DKT 139 Re Emergency Application

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 139 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 14
Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (91.1)

Filed on 12/19/2022 12:52:22 PM
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York
Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, & Taylor-Swain

__________________
Ulysses T. Ware’s Emergency Application pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5),
28 USC 2255(a), and (e)1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), and 18 USC 3231 to Reverse,
vacate, and set aside Dkt. 126 (Order), Ramos, J., as null and void ab initio, moot,
and without legal effect, for (i) violation of due process of law, and (ii) lack of
Article III, 18 USC 3231,2 and 2255(a) subject matter jurisdiction over the Moot
Subject Matter--the (i) 04cr1224 terminated and expired sentence, and (ii) the
05cr1115 terminated and expired sentence.
__________
1
28 USC 2255(a), (e) do not authorize or supply a district court (04cr1224 and 05cr1115) with lawful
Article III or 2255(a) statutory subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate moot subject matter—the
terminated, or expired sentences of a “federal prisoner.”
2
The 04cr1224 district court lacked Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction over the Criminal
Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5; and the 05cr1115 district court lacked Article III and 18 USC 3231
subject matter jurisdiction over the immaterial (moot) press releases of INZS and SVSY, see ¶33 in the Las
Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal DOJ-SEC Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings—suppressed and concealed Brady
actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the USAO (SDNY) and the
SEC.
Page 1 of 14
Monday, December 19, 2022
(91.1) re Emergency Application to vacate and set aside Dkt. 126, Order, and Inquiry to Judge Ramos and
the DOJ to identify the extant subject matter vis-à-vis 2255(a) subject matter jurisdiction.
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
Page 2 of 14
Table of Contents
EMERGENCY APPLICATION REGARDING MOOT 28 USC 2255(a) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION VIS-À-
VIS DKT. 126 (ORDER) (Ramos, J.)................................................................................................................ 4
1. Lawful 28 USC 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction requires, (i) a motion, (ii) by a “federal
prisoner,” (iii) to the sentencing court, regarding, (iv) an extant (unexpired) sentence imposed by the
sentencing court, (v) for which the federal prisoner is then “in custody” for which the “federal
prisoner” seeks to have his “sentence” (a) “vacate[d], (b) “set aside,” or (c) “correct[ed].” See 28 USC
2255(a). ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Contention. ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2. The Moot Subject Matter, the terminated 1224 and 1115 sentences, do not present the 1224 and
1115 District Courts with an Article III “live” justiciable controversy over which they are permitted to
invoke Article III and 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction—any purported 2255 proceedings with
respect to the Moot Subject Matter is ultra vires, null and void ab initio, and without any legal
preclusive effect. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95. ............................................................................................ 7
3 Petitioner Ulysses T. Ware on March 21, 2022, was not, and was not on December 12, 2022, a
“federal prisoner” according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons records. See Dkt. 128. .................................. 8
3. Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................................... 10
4. Reliefs requested................................................................................................................................ 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................ 13
End of document ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Page 3 of 14
EMERGENCY APPLICATION REGARDING MOOT 28 USC 2255(a) SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION VIS-À-VIS DKT. 126 (ORDER) (Ramos, J.).
Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
Office of District Judge (SDNY)

The Hon. Edgardo Ramos
40 Foley Sq.
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
New York, NY 10007
Re: In re Stolen Judicial Public Records: 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, and 2071
Conspiracy, vis-à-vis U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY), (“1115”); and (II) Dkt. 126, Order, which is null and void ab initio, and moot.
Judge Ramos:
Ulysses T. Ware the Petitioner in 22cv3409, (“3409”), 2241(c)(3) actual innocent habeas
corpus petition, (the “2241 Petition”), files this emergency application, (the “Emergency
Application”), to the court regarding the December 12, 2022, Order, Dkt. 126, which alleged the
court on December 12, 2022, possessed 28 USC 2255(a), (e), subject matter jurisdiction with
respect to U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”), and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (“1115”).
Page 4 of 14
1. Lawful 28 USC 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction requires, (i) a

motion, (ii) by a “federal prisoner,” (iii) to the sentencing court, regarding,
(iv) an extant (unexpired) sentence imposed by the sentencing court, (v)
for which the federal prisoner is then “in custody” for which the “federal
prisoner” seeks to have his “sentence” (a) “vacate[d], (b) “set aside,” or
(c) “correct[ed].” See 28 USC 2255(a).
A. Contention.
Judge Ramos, on December 12, 2022, you astutely found as fact, judicial and equitable
estoppel in the 3409 proceeding, in the Order, Dkt. 126 at 1, “Petitioner Ulysses T. Ware (“Ware”),
who presently resides in Brooklyn, NY … brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity to two convictions3 in this Court.” (emphasis
added), (the “Ramos Jurisdictional Mooting Fact” or “Mooting Fact”).
Judge Ramos, the text of 2255(a), (e) clear only is applicable to:
“A [federal] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court … [who] may move the
[sentencing] court which imposed the sentence [by motion] to vacate, set aside,
or correct the [extant or unexpired] sentence.” (emphasis added).
The 2255 statute strictly limits the sentencing district court to vacating, setting aside, or
correcting an extant—live, unexpired, and not terminated “sentence” of a “federal prisoner.”
3
Note that the Court did not find as fact, a legal and factual impossibility, see Dkt. 128 (Declaration of
Ulysses T. Ware of non “federal prisoner” status), that Petitioner was seeking to have an extant sentence
entered in 1224 or 1115 “vacat[ed,” “set aside,” or “correct[ed]” the only possible relief 2255(a) is
authorized to enter.
Page 5 of 14
That is the extent of a federal district court’s lawful and authorized 2255(a) subject matter
jurisdiction to redress by motion a 2255 claim vis-à-vis a “sentence.” Accordingly, “as a threshold
[2255(a)] matter” the sentencing district court “first” before proceeding to the merits of the
“federal prisoner’s” claims, the 2255 district court must identify an extant, unexpired, and not
terminated federal sentence of the “federal prisoner.” If the district court determines there is
no unexpired sentence(s) with respect to a 2255(a) motion claims, the district court is not
permitted or authorized to proceed any further and must “notice the fact that jurisdiction was
lacking, and dismiss the cause.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94-95 (Scalia, J.).
The Steel Co., Id. methodology is the only approved process and procedure by the
Supreme Court of the United States the 3409 district court was required to have undertaken
before entry of the December 12, 2022, Dkt. 126, ultra vires, moot, and void ab initio order.
Accordingly, the 3409 district court, Ramos, J., clearly committed clear error, and erred
as a matter of law and fact by the entry before conducting the Steel Co., methodology. Id.
Judge Ramos, your Mooting Fact in the Order, Dkt. 126 at 1, on December 12, 2022, a
clear error of law, clearly terminated 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction of the 1224 and 1115
district courts4 to adjudicate a 2255(a) “motion” given you found as an Article III jurisdictional
Mooting Fact that Petitioner on December 12, 2022, was then not a “federal prisoner” then in
“custody” under an extant and non-terminated sentence entered by the 1224 or 1115 sentencing
4
The Mooting Fact has no effect on the federal question 28 USC 1331 and 28 USC 2241(c)(3) habeas
corpus subject matter jurisdiction of the 22cv3409 court.
Page 6 of 14
courts—that is, the Court found as a material jurisdictional fact that the alleged “sentences”
entered in 1224 and 1115 had terminated, expired, and then were no longer extant, i.e., in legal
and lawful force and effect, and existence—moot as Article III and 2255(a)subject matter, (the
“Moot Subject Matter”).5
2. The Moot Subject Matter, the terminated 1224 and 1115

sentences, do not present the 1224 and 1115 District Courts with an
Article III “live” justiciable controversy over which they are permitted to
invoke Article III and 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction—any
purported 2255 proceedings with respect to the Moot Subject Matter is
ultra vires, null and void ab initio, and without any legal preclusive effect.
Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95.
Judge Ramos, you found, in your personal and individual capacity—“in the clear absence
of all jurisdiction” in your Moot Fact, for which you are equitable and judicially estopped from
now denying—Judge Ramos, your Order, Dkt. 126, entry exposed you to personal civil monetary
damages and liability for its entry on December 12, 2022; and moreover, any further actions
taken regarding a purported 2255 proceedings apropos the 1224 and 1115 moot sentences will
also expose you to additional personal civil money damages and liability.6 Moreover, 28 USC
5
See Dkt. 128, the December 13, 2022, Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware, which declared that Ulysses T.
Ware on December 12, 2022, sentences entered by the 1224 and 1115 district courts had terminated and
expired and were no longer “live” Article III and 2255(a) subject matter.
6
See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge [Ramos, J., with respect to Dkt. 126] 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 [Ramos, J.] will be subject to liability [in the sum certain amount of
$5.225 billion] only when he has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." (emphasis added).
Page 7 of 14
455(a), and 455(b)(1-5)(i-v) disqualified you from all judicial participation in 3409, 1224, and 1115
given your now extensive, significant, personal civil monetary liability caused by entry of the ultra
vires, moot, and null and void ab initio Dkt. 126, Order (Ramos, J.).
Judge Ramos, the law, the 2255 statute, is clear, and the relevant case law all have held
that a district court lacks “all” Article III and 2255 subject matter jurisdiction over a terminated
or expired sentence, the Moot Subject Matter—that is, the Moot Subject Matter once
terminated or expired by operation of law on May 24, 2019, no longer represents an Article III
“live” justiciable controversy over which the sentencing district courts, 1224 and 1115, are
authorized to “vacate, set aside, or correct.” Which by asking the question, the question answers
itself: A terminated, expired, and moot sentence—the (i) 1224 sentence, and (ii) the 1115
sentence, the Moot Subject Matter, as a matter of law and fact cannot be (i) vacated, (ii) set
aside, or “corrected” once terminated or completed—that is, a 2255 motion is no longer a
redressable controversy, there is no authorized relief the 1224 or 1115 district courts can grant
to a petitioner who is then not under a “sentence” of the 1224 or 1115 district court, as required
by an Article III federal court (1224 and 1115). The purported converted 2255 matter, Dkt. 126,
Order, is moot.
3 Petitioner Ulysses T. Ware on March 21, 2022, was not, and was not
on December 12, 2022, a “federal prisoner” according to the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons records. See Dkt. 128.
Page 8 of 14
The Petitioner according to the Order, Dkt. 126, “challeng[ed] the validity of two
convictions in this Court.” The Court did not make any finding that Petitioner sought to vacate,
set aside, or correct a “sentence” that Petitioner was then in custody under as “federal prisoner.”
For the reason that on March 21, 2022, and December 12, 2022, Petitioner was not a “federal
prisoner” physically incarcerated that sought to have a “sentence” vacated, set aside, or
corrected.
Petitioner as of May 24, 2019, according to US BOP records, see Dkt. 128, status as a
“federal prisoner” in “custody” was terminated and expired by operation of law, for federal law
and 2255(a) motion purposes to “vacate, set aside, and correct” the expired and terminated 1224
and 1115 sentences—as of May 29, 2019, moot subject matter for the purpose of a 2255(a)
motion.
Accordingly, on December 12, 2022, and all-time thereafter, the 1224 and 1115 district
courts both lack 2255(a) and Article III subject matter jurisdiction over the Moot Subject Matter;
and therefore, are not lawfully authorized, and are strictly prohibited from conducting any moot,
ultra vires, and null and void ab initio 2255 proceedings apropos the Moot Subject Matter. The
Order, Dkt. 126 (Ramos, J.) is manifest clear error or law, moot, ultra vires, and null and void ab
initio. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95; United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952); United States
v. Lavelle, 194 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1952); and United States v. Bradford, 190 F.2d 445, 448 (2d Cir.
1951) (same).
Page 9 of 14
3. Conclusion.
Judge Ramos, the law is not in rational debate—that is, Dkt. 126 (Order) that purported
to convert the 2241 Petition to a moot 2255(a) motion with respect to the Moot Subject Matter,
the 1224 and 1115 expired and terminated sentences, as a matter of law is in no way rationally
debatable, manifestly clear error, moot, ultra vires, and null and void ab initio. The 3409 district
court (Ramos, J.) lacked all lawful authority and subject matter jurisdiction to have purported to
convert the 2241 Petition to a moot and null and void ab initio 2255 proceeding(s).
4. Reliefs requested.
Petitioner moves that 3409 district court to enter an order not later than Wednesday,
December 20, 2022, by 10:00 AM, time of the essence, that:
1. reversed, vacates, sets aside, and annuls Dkt. 126,
2. reinstate all pleadings in 22cv3409;
3. recuse and disqualify Edgardo Ramos,
4. enter the required 28 USC 2243 show cause order, and order the United States served
with the 2241 Petition,
5. order the United States to file the required 28 USC 2249 certified records,
6. order the United States and Edgardo Ramos to certify under oath that all Fed. R. Crim.
5(f) Brady actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence has been
produced and disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware,
Page 10 of 14
7. order the United States and Edgardo Ramos to certify that all alleged September 2006,
or other alleged Rule 11 proceedings judicial public records associated with the
government’s “principal witness” the person whom the government claimed is “Jeremy
Jones,” have been produced and filed in the courts,
8. order Edgardo Ramos, Andre Damian Williams, and Merrick B. Garland, to certify that all
alleged September 2006 Rule 11, and 2008 sentencing judicial public records of the
person known as “Jeremy Jones” have been made available for First Amendment access
by the public, and available to Ulysses T. Ware pursuant to the Brady Court Orders,
9. order the United States, Merrick B. Garland, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and Edgardo
Ramos identify the extant subject matter over which the 1224 and 1115 district courts
are permitted to conduct 2255(a), (e) proceedings,
10. order Edgardo Ramos and Andre Damian Williams, Jr. to certify whether or not they have,
or have had unfiled judicial public records in his possession regarding the 1224 and 1115
proceedings;
11. order Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaca, Vanita Gupta, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel
Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Debra Ann Livingston, and
Edgardo Ramos to certify under oath that all requirements and provisions of the United
States Attorney’s Manual (“USAM”), Rule 5(f), and Rule 11 were complied with regarding
all proceedings in 1224, 1115, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.), and 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), and
Page 11 of 14
12. order Ruby Krajick to certify that all judicial public records associated with the 1224 and
1115 proceedings have been docketed and filed, and are available for First Amendment
right of access public inspection,
where Petitioner is currently suffering irreparable harms, injury, and damages as a result of the
crimes of the United States, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Debra Ann Livingston, Andre
Damian Williams, Jr., Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M
Garnett, Edgardo Ramos, et al., to obstruct a lawful 2241 habeas corpus proceedings, 22cv3409
(SDNY), and commit a fraud on the court and obstruct justice, by purporting to convert the lawful
2241 Petition to a moot 2255(a) motion.
Page 12 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on
December 19, 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)
Office of the Solicitor General of the United States.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 13 of 14
End of document
Page 14 of 14

DKT 139 Re Emergency Application

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 139 Re Emergency Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 139 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 14

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (91.1)

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

Ulysses T. Ware’s Emergency Application pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5),

05cr1115 terminated and expired sentence.

EMERGENCY APPLICATION REGARDING MOOT 28 USC 2255(a) SUBJECT

Monday, December 19, 2022

Office of District Judge (SDNY)

1. Lawful 28 USC 2255(a), (e) subject matter jurisdiction requires, (i) a

added), (the “Ramos Jurisdictional Mooting Fact” or “Mooting Fact”).

correcting an extant—live, unexpired, and not terminated “sentence” of a “federal prisoner.”

“Moot Subject Matter”).5

2. The Moot Subject Matter, the terminated 1224 and 1115

aside, or “corrected” once terminated or completed—that is, a 2255 motion is no longer a

December 20, 2022, by 10:00 AM, time of the essence, that:

1. reversed, vacates, sets aside, and annuls Dkt. 126,

2. reinstate all pleadings in 22cv3409;

3. recuse and disqualify Edgardo Ramos,

with the 2241 Petition,

produced and disclosed to Ulysses T. Ware,

Jones,” have been produced and filed in the courts,

are permitted to conduct 2255(a), (e) proceedings,

right of access public inspection,

2241 Petition to a moot 2255(a) motion.

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

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

You might also like