No.

23-865/23-869(43)
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
Ware v. United States, et al.
Filed on 10/31/2023 7:05:30 AM
_____________
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste. 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Via email to the Office of the Chief Circuit Judge for filing (Debra Ann Livington)1
Office of the Chief Circuit Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Sq.
New York, NY 10007

Declaration Of Ulysses T. Ware and Notification of Criminal Judicial

Misconduct of District Judge (SDNY) Katherine Polk-Failla and
Appendix 61-1 and 61-2.

1
On June 15, 2023, at 11:05 AM an overt act in furtherance of the Hobbs Act murder-for-hire conspiracy
was perpetrated by court employee Richard Dessources, the purported supervisor of the case intake
section of the Court of Appeal (2d Cir.)—that is, Dessources called Mr. Ware from a court telephone and
informed Mr. Ware “ … we [a conspiracy] are not going to file any of your pleadings, no one will see them,
they are just piling up here, ….” A per se violation of federal criminal law, 18 USC 2071, and a felony
violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Employees. See Canon 2(B)(6), infra.

Page 1 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Letter of Inquiry and Notification (the “Notification”), to Chief
Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston of violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, and
impeachable criminal conduct re: Criminal and impeachable judicial misconduct of Judges
Debra Ann Livingston, Jose A. Cabranes, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Edgardo Ramos,
Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau, Kent J. Dawson, Thomas W. Thrash,
Jr., Katherine Polk-Failla, and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, jointly, (the “Judges”).

Re: Ware v. USA, et al., 23-865 and 23-869 (2d Cir.)—Omnibus L.R. 27-1 Leave to File
Motion.

Appellant requests that this matter be made public and does not request that

confidentiality be maintained regarding this matter.

Submitted by:

Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Page 2 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 Table of Contents

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware ..................................................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 1—Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final order, 02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.). ..................... 14

Exhibit 2—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219 (SDNY)

plaintiff. ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Exhibit 3—Brady Court Order, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007,(Sweet, J.) (deceased). ................... 16

Exhibit 4—Sept. 1, 2004, Hobbs Act kidnapping, attempted armed robbery, murder-for-hire, extortion,

false arrest, illegal search and seizure, and intentional and the negligent infliction of emotional distress

on Appellant by the CCE’s agents............................................................................................................ 18

Exhibit 5—Appx. 61-1 re Criminal Judicial Misconduct of District Judge (SDNY) Katherine Polk-Failla. . 19

Page 3 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware

Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant, hereby this 31st day of October 2023, under oath, subject

to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746 makes

this declaration of fact, (the “Declaration”), (1) in support of the pending Rule 27-1 Emergency

Motions, and (2) as the factual basis to make the Court aware of and bring to the Court’s attention

facts—clear and convincing evidence, regarding indisputable and numerous instances of the

violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, (the “Canons”), and the judicial misconduct

“engaged in” by federal judge Katherine Polk-Failla—that is, the Judge Polk-Failla, (the “Judge”),

directly or indirectly, recklessly, irresponsibly, and negligently with a depraved mind and corrupt

mental state, and with gross indifference to the law and the rights of Appellant the Judge has

knowingly conspired, colluded, aided, abetted, assisted, or enabled (A) the violation of Titles 11,

15, 18, and 42 of the United States Code, (the “Federal Laws”), (B) the Constitution of the United

States by the Judges’ families, friends, associates, and their unindicted coconspirators, (C) the

Canons, and (D) the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct, (the “Crimes” or “Impeachable

Conduct”).

Fact 1

Appellant Ulysses T. Ware files into the Court for inclusion in the record of No. 23-865 and

23-869, (the “Moot Appeals”), Appx. 61-1 and 61-2 filed in support of (1) the L.R. Rule 27-1

Page 4 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
pending Emergency Motions, and (2) in support of and to make the Chief Circuit Judge and the

Court of Appeals aware of numerous instances of criminal prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

Pursuant to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980,

28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1), 372(c)(9)(A) (the “Act"), and Canon 2(B)(6) Appellant makes the following

factual notification to the Chief Circuit Judge and the Judicial Conference of the United States of

impeachable judicial conduct “engaged in” by the District Judge (SDNY) Katherine Polk-Failla

directly and/or indirectly while a federal prosecutor (SDNY) and while a sitting Article III federal

judge:

(i) criminal conduct that is adverse and antithetical to her continued position as an

Article III federal judge, and

(ii) criminal conduct which she “engaged in” that is prejudicial and antithetical to the

effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and violated

several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges, adopted

by the Judicial Conference of the United States.2

2
Pursuant to Canon 2(B)(6), see infra--A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable
information indicating the likelihood [based on the “allegations of impeachable conduct” presented]
that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s [Richard Dessources, Court of
Appeals purported “intake supervisor”] conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
[Ruby Krajick, M. Regina Thomas], or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct [i.e.,
Thomas A. Leghorn, Lawrence Mandala, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP,
Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Mitchell Nussbaum, J. Henry Walker, IV, John W. Mills, III, Dennis
S. Meir, James Morawetz, M. Regina Thomas, Ruby Krajick, Edward T. M. Garland, Donald F. Samuel,
Manibur S. Arora, David B. Levitt, Michael F. Bachner, Gary G. Becker, Marlon G. Kirton, David N. Kelley,
Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, John M. McEnany, Audrey Strauss, Andrew L. Fish, Damian
Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Won Shin,

Page 5 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 Fact 2

Judge Polk-Failla’s impeachable conduct and violations of the Canons consist of the

following misconduct:

A. Criminal Conduct committed and “engaged in” during the Ezekiel Elliott v. NFL matter

before Judge Polk-Failla, see Appx. 61-1, and

B. Criminal prosecutorial misconduct committed and “engaged in” by Judge Polk-Failla,

Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Preet Bharara, Robert A. Katzmann, Peter W. Hall, Barbara

S. Jones, Robert W. Sweet, Leonard B. Sand, and corruptly influenced by Charles Ellis

Schumer, and others while she was an AUSA (SDNY) having the official position as the

purported “chief of criminal appeals” in United States v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), (“Ware

I”).

Fact 3

It is a fact Judge Polk-Failla in 2009-10 publicly purported to then be employed with the

Department of Justice (DOJ) as an assistant United States attorney (SDNY), AUSA, as the

purported “chief of criminal appeals” and she was therefore subject to the DOJ’s Rules of

Jun Xiang, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul,
Katherine Polk-Failla, and Melissa Childs. Appellant requests the Chief Circuit Judge to “take appropriate
action” regarding the sworn allegations in the Declaration and appoint a Special Committee to investigate
the allegations in the Declaration. “Appropriate action depends on the circumstances, but the overarching
goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those [Ulysses T. Ware has and continues to suffer
irreparable harms, injuries, and damages in the sum certain amount of +$2.225 billion] affected by the
misconduct and to prevent recurrence.” (emphasis added).

Page 6 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4, the Brady Court order entered in U.S. v. Ware,

04cr1224 (SDNY), Dkt. 32, (see Ex. 3, infra), and “duty of complete candor to the tribunal.” See

Appx. 61-2.

Fact 4

It is a fact according to Court records and it is believed that Judge Polk-Failla colluded,

conspired, aided, abetted, assisted, reviewed, supervised, and actually signed the government’s

brief submitted in Ware I, (the “Fraudulent Brief”), under penalty of perjury, and pursuant to the

DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4, and the DOJ’s rule of “complete

candor to the tribunal.”3

Fact 5

Judge Polk-Failla actually supervised, signed, and submitted the government’s Fraudulent

Brief knowingly and intentionally and submitted and filed the Fraudulent Brief in Ware I in 2010

as an intentional and deliberate overt act to obstruct justice and to adversely affect a judicial

proceeding (Ware I) in furtherance of the racketeering activities of the CCE’s criminal objectives,

see Appx. 61 (filed on 10.29.23)4—that is, Judge Polk-Failla was a knowing and willing participant

3
The Judge was aided, abetted, and assisted in the fabrication of the Fraudulent Brief by then U.S. Attorney
(SDNY) Preet Bharara, and AUSAs Maria E. Douvas and Sarah E. Paul.
4
The 18 USC 1961(1) predicate racketeering activities of the CCE included, but is not limited to: murder-
for-hire, Hobbs Act crimes of violence (see Ex. 4, infra, the Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA kidnapping and
attempted murder and armed robbery of Appellant), attempted armed robbery, false arrest, and
kidnapping of Appellant, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud (see 03-93031 BC NDGA), fabrication of
a grand jury (see 03-0831 D. NV), loan sharking (see GX 1-4, and GX 5), money laundering (see district
Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica’s and Tailwind Capital Management LLP’s “private equity

Page 7 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
in the racketeering activities of the CCE; she knowingly agreed, conspired to, and did commit a

fraud on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States, (ii) the conduct she

“engaged in” had the objective to criminally obstruct justice, and (iii) and her misconduct was

“engaged in” and undertaken to criminally and unethically violate Appellant’s right to due process

of law, impeachable conduct violated the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the Constitution of

the United States, and federal criminal law, to wit: 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 1346,

1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2017; and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and

1985(3).

Fact 6

It is a fact that on Dec. 20, 2007, (see Ex. 1, infra), government witness in U.S. v. Ware,

04cr1224 (SDNY), Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., on behalf of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s plaintiffs

voluntarily, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, dismissed the

02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2), see United States v. L-3

Comm’cs EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d 11, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2019) (Kearse, J.).5

Ponzi scam”, (quoting confidential sources), extortion, conspiracy (see NYC law firm Gibson, Dunn, LLP
hiring of former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell; see NYC law firm Simpson, Thacher, LLP hiring of former
AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin, the same law firm that Judge Sweet, government 04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth
A. Zitter, and Judge Edgardo Ramos have all been employed as lawyers; see Rayla Bank of Canada’s hiring
of former AUSA Maria E. Douvas to launder the profits and proceeds of Alpha Capital, AG, LH Financial
Services, and others involved in the Hobbs Act loan sharking CCE’s operations).
5
“As to the usual effect of a Rule 41(a) dismissal--aside from a court's inherent postdismissal authority to
consider such collateral matters as the possibility of sanctions, see, e.g., Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
496 U.S. 384, 395-97 (1990)--it is hornbook law that "a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule
41(a) leaves the situation as if the action never had been filed," Wright & Miller § 2367, at 559 (emphasis
added); see, e.g., 8 Moore's Federal Practice § 41.34[6][d] (2018) (stipulation for dismissal "without

Page 8 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 Fact 7

It is a fundamental fact (“hornbook law”) based on indisputable binding circuit precedents

that in 2009-10 binding circuit precedent A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 197 498, 501-02 (2d Cir.

1952) annulled, vitiated, voided, and set aside all “orders, judgments, and proceedings” in the

02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, and consequently the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment and

proceedings—that is, District Judge Sand (deceased) Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final

order (see Ex. 1, infra) “annul[ed] and vitiate[ed]”6 the government’s trial evidence in U.S. v.

prejudice terminates the action as if it were never filed" (emphasis added)). This long established principle
has been recognized by this Circuit [i.e., indisputable binding circuit precedent] and most others. See, e.g.,
A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 502 (2d Cir. 1952) ("voluntary dismissal of a suit [02cv2219] leaves
the situation so far as procedures therein are concerned the same as though the suit had never been
brought"), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 878 (1952); Bomer v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427, 428 (6th Cir. 1962) (dismissal
of an action without prejudice leaves the situation the same as if the suit had never been brought); In re
Piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation, 551 F.2d 213, 219 (8th Cir. 1977) (same); Beck v.
Caterpillar, Inc., 50 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); EEOC v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192, 1201
(10th Cir. 2003) (same); In re Matthews, 395 F.3d 477, 480 (4th Cir. 2005) (same); Harvey Specialty &
Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equipment, Inc., 434 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); City of South
Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (same; "any future lawsuit based on the same
claim [is] an entirely new lawsuit" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sandstrom v. ChemLawn Corp.,
904 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1990) (same; "the page is once again pristine").” (emphasis added).
6
“But at the same time that the court denied the defendant's petition to vacate and set aside the decree
and judgment, it granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss its entire case and entered an order of dismissal
with prejudice. And this action of the court was the equivalent of vacation of the judgment [GX 7]
theretofore entered in the case in the [02cv2219] plaintiff's favor, so that, perhaps, the court would have
been well advised to have entered on its own motion an order vacating that judgment. See Ericson v.
Slomer, 7 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 437, 439. The reason for this is that voluntary dismissal of a suit leaves the
situation so far as procedures therein are concerned the same as though the [02cv2219] suit had never
been brought, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Latham, 5 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 312, 313, thus vitiating and annulling
all prior proceedings and orders [GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34, etc.] in the case, and terminating
jurisdiction over it for the reason that the case has become moot. Bryan v. Smith, 7 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d
212, 214, 215. See also United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 1920, 253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.Ed.
808, wherein it is said: "Where by an act of the parties, or a subsequent law, the existing controversy has

Page 9 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), to wit: GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34, the alleged factual basis for the

04cr1224 indictment’s 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt charges in Counts I, II, and III—that is,

(1) Judge Sand on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 1, infra, annulled and vitiated the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

lawsuit, and (2) consequently, annulled and vitiated the government’s probable cause [GX 7, GX

11, GX 24, and GX 34], the 02cv2219 (SDNY) orders and judgments, and trial evidence and

testimony based on that annulled evidence, to have indicted the 04cr1224 case, and rendered

the 02cv2219 and 04cr1224 proceedings moot “which [they] should be treated accordingly.” Id.

at 502. (emphasis added).

Fact 8

It is a fact based in law and in fact that from 20017 to 2009-10, and continuing to the

present October 2023--the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs are (1) unregistered broker-dealers (see

come to an end, the [02cv2219, 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 and 09-0851] case[s] becomes moot and
should be treated accordingly." (emphasis added).
7
The date of purchase by the 02cv2219 plaintiffs from the issuer (GPMT), $1.1M of the RICO NYS Penal
Law, section 190.40, criminal usury unlawful debts, convertible promissory notes (CPNs) which contained
the criminal floating price conversion option (FPCO), GX 1-4, issued pursuant to a criminal usury fraudulent
underwriting contract, GX 5, jointly, (the “RICO Criminal Usury, Unenforceable Contracts”)—that is, null
and void ab initio (unenforceable and uncollectible) RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debts
(GX 1-4); the collection activities of the plaintiffs and the government associated with GX 1-4 (i) is a
criminal violation of federal law, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), (ii) impeachable conduct, (iii) conduct that is
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, (iv) conduct which
violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the Judicial
Conference of the United States, and (v) conduct which violated of the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct
and duty of “complete candor to the tribunal.” To date, Judge Polk-Failla has continued to lie, mislead,
suppress, conceal, and cover up the facts regarding the 02cv2219 and 04cr1224 proceedings, and she
has never come forth and completely informed the courts of the status of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs and
the fact the 04cr1224 indictment was null and void ab initio. Conduct which is detrimental to the orderly
business of the court, and conduct which is impeachable judicial misconduct.

Page 10 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Ex. 2, infra), (2) are 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of the defendant, GPMT (the

issuer),8 (3) are 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insiders and affiliates of the issuer (GPMT), and (4) are in

criminal violation of (a) NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury, a class E felony and (b)

federal RICO law, 18 USC 1961(6)(B) regarding the RICO criminal collection activities associated

with the unlawful criminal usury debts, GX 1-4.9

Fact 9

It is a fact that from 2009-10 and all time thereafter Judge Polk-Failla willfully violated 18

USC 2, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346,10 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B),

8
See ¶¶12-13 in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint—that is, binding judicial admissions pleaded by the
plaintiffs, and (2) also see ¶¶8-12 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment—that is, Article II, actual innocent,
affirmative defenses pleaded on the face of the indictment which ipso facto pleaded the government out
of the federal courts, (2) triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality and protection, (3)
triggered res judicata, and collateral, (4) ipso facto by operation of law rendered Appellant Ulysses T. Ware,
Esq. actual and factually innocent of all charges in the Ware I indictment, and (4) conferred prevailing party
status on Appellant to enforce the government’s Article II, affirmative defenses, binding judicial
admissions pleaded on the face of the 04cr1224 indictment via the civil and criminal contempt processes
and procedures of the District Court (SDNY).
9
See Adar Bays LLC v. GeneSYS ID Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) (criminal usury debts [GX 1-4] are null
and void ab initio, the contracts [GX 1-4, GX 5] are unenforceable, and the lender[s] [the 02cv2219
plaintiffs] ha[ve] no right to repayment of the criminal usury debt [GX 1-4]). (emphasis added).
10
Judge Polk-Failla was nominated by NY Senator Charles Ellis Schumer to a federal judgeship (SDNY), see
Appx. 61-2, in violation of 18 USC 2, 201(b), 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071 as an illegal reward, gift, favor, illegal gratuity, bribe, kickback, and the
payoff for her (1) fraudulent and criminal obstruction of justice regarding her assistance in the fabrication
and falsification of the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) government’s appeal brief, (2) Polk-Failla
aided and abetted the conspiracy to violate the Brady Court Order, Ex. 3, infra, and (3) Judge Polk-Failla
deliberately and intentionally in violation of DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct, and she and other
conspired to and did suppress, concealed, and covered up actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in the possession of the DOJ’s USAO (SDNY) and its proxies, surrogates, agents, and

Page 11 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
1962(a-d), and 2071 by her conduct—that is, she knowingly, willfully, and intentionally conspired,

colluded, aided, abetted, and enabled the willful and deliberate violation of the Brady court order

entered in the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings, Dkt. 32, August 10, 2007, Sweet, J.

(deceased), (the “Brady Court Order”). See Ex. 3, infra.

Fact 10

It is a fact that from 2001 to 2009-10, and all time thereafter Judge Polk-Failla knew, or

was reckless and ignorant of the law, and there is no rational excuse for ignorance of the securities

laws and binding circuit precedent by the purported “chief of criminal appeals”11 for the USAO

(SDNY) that SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) and binding circuit precedent, United States v.

Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968) (aff’d conviction and sentence of the unregistered sale of

securities by Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters) as a matter of law vitiated and voided all

probable cause for the USAO (SDNY) in Nov. 2004 to have procured the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224

(SDNY) indictment apropos the moot 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings void ab initio court orders, to

wit, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34—that is, Judge Polk-Failla and the USAO knew that Section

2(a)(11) statutory underwriters (i.e., the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs) as a matter of law were

legally ineligible for any Rule 144(k) exemption to Section 5 strict-liability registration

alter-egos in violation of 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071 and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) impeachable conduct.
11
Judge Polk-Failla on her Senate Disclosure, Appx. 61-2, claimed that she graduated “summa cum laude”
from William & Mary College, and “cum laude” from Harvard Law School. Which presumptively infers,
rather than factually proves, that she is competent in the law, at least the basics.

Page 12 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
requirements regarding GX 1-4 (the CPN criminal usury Convertible Promissory Notes)12 to

engage in and conduct an unregistered public offering of the issuer’s (GPMT’s) securities. Judge

Polk-Failla and the USAO on behalf of Charles Ellis Schumer, CCE’s Alpha Capital, AG, LH Financial

Services, and the CCE knowingly and intentionally fabricated and filed the fraudulent Appeal Brief

in 09-0851 (2 Cir.); and Charles Ellis Schumer contracted with, colluded, and conspired with, paid

a bribe, kickback, favor, gift, illegal gratuity, or other thing of value to Barbara S. Jones, Robert A.

Katzmann, and Peter W. Hall on behalf of the CCE to have them fraudulently, in the absence of all

jurisdiction over 02cv2219’s orders, judgments, proceedings, and the USAO’s trial evidence (GX

1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34), (the “Annulled Evidence”), see Ex. 1, infra, affirmed

Appellant’s null and void ab initio U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) conviction and sentence.

Signed this 31st day of October 2023 under oath, having personal knowledge of the facts subject

to the penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.

Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
October 31, 2023
Brooklyn, NY

End of Declaration

12
Judge Polk-Failla and the USAO (SDNY) knew the SEC had rejected GPMT’s Form SB-2 registration
statement to register “200% of the $1.1M criminal usury debt’s conversion securities” (paraphrased)—
that is, concealed, suppressed, and covered up actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in the
possession of the USAO and its privies and within the scope of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 32, Sweet, J.
(see Ex. 3, infra).

Page 13 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Exhibit 1—Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final order, 02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.).

Page 14 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Exhibit 2—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff.

Page 15 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Exhibit 3—Brady Court Order, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007,(Sweet, J.) (deceased).

Page 16 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 The USAO was ordered to “produce” all Brady materials before the start
of trial in 2007. To date Judge Polk-Failla and the USAO, Damian
Williams, et al., have continued to violate and resist the Brady Court
Order’s commands in violation of DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct,
Canons 1, 2, 2A, and 3, and federal law, 18 USC 2, 201(b), 241, 242, 371,
401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d),
2071, impeachable conduct.

Page 17 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Exhibit 4—Sept. 1, 2004, Hobbs Act kidnapping, attempted armed robbery, murder-for-
hire, extortion, false arrest, illegal search and seizure, and intentional and the negligent
infliction of emotional distress on Appellant by the CCE’s agents.

Hobbs Act, murder-for-hire, attempted armed robbery, extortion

kidnapping, false arrest, and 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury,
unlawful debt collection activities.

Page 18 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Exhibit 5—Appx. 61-1 re Criminal Judicial Misconduct of District Judge (SDNY) Katherine
Polk-Failla.

Page 19 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Page 20 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Page 21 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
Page 22 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.
 End of Document

Page 23 of 23
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
(43) Notification per the Judicial Fitness Act of conduct detrimental to the orderly administration of
justice and the business of the courts.