DKT 125 Re Brady Certification Request

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 125 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 17
Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (83)

Filed on 12/9/2022 01:30:08 PM
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York
Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, & 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
Friday, December 9, 2022
________________________
Ulysses T. Ware’s Demand for the Criminal Evidence Discovery Coordinator for the United States
Attorney’s Office (SDNY), Andre Damian Williams, Jr., USAG Merrick B. Garland, and District Judge
Edgardo Ramos, jointly, (the “Custodians of Records”), to immediately not later than Tuesday,
December 13, 2022, by 10:00 AM, time of the essence, Certify under Oath “all” Actual Innocent
Brady Exculpatory and Impeachment Materials have been Disclosed and Produced to Ulysses T.
Ware as ordered by Rule 5(f) and the Brady Orders.1
1
See Ex. 1 and Ex. 2, infra.
Page 1 of 17
(83) Re: Criminal evidence coordinator’s certification all Brady material has been disclosed to Ulysses T.
Ware.
Table of Contents
DEMAND FOR CERTIFICATION OF ALL BRADY DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE. ............................................... 3

CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Ex. 1-1, Dkt. 17, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, (SDNY) Brady Court Order(1) ............................................... 11
Ex. 1-2, Dkt. 17, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady Court Order(2) ................................................ 12
Ex. 2-1, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Brady Order (1). ....................................................... 13
Ex. 2-2, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Order (2). ........................................................ 14
Ex. 3-1, suppressed and concealed Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence--
FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification. ........................................................ 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................ 16
End of document ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Page 2 of 17
Ware.
Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
via email and U.S. mail

Office of the United States Attorney
For the Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and USAG Merrick B. Garland
Re: U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”), Dkt. 32 (Brady Order), and U.S. v.
Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (“1115”), Dkt. 17 (Brady Order), (the “Brady Orders”).
DEMAND FOR CERTIFICATION OF ALL BRADY DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE.
Messrs. Williams and Garland:

Ulysses T. Ware, the defendant in 1224 and 1115, the beneficiary of the Brady Orders,
hereby this 9th day of December 2022, makes this written demand on the USAO, Andre Damian
Williams, Jr., USAG Merrick B. Garland, District Judge Edgardo Ramos,2 and the USAO’s criminal
discovery evidence coordinator—the custodians of records, to certify under oath that “all” actual
2
The District Court (SDNY) record office has stated to Ulysses T. Ware, et al. that “Judge Ramos’ chambers
has possession, is concealing, and suppressing the alleged September 2006 purported Rule 11 judicial
public records associated with the government’s “principal witness” a person known as “Jeremy Jones.”
(paraphrased). Judge Ramos, an adverse party-respondent named on the face of the 2241 actual innocent
habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 1, in 22cv3409 (SDNY), ipso facto, per se, pursuant to 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1-
5((i-v), and the Due Process Clause, see In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1952), is judicially disqualified
from all judicial involvement in 22cv3409, 02cv2219, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115.
Page 3 of 17
Ware.
innocent and other Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials and evidence have been
produced and served on Ulysses T. Ware, and submit a certified inventory of all Brady disclosures
made to date in regard to, (i) the pending Ware v. United States, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo
Ramos, and Laura Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY) 28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent habeas
corpus proceedings, and (ii) in regard to the pending motions to dismiss with prejudice the 1224
and 1115 null and void ab initio, and moot indictments, (the “Moot Indictments”).
Recently Mr. Ware became aware of the DOJ’s special counsel’s sealed motion for
contempt of a court order, a subpoena, was filed in the U.S. District Court (D.D.C) in a grand jury
matter regarding the search warrant issued for the Mar-A-Largo property of former President
Trump--according to published media reports, the DOJ’s special counsel filed under seal a motion
to hold in contempt Trump. et al. for failure to fully comply with a court order, produce all
demanded documents in the scope of the subpoena, and have the “custodian of records” certify
that all relevant documents have been produced with respect to the subpoena, a court order.
Yet at the same time the DOJ’s special counsel is seeking a contempt citation against
Trump, et al. for failure to fully comply with a court order, the DOJ’s USAO (SDNY) office, Andre
Damian Williams, Jr., et al., are currently in willful, deliberate, intentional, bad faith, and
execrable civil and criminal contempt of not one (1), but two (2) Brady Court Orders,3 the
epitome of incongruent duplicity—“oh what wicked web we weave.”
3
See Ex. 1, and Ex. 2, infra.
Page 4 of 17
Ware.
Mr. Garland, the DOJ, and its prosecutors have been in willful, bad faith, reckless, and
vexatious civil and criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders for more than fifteen years, since
2006 (05cr1115), and 2007 (04cr1224), respectively,. The respective district courts in written
court orders, see Ex. 1, and Ex. 2, infra, ordered the DOJ to produce and disclose “all” Brady
materials to Ulysses T. Ware “prior to trial” in 2007—the USAO was ordered to produce “all”
Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials to Ulysses T. Ware “prior to trial” in 1224 and
1115 including “all” alleged September 2006 purported Rule 11 judicial public records associated
with the government’s “principal witness” in 1115, a person alleged to be “Jeremy Jones;”4 and
produce and disclose the government’s FRE 404(b) bad acts witness in 1224, disgraced former
SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris’ mental illness records and disciplinary sanctions5 file maintained by
the SEC.6
4
According to the records department of the District Court (SDNY) it was stated to Ulysses T. Ware, “we
have no records of any September 2006 Rule 11 proceedings in the 05cr1115 district court … Judge Ramos’
chambers has those records … you will need to contact Judge Ramos’ chambers to get access to those
files, we do not have those here in this office … Judge Ramos should have filed those records with us here
but he has them in his chambers right now … you will have to get them from him ….” (emphasis added).
5
A subsequent investigation by Mr. Ware uncovered the suppressed and concealed Brady evidence that
when Norris knowingly committed perjury in 1224 in November 2007 suborned by the government as a
FRE 404(b) ‘bad acts’ witness regarding the DOJ-SEC illegal Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) bootleg grand jury
proceedings, Norris was then in November 2007 under investigation by the SEC for professional
misconduct, and moreover, then in November 2007 Norris had been sanctioned twice (2x) by the SEC for
professional misconduct regarding his SEC email account; and adding icing to the conspiracy SEC-USAO’s
cake, Norris was subsequently fired by the SEC in 2009 based on facts professional misconduct and mental
illness for which he was sanctioned for in November 2007, which Norris admitted were true.
6
An investigation was conducted on the USAO and it was discovered that USAO line prosecutors, AUSAs
Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, and their supervisors, willfully,
deliberately, intentionally, in bad faith, fraudulently, vexatiously, recklessly, and unreasonably colluded,
conspired, and acted in concert with former District Judge Robert W. Sweet (deceased), and arranged for
the USAO to willfully, in bad faith, recklessly, and criminally conceal, suppress, and evade the 1224 Brady
Page 5 of 17
Ware.
Mr. Garland, furthermore, the USAO was ordered to disclose “prior to trial” in 2007 the
fact that the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’—were unregistered broker-dealers,7 criminal usury
convertible promissory notes, GX 1-4, (the “Criminal Usury Notes”), and their criminal usury
underwriting contract, GX 5, (the “Criminal Usury Underwriting Contract”), jointly, (the
“Criminal Usury Subject Matter”),8 were null and void ab initio, unenforceable, constituted a
Order, Dkt. 32, required disclosure of Norris’ disciplinary records, and Norris’ mental illness medical
records—which are manifestly Brady impeachment evidence required to have been disclosed by the
USAO “prior to [the 1224] trial” in November 2007.
7
On May 17, 2021, see Ex. 3-1, infra, upon request of the Brady Orders beneficiary Ulysses T. Ware FINRA
officially certified—Brady actual innocent exculpatory evidence, that each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY),
(“2219”), plaintiffs had never lawful registered as broker-dealers as required by federal law, 15 USC
78o(a)(1), Section 15(a)(1), and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law and fact the 2219 plaintiffs lacked
Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) standing to have filed the 2219 lawsuit in 2002—that is, GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7,
GX 11, and GX 24 (the purported factual predicates for the 1224 indictment), (the “Void Ab Initio
Government Evidence” or “Void Evidence”), are null and void ab initio, and moot; accordingly, the 2219
and 1224 district courts, and the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) court of appeals, lacked Article III,
18 USC 3231 subject matter, and appellate jurisdiction, respectively, over the Criminal Usury Subject
Matter—GX 1-4, and GX 5, which rendered the 1224 indictment, conviction, sentence, fines, assessments,
and supervised release null and void ab initio, and moot. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95.
8
Cf., Dkt. 139, 139-1, and 139-2, (02cv2219) judicial public financial records of Colleen McMahon and
Frank V. Sica obtained from the Executive Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts—
structurally, the same criminal usury subject matter as the criminal usury convertible promissory note
investments, GX 1-4, and GX 5, a class E felony, i.e., NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, personally originated,
underwritten, funded, administered, and collected by District Judge Colleen McMahon, her spouse Frank
V. Sica, their private foundation, and Sica’s employer Tailwind Capital Management LLP, an alleged “ …
private equity Ponzi scam, amongst other things ….” It has been alleged that Sica, McMahon, Tailwind,
and others are currently involved in an international loan sharking and money laundering criminal
enterprise, where Tailwind and Sica have committed numerous acts of bank fraud based on false and
fraudulent revenue and income projects, which were used to obtain $billion in loans from banks under
false pretenses and by fraud, and used to pay Sica, McMahon, Tailwind, and others illegal dividends,
distributions, bribes, kickbacks, payoffs, favors, gifts, illegal gratuities, and other things of value for access
to inside information used by McMahon, Sica, Tailwind, and others to commit securities, bank, mail, wire
fraud, conspiracy, loan sharking, unlawful debt collection, money laundering, racketeering, obstruction of
justice, and honest services fraud conspiracy—a pattern of racketeering activities as defined in 18 USC
1961(1), cf., Dkt. 137 and 141 in 02cv2219 (SDNY) (McMahon, J.).
Page 6 of 17
Ware.
criminal usury unlawful debt, and the collection of GX 1-4 (the Notes), violated 18 USC
1961(6)(B)—actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence that ipso facto as a
matter of law and fact acquitted Ulysses T. Ware of all charges in the 1224 indictment. The
Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5, did not constitute an Article III justiciable
controversy over which the 1224 District Court was lawfully authorized to invoke its Article III and
18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction; accordingly, the 1224 and 09-0851cr (2d Cir.)
proceedings currently stand null and void ab initio, and moot.
CONCLUSION.
Mr. Garland, the record is not in dispute by the DOJ—the DOJ’s USAO, the USAG Merrick
B. Garland, the USAO’s criminal discovery evidence coordinator, and District Judge Edgardo
Ramos are currently in willful, deliberate, intentional, bad faith, reckless, irresponsible, vexatious,
and execrable civil and criminal contempt of the two (2) Brady Court Orders, and have been since
2007. Moreover, Merrick B. Garland and Edgardo Ramos both have been named as adverse
party-respondents in the 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus proceeding—
which was filed on March 21, 2022 (EDNY), transferred to the District Court (SDNY), April 20,
2022, irresponsibly and recklessly assigned by the District Clerk (SDNY), Ruby Krajick, to Ramos,
despite Ramos being named in the face of the habeas corpus petition as an adverse party-
respondent,9 and thus, ipso facto, cf., 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b)(1-4(i-v), federal law, disqualified
9
Since assignment of the 22cv3409 actual innocent habeas corpus petitioner Ramos has criminally,
obstructed justice, refused all requests by Mr. Ware to enter the required 28 USC 2243 show cause order
and serve the USAO with the habeas corpus petition—which is currently, recklessly, criminally,
Page 7 of 17
Ware.
from all judicial involvement in 22cv3409 (SDNY)—an ipso facto overt act of judicial misconduct
by Ramos and Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston.10
Mr. Garland, if you, personally and officially as the USAG, and the DOJ’s Andre Damian
Williams, Jr., your former law clerk, asserts or alleges under oath that the DOJ, et al., have fully
complied with the terms, obligations, and requirement of the two (2) Brady Court Orders, see Ex.
1, and Ex. 2, infra, and has disclosed “all” Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment
evidence to Ulysses T. Ware “prior to trial” in 2007, and has disclosed on a “continuing” basis
regarding the 2022 Brady claims in the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus petition, and in regard to
the 2007 and 2022 1224 and 1115 motions to dismiss with prejudice the respective indictments,
Mr. Ware is requesting the USAG Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian
Williams, Jr., Edgardo Ramos, and the USAO criminal discovery evidence coordinator all certify
under oath,
1. that all Brady exculpatory and impeachment required disclosures have been fully made
by the DOJ and its agents,
fraudulently, in bad faith, vexatiously, as an over act tin furtherance of the Jim Crow racially-motivated
hate DOJ hate crimes perpetrated against Ulysses T. Ware regarding the issuance of bogus and fraudulent
Rule 144 legal opinions with respect to the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5, see null and
void ab initio 04cr1224 indictment.
10
see In re Edgardo Ramos, 02-22-90049-jm (2d Cir. 2022), complaint for judicial misconduct pending
since May 2022 without any investigation by Chief Circuit Judge Livingston regarding 18 USC 401(3)
criminal contempt of the two (2) Brady Court Orders and investigated Ramos for not recusing himself from
22cv3409 (SNDY) where Ramos is a material witness, an adverse party-respondent, and an unindicted
coconspirator.
Page 8 of 17
Ware.
2. the DOJ or Edgardo Ramos is not, and has not been in actual and/or constructive
possession of any item of actual innocent Brady exculpatory or impeachment evidence,
and,
3. provide a certified inventory of “all” claimed Brady disclosures and file the same into the
22cv3409 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY) federal courts.
Mr. Garland, you and/or the DOJ do not provide the requested Brady disclosure
certification and certified inventory not later than 10:00 AM, Tuesday, December 13, 2022, time
of the essence, then Mr. Ware will represent in a declaration to the federal courts that:
“USAG Merrick B. Garland, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Edgardo Ramos, and the USAO’s
criminal evidence discovery coordinators were contacted on December 9, 2022, and all agree the
DOJ has knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally, recklessly, vexatiously, irresponsibly, and
execrably, violated—are currently in willful civil and criminal contempt, of the Brady Court
Orders’ terms and requirements, and all agree and do not dispute or oppose that the DOJ, and
they each, individually and personally, are in civil and willful criminal contempt of the Brady
Court Order; and all agree and do not oppose that the willful civil contempt of the Brady Court
Orders has caused actual damages, injuries, harms, and collateral consequences to Ulysses T.
Ware in the sum certain amount of $225,000 per day, accruing each and every day since the entry
of the Brady Court Orders.”
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
December 9, 2022.
Page 9 of 17
Ware.
Exhibits
Page 10 of 17
Ware.
Ex. 1-1, Dkt. 17, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, (SDNY) Brady Court Order(1)
Page 11 of 17
Ware.
Ex. 1-2, Dkt. 17, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady Court Order(2)
Page 12 of 17
Ware.
Ex. 2-1, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Brady Order (1).
Page 13 of 17
Ware.
Ex. 2-2, Dkt. 32, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Order (2).
Page 14 of 17
Ware.
Ex. 3-1, suppressed and concealed Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment
evidence--FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification.
Page 15 of 17
Ware.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on
December 9, 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 16 of 17
Ware.
End of document
Page 17 of 17
Ware.

DKT 125 Re Brady Certification Request

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 125 Re Brady Certification Request

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 125 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 17

Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (83)

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

Ware as ordered by Rule 5(f) and the Brady Orders.1

DEMAND FOR CERTIFICATION OF ALL BRADY DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE. ............................................... 3

Office of Ulysses T. Ware

via email and U.S. mail

DEMAND FOR CERTIFICATION OF ALL BRADY DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE.

Messrs. Williams and Garland:

epitome of incongruent duplicity—“oh what wicked web we weave.”

underwriting contract, GX 5, (the “Criminal Usury Underwriting Contract”), jointly, (the

proceedings currently stand null and void ab initio, and moot.

by Ramos and Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston.10

by the DOJ and its agents,

possession of any item of actual innocent Brady exculpatory or impeachment evidence,

22cv3409 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY) federal courts.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

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

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

You might also like