affirmative defenses on the
face of the Moot Indictment, see para. 8-12.
4. The Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5, is not lawful subject matter which
a federal indictment can lawfully be predicated on—that is, the Criminal Usury Subject
Matter is not an Article III justiciable controversy over which the 04cr1224 Article III
federal court is lawfully authorized to invoke its jurisdiction over that criminal subject
matter. The Criminal Usury Subject Matter is a justiciable controversy if, and only if,
Orwellian Newspeak no/yes, yes/no logic is used to analyze the matter.
5. The Adar Bays March 15, 2022, decision by the USCA for the Second Circuit is binding
authority in the Second Circuit’s district courts, and binding on the USAO, unless
Orwellian Newspeak no/yes and yes/no prosecutorial and judicial logic is used to nullify
Adar Bays’ ruling.
6. Ari Rabinowitz, Ex. 2, infra, in November 2007, it is a fact, unless history has been
rewritten according to Newspeak history, testified in open court during 04cr1224 that
he, LH Financial Services, and Alpha Capital, AG were unregistered broker-dealers, and
were Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters of the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, which
Page 10 of 36
should have ended the matter if Orwellian Newspeak prosecutorial and judicial no/yes,
yes/no logic had not been in use during the 04cr1224 trial and 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) appeal.
7. It is a fact that Edward T.M. Garland, et al. stole the substantial retainers paid by Mr.
Ware to employ Garland, et al., as Sixth Amendment legal counsel in 04cr1224 and
05cr1115, unless to steal is to be lawfully paid to do absolutely nothing is effective
assistance of legal counsel.
8. It is a fact that Garland, et al., have never denied they stole Mr. Ware’s retainers, have
never denied they did not provide effective, assistance, of independent, legal, counsel to
Mr. Ware during the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings.
9. It is a fact the USAO has not disclosed judicial public records associated with the alleged
September 2006, purported Rule 11 perjury contract proceedings concerning a person
who purported to be Jeremy Jones regarding 05cr1115.
10. It is a fact the USAO has never disclosed Brady evidence regarding its alleged FRE 404(b)
‘bad acts’ witness, former disgraced SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris.
11. It is a fact that AUSAs Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, and their supervisors
knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally, and in bad faith lied, committed perjury,
and with racially-motivated animus committed egregious prosecutorial misconduct—
unless prosecutorial misconduct is the policy of the USAO, by the systematic suppression
and concealment of numerous items of Brady actual innocent exculpatory and
Page 11 of 36
impeachment evidence, which violated the August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Sweet, J., Brady
court order—unless to violate a court order is to comply with its terms and conditions.
12. It is a fact that AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin,
Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, Audrey Strauss, Andre Damian
Williams, Jr., John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett,
Edgardo Ramos, Robert W. Sweet, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Katherine Polk-
Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Steve R. Peikin, and others have not disclosed “all” Brady actual
innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence required by the Brady Court Orders.
B. Conclusion.
Mr. Williams, therefore, the first thing the USAO must undertake to accomplish if it desires
to determine what is fact, and what is fantasy according to either Orwellian Newspeak no/yes,
yes/no logic and reasoning, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the U.S. Constitution, and
the Supreme Court’s written decisions is to conduct an “objective” reality, fact-based analysis of
the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings record factual evidence, rather than relying on fantasy,
delusional, Newspeak no/yes, yes/no hypothetical assertions and conjectures.
Second, the USAO, the USDC (SDNY), and USCA (2d Cir.) federal courts must do as Socrates
taught his apprentice student to do and, “start at the beginning”-- start with “first principles” and
“objectively” apply those “principles” to the “Facts” and see where that leads. The key to that
directive by Socrates is “first principles” that govern the subject matter. Ostensibly, Socrates
Page 12 of 36
directed his students to objectively apply “principles” based on “objective” reality, empirical
facts—the Brady exculpatory evidence produced in this Supp. #4.0, and in other submissions to
the USAO and the courts, rather than applying first “principles” to a make believe fantasy Looking
Glass, rabbit hole, Jabberwocky, Newspeak no/yes, yes/no fantasy reality alleged delusional
assertions and conjectures based on nothing more than schizophrenic speculation and delusion.
The outcome of the delusional analysis led to the current delusional Looking Glass results of the
04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings.
Mr. Williams, it is reported that you are a graduate of the Yale Law School. However, you
might have obtained a law degree, a piece of paper from Yale, it is clear that you did not obtain
a competent and complete legal education from Yale Law School based in the “objective”
application of legal “first principles” to the reality based “facts.” That you did not get from Yale
Law School, which hampers, and is an impediment to your competence, and a serious public
safety issue that must be immediately addressed by the DOJ’s Office of Professional
Responsibility, and addressed on an emergency basis by the Judicial Council of the District Court
(SDNY) Disciplinary Committee (Taylor-Swain, C.J.), pursuant to Local Rule USDC (SDNY), L.R.
1.5(b)(5), for the commission of criminal prosecutorial misconduct by you and the USAO’s
prosecutors regarding the ongoing concealment and suppression of Brady exculpatory actual
innocent evidence required to have been disclosed according to the terms of the Brady Court
Orders—the violation of 18 USC 2, 371, 401(3), 1519, and 2071. That is a fact.
Submitted by Ulysses T. Ware
Page 13 of 36
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Certificate of Service
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on
November 17, 2022.
cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

Office of the Director of the FBI
Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Judicial Congress of the United
States
Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY)
Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY), Laura Taylor-Swain, personally.
District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY), personally
Office of the U.S. Attorney General
Office of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge (NDGA), Wendy L. Hagenau, personally
The State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel
Office of the United States Attorney (EDNY)
U.S. Bureau of Prisons (Warden, MDC, Brooklyn, NY)
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
J. Henry Walker, IV (representative of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs)
John W. Mills, III
Edward T. M. Garland for Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Michael F. Bachner, Esq.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
The Conviction Integrity Committee of the Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY).
Daniel Gitner, and Margaret M. Garnett, personally
Andre Damian Williams, Jr, personally
Colleen McMahon, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Debra Ann Livingston, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 14 of 36
I. Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 17th day of November 2022, under oath, subject to
the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC
1746, make this declaration of undisputed material facts, and state the following
facts.
Request for confirmation of 10.20.22 petition and supplements.
Mr. Ware is contacting the Committee for the fourth time requesting confirmation of his
October 20, 2022, submission of his petition for actual and factual innocence, a fundamental
miscarriage of justice review, (the “Petition”), and supplements. Accordingly, please have the
Committee confirm its receipt of Mr. Ware’s Petition and supplements.
Required Brady disclosures pursuant to Brady court Order, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY), Sweet, J., deceased, August 10. 2007.
Second, Mr. Ware is submitting Ex. A (the Declaration of Lawrence B. Mandala) and Ex. B
(the Declaration of GPMT’s CEO Elorian Landers) in addition to Ex. 1-7, infra, to the Committee,
and the USAO, actual, and factual Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence deliberately,
intentionally, and in bad faith, suppressed, concealed, and covered up as a DOJ prosecutorial
misconduct conspiracy to obstruct justice, which includes, Ex. 1, FINRA’s May 17, 2021,
unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff, nor have the judicial
public records been disclosed and produced to Mr. Ware as required by the Brady Court Order.
A malicious DOJ criminal contempt of a court order, 18 USC 401(3).
Page 15 of 36
II. Ineffective assistance of counsel required declaration of Sixth

Amendment counsel.
Third, Does the USAO intend to defend the criminal ineffective assistance of counsel
deliberately committed by Mr. Ware’s retained Sixth Amendment counsels: Edward T.M.
Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Michael F. Bachner, and Gary G. Becker,5 (the
“Ineffective Counsels”)? If so, Mr. Ware is requesting that the USAO provide to his and the
Committee’s immediate attention the Ineffective Counsels’ declarations required to deny the
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the Committee requires to assess the merits of Mr.
Ware’s IAC claims.
Mr. Williams, if the Committee intends to conduct a thorough and complete actual
innocent assessment of Mr. Ware’s IAC claims the Supreme Court in Strickland, approved the
procedures, analysis, and methodology that must be used to assess the merits of IAC claims—
which requires the Sixth Amendment counsel(s) for the defendant to submit a declaration either
admitting or denying their actions were or were not below the standard of performance of a
competent lawyer under the circumstances.
5 Gary G. Becker, Esq. was selected, over the objections of Mr. Ware, by the district
court, Pauley,
J. as the purported “stand-by counsel” during 05cr1115. However, Becker worked as a covert
government agent and agent for the court, and covertly and illegally disclosed and conveyed Mr.
Ware’s confidential trial strategies and information to the USAO and to the court during the
05cr1115 proceedings—that is, Becker worked as a mole, a snitch, for the USAO and the district
court, and received CJS payments, bribes, and kickbacks for his services.
Page 16 of 36
Mr. Ware’s retained Sixth Amendment legal counsels, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and
Michael F. Bachner, Esq. (NYC), have not submitted the required declarations denying their
performance was defective and prejudiced Mr. Ware’s legal rights required by the
approved procedures in Strickland—the IAC claims cannot be assessed without the
required declarations from each Sixth Amendment counsel.
To date, 11.10.22, Mr. Ware’s Sixth Amendment retained counsel, the Garland law firm
of Atlanta, GA, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and its affiliate Michael F. Bachner, Esq. (NYC),
(“Garland, et al.”), have not submitted the required Strickland declarations which denied their
performance was defective and prejudiced Mr. Ware. Thus, at the present, the Committee and
the federal courts lack any evidence—the Strickland declarations, in the record which counters
or contradicts Mr. Ware’s sworn facts and claims in the Petition.
The U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) docket confirmed that Garland, et al. did not perform
as “independent,” “effective” Sixth Amendment legal “counsel” at any stage of the 04cr1224 or
05cr1115 proceedings—Garland, et al. did nothing more than request continuances; failed to file
the most basic discovery motion; failed to investigate or research the law and develop any
defense to the 18 USC 401(3) moot charges; and Garland, et al., failed to challenge the
government’s trial theory in any adversarial pleading filed in 04cr1224. In short Garland, et al.,
failed in all regard to perform and function as “independent” legal “counsel” and failed to provide
any “assistance” to Mr. Ware, other than to steal the substantial retainer paid to Garland, et al,
and separate retainer was paid to Bachner. Clearly, the actions and professional misconduct of
Garland, et al., constituted theft of funds, conspiracy to steal the retainers, fraud, fraud in the
Page 17 of 36
inducement, negligence, false misrepresentation of material facts, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
perjury, and other crimes that violated NYS and federal law.
III. USAO’s Brady disclosure certification in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224

(SDNY).
Mr. Ware is requesting that the USAO supply to the purported independent6 Committee
and to Mr. Ware a certification that all Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and Rule 16 actual and factual
innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence was produced to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” as
ordered by the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Ex. 4, infra, Brady Court
Order; and certify the USAO also has fulfilled its “continuing” obligation to disclose and produce
Brady evidence.
Mr. Williams, the attached exhibits, infra, are clear and convincing evidence the USAO
violated the Brady court order, Ex. 6, infra, lied to the courts (04cr1224 and 09-0851 (2d Cir.), and
committed perjury before the grand jury, before the petit jury, and before the Court of Appeals
in U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010)—the government’s risible and completely fraudulent
appeal brief was fraudulently prepared, signed, and filed in the court of appeals: a fraud on the
court, and an overt act to obstruct justice. The USAO’s 04cr1224 line prosecutors and their
supervisors knew in 2010 when the USAO’s brief was submitted to the court of appeals in 09-
6 The best practices require, obviously, that the reviewing Committee is separate and
independent from the prosecutorial decision makers who are responsible for producing the
requested Brady evidence.
Page 18 of 36
0851cr (2d Cir.) that government 04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. on 12.20.2007,
Dkt. 90, had voluntarily, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219
lawsuit, dismissed the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice, which had dire consequences on the
04cr1224 indictment and trial. See Ex. 3, infra.
Government trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter’s 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the 2219 lawsuit, see Ex. 3, infra, applying the legal
standard in A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (plaintiff’s voluntary
dismissal of its lawsuit “annul[led]”, “vitiate[ed],” voided, and set aside all prior orders,
judgments, and proceedings therein; terminated the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and
rendered the [02cv2219 and 04cr1224] “proceedings” moot) (emphasis added).
The application of the legal standard in A.B. Dick, Id., to the 02cv2219 and 04cr1224
proceedings annulled and vitiated the alleged factual basis for the charges in the 04cr1224
indictment—GX 7 (November 25, 2002, judgment, Dkt. 54), GX 11 (March 13, 2003, order, Dkt.
58), and GX 24 (August 13, 2003, Dkt. 65, order), jointly, (the “Annulled Orders”) per the legal
standard in A.B. Dick, Id. at 501-02.
At this stage of the proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) ipso facto, as a matter of
law there is no Article III justiciable “live” Article III controversy with respect to the Annulled
Orders—at this stage of the 04cr1224 and 02cv2219 proceedings an adverse party-plaintiff
does not exist that suffered a “concrete-injury-in-fact” apropos the criminal usury unlawful
debt null and void ab initio contracts, GX 1-4 and GX 5. See Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSys ID,
Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022).
Page 19 of 36
Mr. Williams, the law is clear and not open to debate: a live Article III justiciable
controversy “must exist at all stages” of 02cv2219 (SDNY) and the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
proceeding—on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 3, infra, the Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219
(SDNY), and the mootness of the Annulled Orders terminated a “live” Article III justiciable
controversy regarding the Annulled Orders, and therefore, terminated a justiciable controversy
with respect to the charges in the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, (the “Moot
Indictment”), as of 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 3, infra, the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
The 02cv2219 (SDNY), U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.
2010) proceedings went moot on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 3, infra, Rule 41 Final Judgment;
and were no longer “extant”—that is, presented a justiciable controversy during the
alleged appellate stage of review in 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), and during the post-trial
proceedings in 04cr1224. The matters are moot.7
Put another way, as of 12.20.2007, prior to the USAO’s submission of the risible 09-
0851cr (2d Cir.) appeal brief, the USAO’s indictment and trial evidence all went moot the moment
the 2219 district court (Sand, J.) entered the Rule 41 Final Judgment on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex.
3-- the court of appeals lacked appellate and Article III subject matter jurisdiction to have heard
the 09-0851cr appeal—a “live” Article III justiciable controversy ceased to exist with respect to
7
See the Annulled Orders in 02cv2219 (SDNY): GX 7 (November 25, 2002, judgment, Dkt. 54), GX 11
(March 13, 2003, order, Dkt. 58), and GX 24 (August 13, 2003, Dkt. 65, order), jointly, (the “Annulled
Orders”) per the legal standard in A.B. Dick, Id. at 501-02. The government’s 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment’s
18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt charges relied on GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24 as the factual basis for the
charges. Once the Annulled Orders were annulled and went moot on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, the 04cr1224
indictment went moot and was ipso facto annulled pursuant to res judicata.
Page 20 of 36
the Annulled Orders, rendered annulled and moot by the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata
preclusive effects. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moite, 452 U.S. 394, 398-402 (1981).8
The Court in David v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (Alito, J.) (rev’d the district court’s ruling
the petitioner lacked Article III standing) reviewed the question whether the Court had
jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the petitioner. In deciding the issue, the Court, Id. at 732-33,
began its review, sua sponte, as all federal courts are required, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95,
to decide whether or not it, a federal court, had constitutional jurisdiction to hear the appeal:
“Like the District Court [a trial court],9 we [sitting as an appellate court] must first ensure
that we have [appellate] jurisdiction to hear Davis' appeal. Article III restricts federal
courts to the resolution of cases and [live, adversarial] controversies. That restriction
requires that the party invoking federal jurisdiction [i.e., the 2219 plaintiffs in 02cv2219,
in 03-93031 (see Dkt. 15, Dkt. 16), the Trustee (see Dkt. 13), and the government in
04cr1224 indictment as the plaintiff] have standing—the personal interest that must
exist at the commencement of the litigation. But it is not enough that the requisite
[personal] interest exist [only] at the outset. To qualify as a case fit for federal-court
adjudication, an actual [live adversarial] controversy must be extant at all stages of
8
“There is little to be added to the doctrine of res judicata as developed in the case law of this Court. A
final judgment [the 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 3, infra] on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that [02cv2219 and 04cr1224]
action […] This Court has long recognized that [p]ublic policy dictates that there be an end of litigation;
that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once
tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties." (internal citations and quotations
omitted) (emphasis added).
9
The 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) federal court
“must first ensure that [they] have jurisdiction” before proceeding to the merits of the claims presented
by the 2219 plaintiffs in the 2219 complaint, the 2219 plaintiffs in Dkt. 15 and Dkt. 16 (03-93031), and the
government in the 04cr1224 indictment given the Intervening Events legal effect on “concrete
adverseness”—a “live” controversy between the parties in 02cv2219 (SDNY) regarding GX 1-4 and GX 5,
Dkt 54 (GX 7), Dkt. 50, Dkt. 65 (GX-24), Dkt. 80, Dkt. 102, Dkt. 120, Dkt. 137, and Dkt. 141, collectively, (the
“Moot Judgments”).
Page 21 of 36
review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”) (citations and internal quotation
omitted). (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has approved the law, the legal standard, and authorized the process,
the procedure, the analysis, and the methodology the lower federal courts [02cv2219 (SDNY),
03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), 07-5222 (2d Cir. 2009), and 09-0851cr
(2d Cir. 2010), jointly, (the “Moot Proceedings”), are required to apply when determining their
appellate and subject matter jurisdiction--whether or not a live justiciable controversy then
exists between the real adverse parties in interest, then before the court.
The federal courts [U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir)]
“must first ensure” whether or not ‘concrete adverseness’ now exist, “at th[is] stage of the
proceedings” between the real adverse ‘parties in interest’ with respect to the subject matter
[the Annulled Orders and the Moot Proceedings] under review by the Committee and the courts.
Conclusion.
The Moot Proceedings are moot as a matter of law and fact—the 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, Ex.
3, infra, Rule 41 Final Judgment (02cv2219) is the controlling final judgment and triggered the
application of res judicata—“all” prior judgements (GX 7, Dkt. 54, Dkt 50, and Dkt. 80), “all”
orders (02cv2219 (SDNY), GX 11, GX 24, Dkt. 102, Dkt. 120, Dkt. 137, and Dkt. 141), and “all”
proceedings in 02cv2219, 03-93031 (Dkt. 11, Dkt. 13, Dkt. 15, Dkt. 16, and Dkt. 28), 04cr1224,
and 09-0851 are controlled by the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects; and
Page 22 of 36
at this stage of the proceedings a “live” Article III justiciable controversy does not exist with
respect to the Annulled Orders and the Moot Proceedings. The 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings
currently, as has since 12.20.2007, lacked the required adverse party-plaintiff, required at all
stages of a proceeding in a federal court. Else the proceedings are moot. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at
93-95; and see also, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
Mr. Williams, given the USAO’s and the Committee’s reckless irresponsibility and lack of
attention to this urgent matter where Mr. Ware has, is, and will continue to suffer irreparable
harm caused by the crimes of the USAO and its prosecutors, Mr. Ware has no choice but to seek
judicial relief in the courts. Accordingly, unless the USAO and/or the Committee respond in
writing not later than Friday, November 11, 2022, by 2:00 PM, time of the essence, to this
Declaration and provided counterfactual declarations, analysis, and reasoning why the factual
averments herein are not true and correct in every aspect, then Mr. Ware will represent to the
Court of Appeals (09-0851cr) in a declaration the USAO and the Committee were contacted on
November 10, 2022, and requested to respond to this Declaration, and did not respond, and did
not oppose any relief based on the facts, arguments, and analysis presented herein to annul,
vitiate, reverse and vacated the conviction, sentence, assessments, and supervised release
imposed in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), nunc pro tunc, November 17, 2004; and expunge all
records of the indictment, prosecution, conviction, and sentence in 04cr1224, and 09-0851cr (2d
Cir.).
Page 23 of 36
Mr. Williams, please have the USAO and the Committee address the enclosed issues to
assure the public that the Committee is more than a DOJ publicity stunt, and to permit a speedy
resolution of Mr. Ware’s claims.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
enclosures:
cc: Edward T.M. Garland, et al. (members of the Garland law firm).
Page 24 of 36
IV. Concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and

impeachment evidence newly discovered after trial in U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY).
Page 25 of 36
Exhibit 1: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for
each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff which vitiated the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment.
Page 26 of 36
Exhibit 2: Ari Rabinowitz’s Nov. 2007 04cr1224 trial testimony that confessed and
admitted unregistered broker-dealer and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriter
status for he and Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt).
Page 27 of 36
Exhibit 3: 12.20.07 Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY) which ipso
facto annulled and vitiated the gov’t 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment and trial evidence.
Page 28 of 36
Exhibit 4: Jeffrey B. Norris the gov’t FRE 404(b) witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY) concealed and suppressed Brady impeachment evidence bad acts.
Page 29 of 36
Exhibit 4-2: Norris was under the care of a psychiatrist and was prescribed medicine
that affected his memory which the USAO suppressed and concealed in violation of
the Brady court order, Dkt. 32.
Page 30 of 36
Exhibit 5: SEC confirmed unregistered investment adviser for Ari Rabinowitz which the
USAO suppressed and concealed during 04cr1224 trial.
Page 31 of 36
Exhibit 6-1: Brady order, Dkt. 32, entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10,
2007.
Page 32 of 36
Exhibit 6-2: Brady order, Dkt. 32, entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10,
2007.
Page 33 of 36
Exhibit 7: SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, gov’t FRE 404(b) witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY) to internal SEC lawyers regarding Ulysses T. Ware’s legal argument in the SEC-
DOJ’s Las Vegas 2003 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and unconstitutional bootleg grand jury.
Page 34 of 36
Exhibit 8: GPMT’s Form SB-2 registration for $2,675, 238, more than 2x, of its conversion
shares as repayment of interest and principal on the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
Page 35 of 36
End of document.
Page 36 of 36

DKT 123 Re CIC Supp #4.0, 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 123 Re CIC Supp #4.0, 22cv3409 (SDNY)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 123 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 36

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (82.0)

Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain.

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware--November 17, 2022, Supplemental Submission #4.0:

Conviction Integrity Committee 11.17.22 filing.

Thursday, November 17, 2022

Re: In re Ulysses T. Ware

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware--November 17, 2022, Supplemental Submission #4.0:

Conviction Integrity Committee 11.17.22 filing. ......................................................................................... 2

evidence in its or its privies possession.

A. The relevancy of the new Brady Actual Innocent Exculpatory

Ari Rabinowitz, Ex. 2, infra.3

appeal (09-0851cr 2d Cir.) regarding actual innocent exculpatory facts—the government’s

Underwriting Contract”), jointly, (the “Criminal Usury Subject Matter”).4

convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, David N. Kelley, Alexander H.

unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(b), Grote, Id.

Orwellian Newspeak no/yes, yes/no delusional assertions and conjectures of WHITE

SCHIZOPHRENIC CRIMNALS—that is, racially-motivated prosecutions not based on evidence and

facts, but rather politically-motivated persecutions based on inherent systematic WHITE

ECONOMIC EXTORTION racial prejudice and unconstitutional prosecutorial Apartheid political

values and motivations.

the Criminal Usury unlawful debt?

unless to be exculpatory is inverted to be inculpatory according to Orwellian Newspeak no/yes,

yes/no judicial and prosecutorial logic:

face of the Moot Indictment, see para. 8-12.

Orwellian Newspeak no/yes, yes/no logic is used to analyze the matter.

Adar Bays’ ruling.

05cr1115, unless to steal is to be lawfully paid to do absolutely nothing is effective

assistance of legal counsel.

Mr. Ware during the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings.

September 2006, purported Rule 11 perjury contract proceedings concerning a person

who purported to be Jeremy Jones regarding 05cr1115.

‘bad acts’ witness, former disgraced SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris.

and with racially-motivated animus committed egregious prosecutorial misconduct—

and concealment of numerous items of Brady actual innocent exculpatory and

delusional, Newspeak no/yes, yes/no hypothetical assertions and conjectures.

04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings.

Submitted by Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

November 17, 2022.

cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

I. Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware

Committee confirm its receipt of Mr. Ware’s Petition and supplements.

A malicious DOJ criminal contempt of a court order, 18 USC 401(3).

II. Ineffective assistance of counsel required declaration of Sixth

Ware’s IAC claims.

competent lawyer under the circumstances.

or contradicts Mr. Ware’s sworn facts and claims in the Petition.

inducement, negligence, false misrepresentation of material facts, conspiracy to obstruct justice,

III. USAO’s Brady disclosure certification in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224

04cr1224 indictment and trial. See Ex. 3, infra.

rendered the [02cv2219 and 04cr1224] “proceedings” moot) (emphasis added).

standard in A.B. Dick, Id. at 501-02.

93-95; and see also, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

resolution of Mr. Ware’s claims.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

IV. Concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and

You might also like