Ulysses Thomas Ware, 22cv3409 (SDNY), DKT 61 06.17.22 Re Request For Urgent Clarification

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 61 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 18
Filed on 6/17/2022 5:56:19 AM

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (34)
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Ware v. United States, et al.
Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Thursday, June 17, 2022
____________________
June 17, 2022, Request for urgent1 clarification of 06.16.2022, Order, Dkt. 60,
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, and the Third Request for Emergency
Local Rule District Court (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) Disciplinary Relief: In re Damian
Williams and Merrick B. Garland, 22 misc. ____ (SDNY) for (a) Conspiracy to
Obstruct Justice and (b) the Jim Crow Racially-Motivated Hate Crimes perpetrated
against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., violations of the Rules of Conduct for Lawyers of the
District Court (SDNY).
_________
Certificate of Service
The government was served with this pleading on 06.17.22 via Damian Williams at
damian.williams@usdoj.gov, Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov, and
Merrick B. Garland, via Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, at Jeffrey.ragsdale@usdoj.gov.
1
Petitioner is requesting that the Chief Judge respond by 5:00 pm on June 17, 2022, and serve the parties
with a copy to her clarification and setting of a briefing schedule to address the issues raised herein
regarding the June 16, 2022, Dkt. 60, ultra vires, null and void ab initio purported “Order.” See Exhibit A,
infra.
Page 1 of 18
Friday, June 17, 2022
(34) 06.17.22 Notice of filing re: Request for clarification of Order, Dkt. 60 (Taylor-Swain, C.J.).
Table of Contents
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware .................................................................................................................... 3
I. .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Introduction and background. ............................................................................................................. 3
Fact 1......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Fact 2......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Fact 3......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Fact 4......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Fact 5......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Fact 6......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Fact 7......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Fact 8......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Fact 9......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Fact 10....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Fact 11....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Fact 12....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Fact 13....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Fact 14....................................................................................................................................................... 9
II. ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Request for clarification of the June 16, 2022, Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60. .............................................. 11
III. ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion. ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Exhibit A .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Ultra Vires Order (Dkt. 60) (22cv3409 (SDNY)) (Taylor-Swain, C.J.) ..................................................... 17
End of document .................................................................................................................................... 18
Page 2 of 18
Comes now the Petitioner and requests that the Office of the Chief Judge, Laura Taylor-
Swain, (SDNY), (the “Chief Judge”), provide (i) clarification and (ii) guidance to the parties in
22cv3409, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115, (the “Parties”), with respect to the following pertinent legal
issues.
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, under oath and pursuant to the penalty of perjury, having personal
knowledge of the facts, hereby this 17th day of June 2022, in the city of Brooklyn, NY, Kings
County, set my hand and seal, and pursuant to 28 USC 1746, make this Declaration of Material
Facts, (the “Facts”), and state the following.
I.
A. Introduction and background.

Fact 1.
On June 13, 2022, Dkt. 56, Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Petitioner” or “Complainant”) filed his
first request for L.R. District Court (SDNY), 1.5(b)(5), application for Emergency Supervisory
Disciplinary Relief, (the “First Application”) addressed to the Office of the Chief District Judge,
the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, as required by L.R. 1.5(b)(5)2 and L.R. 1.5(d)(3).
2
“In connection with activities in this Court, any attorney is found to have engaged in conduct violative
of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted from time to time by the Appellate
Divisions of the State of New York. In interpreting the Code, in the absence of binding authority from the
United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this Court, in
the interests of comity and predictability, will give due regard to decisions of the New York Court of
Appeals and other New York State courts, absent significant federal interests.” (emphasis added).
Page 3 of 18
Fact 2.
Having received no response from the Chief Judge to the June 13, 2022, First Application,
Dkt. 56, Mr. Ware on June 16, 2022, at 12.11.38 pm, filed his second application for Emergency
Supervisory Disciplinary Relief pursuant to L.R. 1.5(b)(5), (the “Second Application”), Dkt. 59.3
Fact 3.
In the Applications, Mr. Ware specifically requested emergency supervisory disciplinary
relief pursuant to Local Rule, (“L.R.”), 1.5(b)(5), District Court (SDNY), (the “Local Rules”), and
addressed the written Application to the Office of the Chief Judge (Laura Taylor-Swain) as
required by the L. R. 1.5(d)(3).4
Fact 4
L.R. 1.5(d)(3) required the Chief Judge to immediately “refer” the Applications to the
Committee on Grievances, (i.e., “Complaints in writing alleging any ground for discipline or other
relief set forth in paragraph (b) above shall be directed to the Chief Judge, who shall refer such
complaints to the Committee on Grievances”). (emphasis added).
3
The First Application and the Second Application, jointly, (the “Applications”).
4
L.R. 1.5(d)(3). “[Disciplinary] [c]omplaints in writing alleging any ground for discipline or other relief set
forth in paragraph (b) above shall be directed to the Chief Judge [see Dkt.56 and 59, 22cv3409 (SDNY)],
who shall refer such complaints to the Committee on Grievances. The Committee on Grievances, by its
chair, may designate an attorney, who may be selected from the panel of attorneys established pursuant
to paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, if it deems investigation necessary or warranted,
and to prepare a statement of charges, if the Committee deems that necessary or warranted. Complaints,
and any files based on them, shall be treated as confidential unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Judge
for good cause shown or in accordance with paragraph (d)(5) below.”
Page 4 of 18
Fact 5
The Chief Judge, Laura Taylor-Swain, is not lawfully authorized by the Local Rules to sua
sponte deny the relief requested in the Applications. Only the Committee on Grievance, (the
“Committee”) is authorized to “investigate” the violations of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers of
the District Court (SDNY) allegations made in the Applications against Andre Damian Williams,
Jr., Merrick B. Garland, and other lawyers, (i.e., “The Committee on Grievances, by its chair, may
designate an attorney, who may be selected from the panel of attorneys established pursuant to
paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, if it deems investigation necessary or
warranted, and to prepare a statement of charges, if the Committee deems that necessary or
warranted.”). (emphasis added).5
Fact 6
Pursuant to the Local Rules, L.R. 1.5(d)(3), the Chief Judge has no authorized role in the
“investigation” of the written prosecutorial misconduct allegations in the Applications, other
than to “refer” the matter to the Committee, and the Chief Judge is not lawfully authorized to
sua sponte deny Mr. Ware’s requested supervisory disciplinary relief as was purportedly done in
the illegal and obstruction of justice, null and void ab initio, ultra vires Order, Dkt. 60, (06.16.22)
(Taylor-Swain, C.J.), (the “Ultra Vires Order”).6
5
See L.R. 1.5(d)(3).
6
Dkt. 60, Order, “To the extent the Petitioner is requesting that the undersigned [C.J. Laura Taylor-Swain],
make or alter any rulings in the above case [which the Petitioner did not request, cf., Dkt. 56 at 6, for the
requested disciplinary reliefs], the request is [sua sponte without any required investigation by the
Committee] denied. The Chief Judge does not have the authority to take such actions in the cases assigned
to other members of the Court.” (quoting, Taylor-Swain, C.J., 06.16.2022), (emphasis and alterations
added).
Page 5 of 18
Fact 7
The Chief Judge (Laura Taylor-Swain) was named on the face of the 22cv3409 (SDNY)
habeas corpus petition, see Dkt. 1-2 (22cv3409); furthermore, the Chief Judge has been
designated as (i) an adverse party-opponent, (ii) a material fact witness, and (iii) an unindicted
co-conspirator with respect to the Petitioner’s actual innocent claims pending adjudication on
the merits in the District Court.
Fact 8
The Chief Judge pursuant to 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b)(5) is per se, objectively, statutorily
disqualified—that is, per se actual biased, has an actual overt conflict of interest; and also
pursuant to binding Supreme Court’s authority In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), the
Chief Judge is constitutionally disqualified7 from any and all judicial involvement in the
adjudication or investigation of the allegations in the Applications.8 The Chief Judge was fully
aware of her actual per se bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest regarding the Applications “to
7
“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence
of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the
probability of unfairness. To this end no man[or woman] can be a judge in his [or her] own case and no
man [or woman] is permitted to try cases where he [or she] has an interest in the outcome. That interest
cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has
said, however, that "every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man [or
woman] as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused,
denies the latter due process of law." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532.” (emphasis added).
8
See Dkt. 56 at 4, para. 2: “Judge Taylor-Swain, Mr. Ware reminds you that you have been named in
22cv3409(SDNY) in your personal and individual capacity as an adverse party, a material fact witness,
and as an unindicted co-conspirator regarding your own personal and official criminal judicial
misconduct concerning your adamant illegal refusal in 2021 to exercise the District Court’s supervisory
authority and ensure the full and complete compliance with the Final Judgments by the USAO’s
prosecutors and others that have appeared before the District Court (SDNY) in the DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate
Crime Conspiracy Cases.”
Page 6 of 18
the extent” the Applications involved any facts or issues with respect to the 22cv3409 actual
innocent claims currently before the District Court.
Fact 9
The Chief Judge omitted, deliberately and intentionally, to state in the Ultra Vires Order
whether or not she had followed and complied with the requirements of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) and
referred the Applications to the Committee for investigation of the Petitioner’s allegation of
prosecutorial misconduct involved in the 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal
proceedings.
Fact 10
Currently, there is no written record produced by the Chief Judge that confirms whether
or not the requirements of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) have been complied with in regard to the emergency
processing of the Applications. Rather than comply with the Local Rules, the Chief Judge, to
distract from the substance of the Applications, the prosecutorial misconduct committed by the
DOJ’s prosecutors in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115,9 the Chief Judge deliberately, intentionally, and as
an overt act in furtherance of her criminal obstruction of justice to aid and abet the continue
resistance to and overt disobedience of the written commands of the Brady Court Orders—that
is, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) criminal contempt, the Chief Judge created a trivially frivolous false
narrative designed to cover up and conceal the criminal acts and omissions, criminal
prosecutorial misconduct, covered by L.R. 1.5(b)(5), committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors.
9
Mr. Ware, the Petitioner, was explicit regarding the requested relief he sought from the Committee,
see Dkt. 56 at 3-4, on his claims of “prosecutorial misconduct committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors.“
Page 7 of 18
Fact 11
The Chief Judge was fully aware, see Dkt. 56 at 6, that the Petitioner had not requested
any relief in the Applications based on her “judicial misconduct” which she referenced in the Ultra
Vires Order as a ruse to ostensibly justify her egregious violation of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) requirements,
the canonical case of abstract judicial incongruent duplicity.10 Cf., Dkt. 56 at 3-4:
“Mr. Ware, the petitioner in Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY), and the defendant in
United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),
jointly, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy”), is filing this emergency application
for the District Court (SDNY) pursuant to its inherent supervisory authority to insure the
fidelity and full and complete compliance with all lawful court orders, to wit, (1) the Brady
Court Orders, (2) the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, and (3) the August 18, 2009, final
judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, jointly, (the
“Final Judgments”), to enter an emergency order directed to the Officers of the Court
named in the caption to immediately within the next two (2) days, not later than
Wednesday, June 15, 2022, to show cause in writing why each shall not be disciplined by
the District Court’s inherent supervisory authority ordered to show cause why each shall
not be held in civil and willful criminal contempt of the Final Judgments.11
In support of this emergency application, Mr. Ware incorporates by reference, in heac
verba, Dkts. 1-55 in Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY), and makes the same a part
hereof, in addition to (1) the deliberate and intentionally unfiled and undocketed
pleading 53A-9, 01.17.2022, submitted in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, Ex. 1, infra; however,
Ex. 1 was refused to be docketed by District Judge Edgardo Ramos as a fraud on the court
10
“To the extent Petitioner seeks action based on his allegations of judicial misconduct, Petitioner’s
request is improperly directed to the undersigned in her capacity as Chief Judge because such complaints
are properly directed to the ‘”clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis
added) (quoting the Chief Judge, Dkt. 60, 22cv3409 (SDNY), Order, June 16, 2022).
11
Mr. Ware is the petitioner in the Ware v. USA, et al., 28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent habeas corpus
petition. Mr. Ware filed the petition on March 21, 2022, and no actions whatsoever have been taken by
the District Court, see 28 USC 2243 entry of the required show cause order. Mr. Ware has, is, and will
continue to suffer irreparable harm to his personal and business each day until the 22cv3409 (SDNY)
actual innocence claims are adjudicated on the merits and proceedings are held to address the civil and
criminal contempt of the Officers of the Court and other matters concerning government trial exhibits GX
1-4 and GX-5 (04cr1224), the Illegal Contracts.
United States Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr., is the current legal representative for the
government in the DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy cases and is in current malicious civil and willful
criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), of the Final Judgments.
Page 8 of 18
and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to aid and abet the civil and criminal
contempt of the Final Judgments.”
Fact 12
To clarify and make absolutely clear and specific, Petitioner did not and is not requesting
any relief from the Chief Judge in the Applications with respect to her criminal judicial
misconduct. That request will be made in an imminent complaint for judicial misconduct filed
with the “clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit.”
Fact 13
To clarify, Petitioner in the Applications sought emergency supervisory disciplinary relief
pursuant to L.R. 1.5(b)(5) and L.R. 1.5(d)(3) in regard to the criminal prosecutorial misconduct
perpetrated as officers of the court, by the DOJ’s prosecutors that participated in the 04cr1224
and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings in the District Court (SDNY); which is exclusively, within the
scope of the jurisdiction and investigative purview of the Committee on Grievances of the
District Court (SDNY).12
Fact 14
Given the Chief Judge was named as an adverse party opponent in the 22cv3409 actual
innocent habeas corpus petition; and according to the docket the petition was allegedly
randomly assigned to District Judge Edgardo Ramos, see 22cv3409 docket; and given Petitioner
presented supervisory relief claims and requested supervisory relief in the petition against both
12
Local Civil Rule 1.5. Discipline of Attorneys (a) Committee on Grievances. “The Chief Judge shall appoint
a committee of the Board of Judges known as the Committee on Grievances, which under the direction
of the Chief Judge shall have charge of all matters relating to the discipline of attorneys.” (emphasis
added).
Page 9 of 18
the Chief Judge and Judge Ramos, the Chief Judge, to obstruct justice, illegally and without any
lawful Article III judicial authority, adjudicated the merits of the supervisory relief claims in her
favor in the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, in the clear absence of the required 28 USC 2243 show
cause order and all Article III subject matter jurisdiction over issues and facts that are moot, ipso
facto, as a matter of law.
I Ulysses T. Ware, have this 17th day of June 2022, while under oath and pursuant to the
penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, have made
this Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts in Brooklyn, NY.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
June 17, 2022
Brooklyn, NY
Kings County
Page 10 of 18
II.
Request for clarification of the June 16, 2022, Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60.
Petitioner, respectfully request that the Chief Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, a
judicial officer of the court, covered by 18 USC 401(2), an adverse party opponent in the 22cv3409
actual innocent habeas corpus proceedings, having a per se objective conflict of interest in
22cv3409, please (i) clarify by 5:00 pm on June 17, 2022, the following matters implicit within the
Ultra Vires Order, Dkt.60, Exhibit A, and (ii) set the requested briefing schedule to permit the parties
to address the concerns raised herein:
A. Clarify whether or not the Chief Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, (SDNY), was statutorily,
28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(5), and constitutionally, In re Murchison, Id., disqualified from any
and all judicial involvement in the resolution and investigation concerning the prosecutorial
misconduct allegations made in the Applications against her unindicted co-conspirators,
DOJ prosecutors Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Merrick B. Garland, and others named in the
Applications?
B. Clarify whether or not the Office of the Chief Judge pursuant to L.R. 1.5(d)(3) referred the
Applications to the Committee? If so on what date were the Applications referred to the
Committee? To whom were the Applications referred? What, if any, instructions were given
or provided to the Committee by the Office of the Chief Judge? What, if any, actions have
been taken on the Applications?
Page 11 of 18
C. Clarify whether or not a docket, In re Damian Williams and Merrick B. Garland, 22 misc.
____ (SDNY) was opened to maintain the judicial records and documents generated by the
Committee?
D. If no docket was opened please clarify why no such docket was opened in regard to the
Applications’ investigation.
E. If such docket was opened please provide the docket number to the complainant.
F. The Chief Judge in the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, see Exhibit A, infra, used the language “to
the extent” with respect to her trivially frivolous presumption Petitioner had requested
alleged “judicial misconduct” and again used the “to the extent” language with respect to
her comment concerning “rulings in the above [22cv3409] case, the request is denied.”
Accordingly, Petitioner is requesting the Chief Judge clarify whether or not her purported
ruling was limited to (i) request for “judicial misconduct” and (ii) any purported request to
“make or alter any rulings in the above case [22cv3409], given the “to the extent” limiting
language?
G. Please clarify to the extent that Petitioner was requesting supervisory disciplinary relief
authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5) in regard to criminal prosecutorial misconduct committed by
the DOJ’s prosecutors, officers of the court, who appear in or supervised the 04cr1224
and/or 05cr1115 proceedings, did the Ultra Vires Order sua sponte deny that requested
disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5) and exclusively located in the Committee?
Page 12 of 18
H. Please clarify whether or not the Chief Judge made any fact-finding, conclusions of law, and
made any records regarding the Ultra Vires Order? If so, who has possession of the fact-
finding, conclusions of law, and records?
I. Please clarify whether or not the Chief Judge had any communication(s), whatsoever, with
any DOJ prosecutor, former or current, named in the Applications? Or any communications
with District Judge Edgardo Ramos?
J. And if so was a record made of the communications?
K. Clarify the subject matter of all communication(s) with any DOJ prosecutor named in the
Applications;
L. Clarify the date of the communication(s);
M. Clarify the purpose of the communication(s);
N. Please clarify whether or not the Office of the Chief Judge has any lawful authority delegated
under the Local Rules to sua sponte, outside of the Committee’s purview, to investigate
and/or deny requested emergency disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5)?
O. Please clarify whether or not the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, has any preclusive effect and/or
legal consequences with respect to the adjudication of the merits of the actual innocent
habeas corpus claims pending in 22cv3409 (SDNY)?
P. If so, please clarify exactly the legal effects and consequences the Ultra Vires Order has on
the merits of the claims in the actual innocent habeas corpus petition.
Q. Given that an alleged order, the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, was entered in a pending judicial
proceedings, 22cv3409 (SDNY), without briefing by the parties, in violation of due process of
Page 13 of 18
law, please clarify with citations of authority whether or not the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60,
is null and void ab initio?
R. Please clarify any legal preclusive effect(s) of the Ultra Vires Order on the parties or the
merits of the allegations in the Applications?
S. And please clarify whether or not the Ultra Vires Order is clear and convincing evidence of
an overt act in furtherance of the DOJ’s Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy
perpetrated against Ulysses T. Ware to cover up and conceal the RICO international Hobbs
Act Money Laundering, extortion, and usurious debt criminal enterprise run by
unregistered broker-dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and others named in the
Applications?
III.
Conclusion.
Judge Taylor-Swain, this matter is of grave concern and importance to the public perception
concerning the purported fair, impartial, and unbiased administration of the law in the District
Court (SDNY). Your sua sponte illegal (criminal) acts and actions have placed yourself and the Court
in an untenable position as the purported Chief District Judge (SDNY). You have egregiously and
maliciously violated the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, egregiously violated federal laws,
18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1341, 1343, 1346, 1956-57, 1961(6)(A), 1962(a-d);
and 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b), violated binding Supreme Court authority, In re Murchison, Id.,
and, moreover, your criminal unlawful acts, actions, and omissions constitute overt acts in
Page 14 of 18
furtherance of the DOJ’s conspiracy to obstruct justice and continue to conceal and suppress
dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence relevant to 22cv3409,
04cr1224, 05cr1115, 02cv2219, and In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA),
Chapter 11 proceedings.
Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Petitioner
June 17, 2022
Page 15 of 18
Exhibits
Page 16 of 18
Exhibit A
Ultra Vires Order (Dkt. 60) (22cv3409 (SDNY)) (Taylor-Swain, C.J.)
Page 17 of 18
End of
document
Page 18 of 18

Ulysses Thomas Ware, 22cv3409 (SDNY), DKT 61 06.17.22 Re Request For Urgent Clarification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ulysses Thomas Ware, 22cv3409 (SDNY), DKT 61 06.17.22 Re Request For Urgent Clarification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 61 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 18

Filed on 6/17/2022 5:56:19 AM

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware

Facts, (the “Facts”), and state the following.

A. Introduction and background.

required by the L. R. 1.5(d)(3).4

complaints to the Committee on Grievances”). (emphasis added).

paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, if it deems investigation necessary or

warranted.”). (emphasis added).5

“investigation” of the written prosecutorial misconduct allegations in the Applications, other

(Taylor-Swain, C.J.), (the “Ultra Vires Order”).6

the merits in the District Court.

innocent claims currently before the District Court.

prosecutorial misconduct, covered by L.R. 1.5(b)(5), committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors.

with the “clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit.”

District Court (SDNY).12

facto, as a matter of law.

this Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts in Brooklyn, NY.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

to address the concerns raised herein:

misconduct allegations made in the Applications against her unindicted co-conspirators,

been taken on the Applications?

authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5) in regard to criminal prosecutorial misconduct committed by

finding, conclusions of law, and records?

with District Judge Edgardo Ramos?

J. And if so was a record made of the communications?

L. Clarify the date of the communication(s);

M. Clarify the purpose of the communication(s);

and/or deny requested emergency disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5)?

habeas corpus claims pending in 22cv3409 (SDNY)?

is null and void ab initio?

merits of the allegations in the Applications?

unregistered broker-dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and others named in the

Respectfully submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Petitioner

June 17, 2022

You might also like