Part 17 07.24.23 Re Appellant's Rule 27-1 Emergency Motion To Show Cause

No.
23-865/23-869 (11)(Part 17)

Filed on 7/24/2023 1:25:22 PM
In the United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
_____
Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Petitioner)
v.
United States, et al. (Appellee).
___________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Part 17 L.R. 27-1 Emergency Motion to Show
Cause.
Re: Brady Court Order Civil and Criminal Contempt by Attorney General Merrick
B. Garland1 Pursuant to 28 USC 519 for the Immediate Search, Disclosure, and
Production of all Brady evidence and Judicial Public Records associated with
Government Witness Jeremy Jones; Grand Jury and Trial Witnesses—
unregistered broker-dealer Ari Rabinowitz, and FRE 404(b) witness former SEC
lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris.
Respectfully 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
1
A former Circuit Judge on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (ordered the government to “search for,” and “disclose” all plea and
cooperation agreements of all witnesses or persons involved in criminal proceedings—ruled the
government had a Brady “duty to search” for all cooperation agreements (Brady materials) and disclose
what was found to the defendant). Cf. alleged Sept. 2006 null and void ab initio Rule 11 [perjury] plea and
USSG 5k1.1 [perjury] cooperation contracts of a person whom Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ claim is
“Jeremy Jones.”
Page 1 of 151
Monday, July 24, 2023
(11) Part 17 re Emergency Motion for Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ to show cause.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction. ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2 Requested reliefs. ............................................................................................................................... 13
Appellant’s Propose Emergency Show Cause Order. ............................................................................. 14
3 Declaration of undisputed fact in support of civil and criminal contempt. ........................................ 17
Appellant’s Declaration in support of Civil Contempt, and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42(a) criminal contempt,
18 USC 401(2), 401(3), court enforcement of the Brady Court Orders, the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90,
Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY), and the August 18, 2009, final judgment
entered in 07-5670 (2d Cir.). ................................................................................................................... 17
A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit civil and criminal contempts,
frauds, and frauds on the court, and RICO loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal
enterprise. ................................................................................................................................................... 17
The February 2002 $1.1M criminal usury unlawful debt, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt”), made by
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., (OTCBB: GPMT),
(“GPMT”), the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, (the “Criminal Usury Collection Lawsuit”)......... 17
B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for the unlawful purpose and
criminal objective to create and collect RICO criminal usury unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), provide
protection for the participants, and launder the profits and proceeds derived therefrom, the RICO
Unlawful Debt loan sharking conspiracy. .................................................................................................... 20
C. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, racketeering activities, and frauds committed by
Leonard B. Sand........................................................................................................................................... 27
D. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by
Kenneth A. Zitter related to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation................. 29
E. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, frauds, and racketeering activities committed by
the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court, its judges, and employees related to 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule 41 Final
Judgment in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, related to the
02cv2219 lawsuit, and 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation, and the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus proceedings.
32
F. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, obstruction of justice, and frauds
committed by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP., in In re Group Management
Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11. .......................................................................................... 35
G. Willful contempts, racketeering activities, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and frauds committed
by the State Bar of Georgia and its employees. .......................................................................................... 37
H. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by
the District Court (NDGA) regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
proceedings ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Page 2 of 151
I. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the District Court (SDNY) regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY),
and 22cv3409 (SDNY). ................................................................................................................................. 40
J. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”) in regard to 02cv2219 (SDNY),
04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY). .................................................................................................... 41
K. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds committed by
Colleen McMahon in regard to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and 04cr1224 (SDNY).................................. 43
L. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY), (the “USPO”). .................................................................. 45
Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Tyler. ........................................ 45
M. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Laura Taylor-Swain. .............................................................................................................. 46
N. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston regarding Edgardo Ramos’ crimes, civil
and criminal contempts, and frauds on the court. ...................................................................................... 48
O. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick. ....................................................................................... 49
P. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) panel: Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and
Barbara S. Jones (retired). ........................................................................................................................... 51
Q. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the USAO’s 09-0851 appeals team (Preet Bharara, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and
Maria E. Douvas, the “Appeal Team”). ....................................................................................................... 52
R. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Edgardo Ramos. ................................................................................................................... 53
S. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, 03-
0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY). ......................... 55
T. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by U.S. Bureau of Prisons. ......................................................................................................... 56
U. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. ....................................................................... 57
V. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ........................................................................................... 58
W. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”). ................................................ 60
Jeffrey B. Norris, Joan E. McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Stephen Webster, et al. ................................... 60
Page 3 of 151
X. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by William H. Pauley, III. ........................................................................................................... 62
Y. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by Robert W. Sweet. ................................................................................................................. 64
Z. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering activity, and frauds
committed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan)
apropos 02cv2219 vis-à-vis 03-93031 (BC NDGA). ...................................................................................... 65
Exhibits ........................................................................................................................................................ 67
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/23 and sum certain
compensatory actual damages claim calculation. ................................................................................... 68
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ........................................ 69
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.)..... 70
4 Memorandum of law. ......................................................................................................................... 71
I. .............................................................................................................................................................. 71
1 Local Rule (SDNY) 86.3 Contempt ................................................................................................... 71
2 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure .............................................................................................. 73
3 Rule 42. Criminal Contempt. ........................................................................................................... 73
A. Claims and Contentions. ............................................................................................................ 74
B. The Legal standard: Civil contempt. .......................................................................................... 75
C. The Legal standard: Criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), sanctions. ......................................... 80
II. ............................................................................................................................................................. 81
A. Analysis and discussion. .............................................................................................................. 82
1. Eleven (11) legal reasons why the Respondents, the Unindicted Coconspirators, to wit: e.g.,
Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Laura Taylor-
Swain, Debra Ann Livingston, the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), the U.S. Probation Office, the
District Court (NDGA), the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), the District Court (SDNY), Kilpatrick, Townsend,
& Stockton, LLP, the State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia, and all those in active
concert are ipso facto guilty of civil and 18 USC 401(3) willful criminal contempt of the Brady Court
Orders, the 12/20/2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Ex. 2, and Ex. 3
supra; and the August 18, 2009, Gov.-I final judgment. ...................................................................... 82
2. Conclusion. .................................................................................................................................. 88
3. Requested reliefs. ........................................................................................................................ 91
III. Exhibits....................................................................................................................................... 92
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 07/24/23 and sum certain
compensatory actual damages claim calculation. ................................................................................... 93
Page 4 of 151
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ........................................ 94
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.)..... 95
Exhibit 4: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, ipso facto dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence suppressed and
concealed by Edgardo Ramos as an over act in furtherance of the RICO loan sharking and money
laundering continuing criminal enterprise run by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs and other federal
judges and prosecutors. .......................................................................................................................... 96
Exhibit 5: Omitted. .................................................................................................................................. 97
IV Respondents—the Unindicted Coconspirators. ............................................................................. 98
5 Summary and conclusion. ................................................................................................................. 100
6 Exhibits in support of Show Cause Motion. ...................................................................................... 101
Exhibit A--Part 16-1—Certificate of no response by Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ. ............................ 102
Ulysses T. Ware’s Certificate of No Response. .......................................................................................... 105
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware .................................................................................................................. 106
Exhibit 1..................................................................................................................................................... 110
Exhibit 2..................................................................................................................................................... 115
I Introduction. ..................................................................................................................................... 117
II The government knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith aided and abetted by the district courts
(Pauley, J., and Sweet, J.) willfully breached, resisted, and violated the Brady court orders entered in the
criminal proceedings to commit a fraud on the court and Mr. Ware. ...................................................... 119
III Willful and intentional perjury, fraud on the court, and conspiracy to obstruct justice by the District
Court (Pauley, J.), AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman,
Maria E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia, Damian Williams,
Jun Xiang, Merrick B. Garland, and others, jointly, an illegal association in fact as defined in 18 USC
1961(4), a continuing criminal enterprise. ................................................................................................ 122
IV The USAO, the District Court (SDNY), the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.), and the SEC’s collusion and
conspiracy to suppress actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in the possession of the SEC, see Ex.
6, infra. ...................................................................................................................................................... 124
V Conclusion---Probable cause exist to prosecute DOJ prosecutors. ................................................... 125
Exhibit 1—Jones’ CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton’s confirmation that Jones (1) covertly entered an alleged
Rule 11 plea, (2) covertly “cooperated” with the government and (3) covertly received a “5k letter.” 127
Exhibit 1-1—Alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract proceedings—a judicial public record, which
there is no record in any federal court in the United States of an alleged Rule 11 plea being entered by
Jeremy Jones in open court or otherwise.............................................................................................. 128
Exhibit 2—Jeremy Jones’ Alleged Sentencing hearing transcript before District Judge Pauley allegedly
on September 11, 2008, in “open court.” ............................................................................................ 129
Page 5 of 151
Exhibit 2-2—AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin’s purported USSG 5k1.1 downward departure motion for Jeremy
Jones’ “very substantial assistance” for the knowing and suborned commission of perjury, conspiracy to
commit perjury, obstruct justice, witness tampering, and knowingly giving false and misleading
testimony on behalf of the government during the 05cr1115 trial for which Jones was paid +$600,000
in financial benefits. .............................................................................................................................. 130
Exhibit 2-3—AUSA Goldin’s reference to AUSA Steve D. Feldman’s government sentencing
memorandum filed in 05cr1115 (SDNY), a judicial public record(s). ..................................................... 131
Exhibit 2-4 (con’t)---Sept 2008 sentencing hearing reference to a government “July 11, 200[8] letter” a
judicial public record. ............................................................................................................................ 132
Exhibit 2-5 (con’t)—reference to a government letter submitted to the Court, a judicial public record.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 133
Exhibit 2-6 (con’t)—AUSA Goldin’s reference to secret, concealed, and suppressed Brady evidence—
that is, AUSA Feldman’s April 2008 “very substantial assistance” perjury and lying by Jeremy Jones the
government’s principal witness” in exchange for +$600k in secret and undisclosed financial and other
pecuniary and penal benefits. ............................................................................................................... 134
Exhibit 3—Dolinger, J., alleged acceptance of Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury contracts alleged
Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings in 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.) which have never been disclosed or
produced by the district court or the government in violation of the Brady doctrine. ......................... 135
Exhibit 3-1—Pauley, J., suppressed, concealed, stolen, removed, and undocketed Dkt. 23, 10/11/2006
Order (Pauley, J.) purporting to accept the stolen alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 perjury plea and
cooperation of Jeremy Jones. See Figure F, the 05cr1115 docket which has no public record of Dkt. 23
or Dkt. 24, Figure D, supra. .................................................................................................................... 136
Exhibit 3-2--05cr1115 alleged official public docket. No public record of Dkt. 23 (Pauley’s alleged Oct.
11, 2006, acceptance of Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury plea contract) or Dkt 24 (alleged Sept. 22, 2006,
alleged Rule 11 perjury allocution by Jeremy Jones), and no record of the actual alleged Sept. 22, 2006,
Rule 11 perjury contract—criminal conspiracy with the government to violate 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371,
1519, and 2071, and the Due Process Clause and First Amendment right of access. ........................... 137
Exhibit 4—05cr1115 (SDNY), Dec. 11, 2006, Dkt. 29, Order (Pauley, J.) denying Brady production based
on the lies, and perjury of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, and Michael J. Garcia, cf.,
with Ex. 3, and Ex. 3-1, the Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule 11 proceedings of a person claimed to be
“Jeremy Jones.” ..................................................................................................................................... 138
Exhibit 5—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, certification of
unregistered broker-dealer status for each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff. ................................................ 139
Exhibit 6—the Government’s and SEC’s actual innocent, suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory
evidence which impeached and vitiated Jeremy Jones’ fabricated Rule 11 plea and known perjured trial
testimony, and impeached the government’s trial witnesses’ known false, perjured, and misleading
testimony. ............................................................................................................................................. 140
Exhibit 6-1—Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s letter to the Government informing the USAO Jones was not
added to the Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings. ..................................................................... 141
Page 6 of 151
Exhibit 6-1 (con’t)—Jones was used by the government as a pawn and a stooge, and threaten to
commit perjury aided and abetted by Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. was bribed and paid kickbacks by District
Judge Pauley disguised as CJA payments to facilitate Jones’ Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury (made in
violation of public policy) illegal and unenforceable contracts and fabricated trial testimony—the “very
substantial assistance.” ......................................................................................................................... 142
Exhibit B—EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response. ............................................................................. 143
Exhibit C—Part 1, 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady Court Order (Pauley, J.). ........................................................ 144
Exhibit C--Part 2, 05cr1115 Brady Court Order. ........................................................................................ 145
Exhibit D—Part 1, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Court Order (Sweet, J.).......................................................... 146
Exhibit D--Part 2, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Court Order. ........................................................................... 147
Exhibit E—02cv2219, December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment. ........................... 148
Exhibit F—07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I, August 18, 2009, final judgment. ...................................................... 149
End of document ....................................................................................................................................... 150
Page 7 of 151
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Sunday, July 23, 2023
Via email to won.shin@usdoj.gov and Damian.williams@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
950 Pennsylvania Ave
Robert F. Kennedy Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Immediate production of U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 “principal witness” Jeremy Jones’
alleged Rule 11, USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts, debriefing notes, benefits paid and offered, Rule
11 transcripts, sentencing memorandums, sentencing transcription, ex parte applications, other
judicial public records, and Brady materials, (the “Concealed Brady Evidence”), in the actual
and/or constructive possession of the USAO (SDNY) and its agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-
egos; as well as the same regarding any other government trial or grand jury witness.
PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE.2

Appellant-Petitioner’s Ulysses T. Ware’s EMERGENCY MOTION to Show Cause
FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
2
The Merrick B. Garland, Ari Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Colleen
McMahon, Frank V. Sica, David N. Kelley, and DOJ’s Hobbs Act Extortion, Money Laundering, Loan
Sharking, Kidnapping, and Armed Robbery Conspiracy to violate 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2),
401(3), 1519, 1621, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071; 28 USC 2255(f)(2), (f)(4), and 42 USC 1983,
1985(2), 1985(3); and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, (the “RICO
Crimes”).
Page 8 of 151
1 Introduction.
(a) In the sub judice criminal proceedings, (the “Criminal Proceedings”), in the district courts,
(I) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Pauley, J., (deceased), (“1115”), the district court on May 19,
2006, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10, ordered the Appellee to “produce not later than the Thursday before start
of trial that [Brady] exculpatory material” (emphasis added), and Appellee was further ordered
to produce all Giglio materials before the start of the trial, see Section 6, Ex. C; and (II) in U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Sweet, J. (deceased), (“1224”), on August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, the district
court ordered the Appellee who acknowledged its Brady obligation, to disclose and produce “all
Brady materials before the commencement of trial” (emphasis added), which Appellee
“consented to”. To date, Appellee has not searched for, disclosed, or produced “all” Brady or Giglio
materials, or Rule 11 judicial court records associated with its “principal witness” in 05cr1115 a
person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones.” Furthermore, Appellee has not to date disclosed or
produced all Brady materials associated with its FRE 404(b) witness disgraced former SEC lawyer
Jeffrey B. Norris, or disclosed all Brady materials regarding Ari Rabinowitz, and the 02cv2219
plaintiffs in its, the SEC’s, or FINRA’s possession. Appellant is authorized to seek enforcement of
the Brady Court Orders via civil and criminal contempt proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f).3
3Cf., United States v. Senator Ted Stevens, No. 08-231(D.D.C. 2009). In February 2009, FBI agent
Chad Joy filed a whistleblower affidavit, alleging that prosecutors and FBI agents conspired to
withhold and conceal Brady evidence that could have resulted in acquittal. In his affidavit, Joy
alleged that prosecutors intentionally sent a key witness, former VECO employee Robert Burnette
"Rocky" Williams, who had testified before a grand jury in 2006, back home to Alaska [cf., with
Appellee’s during the 05cr1115 trial in January 2007 purchased Jeremy Jones (Appellee’s
“principal witness”) a ticket to Atlanta, GA, sending Jeremy Jones back to Atlanta, GA during cross-
examination by Ulysses T. Ware; where Jones faked sickness, checked into Crawford Long hospital,
Page 9 of 151
(b) On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) RICO, 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful
debt collection proceedings,4 the plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers, voluntarily, ex parte,
covertly, and in secret via counsel Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.5 voluntarily moved the district court—
after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 complaint, pursuant to Fed.
and never returned to complete cross-examination, which forced a deliberate mistrial by

Appellee and Judge Pauley]. Williams had performed poorly during a mock cross-examination.
The prosecution informed Judge Sullivan that it had concerns regarding the health of the witness.
Williams was terminally ill, experiencing liver failure, which causes confusion. He died on
December 30, 2008. Joy further alleged that the prosecutors intentionally withheld Brady
material including redacted prior statements of a witness, and a memo from Bill Allen stating that
Senator Stevens probably would have paid for the goods and services if asked. A female FBI agent
had an inappropriate relationship with Allen, who also gave gifts to the FBI and Ted Stevens. On
April 1, 2009, on behalf of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Paul O'Brien submitted a "Motion
of The United States To Set Aside The Verdict And Dismiss The Indictment With Prejudice" in
connection with case No. 08-231. Federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan soon signed the order. During
the trial, Sullivan had expressed anger after Allen, the prosecution's witness, recounted a note
Stevens sent him insisting that a bill for work Veco had done be sent to Stevens. Allen said that
Persons subsequently told him that Stevens was just "covering his ass". Holder, who had taken
office only three months earlier, stated that it was "in the interest of justice" not to hold a new
trial,[173] adding that he was "horrified". After trial Judge Sullivan held the prosecutors in
contempt, Holder referred the entire trial team, including top officials to the DOJ’s the public
integrity section for criminal investigation and prosecution.
4 Notwithstanding the Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal of 02cv2219 with prejudice on Dec. 20,
2007, Dkt. 90, the 02cv2219 lawsuit was null and void ab initio given that unregistered broker-
dealers lacked Article III standing to have filed the complaint to collect a RICO unlawful criminal
usury debt. Accordingly, all orders, judgments, and proceedings within the 02cv2219 lawsuit and
the 04cr1224 criminal proceedings are null and void ab initio.
5 Zitter knowingly lied, and committed perjury with the knowledge and consent of the Appellee
as a government witness in the 04cr1224 criminal proceedings. Zitter knowingly and recklessly
lied and committed perjury, and deliberately in bad faith misled the jury and testified that each
02cv2219 plaintiff, unregistered broker-dealers, and judicially admitted 15 USC 77b(a)(11)
statutory underwriters of the criminal usury convertible promissory notes, GX 1-4, were eligible
for Rule 144(k) exemption from 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, strict-liability registration
requirements. Sweet, Zitter, and Appellee all knew that this testimony was false, a lie, perjury,
and designed to mislead the jury. Which it did.
Page 10 of 151
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) to reverse, vacate, set aside, annul, and vitiate all prior orders, judgments, and
proceedings in 02cv2219.6 On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Section 6, Exhibit E, infra, the district
court (Sand, J.) reversed, vacated, set aside, annulled, and vitiated, all prior orders, judgments,
and proceedings in 02cv2219, and entered ipso facto final judgment in favor of Appellant, GPMT,
and the Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”). Appellant as a Prevailing Parties is authorized
by law to enforce the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment via civil and criminal contempt proceedings.
(c) On August 18, 2009, see Id., Ex. F, infra, this Court entered final judgment in Appellee’s
Article II, appellate political decision that abandoned, aborted, terminated, and dismissed with
prejudice cross-appeal, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.), Gov-I, (the “Gov-I Final
Judgment”)7—that is, this Court entered final judgment in favor of Appellant—the prevailing
6 The legal consequences of the plaintiffs’ Dec. 20, 2007 Rule 41(a)(2) voluntarily motion to
dismiss the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice (1) had dire and devastating consequences on the
04cr1224 criminal proceedings—that is, all 1224 trial evidence derived from the 2219
proceedings (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 34, and GX 34) ipso facto as a matter of law was
annulled, vitiated, and abrogated on Dec. 20, 2007, which abrogated the 1224 criminal
proceeding; and (2) had severe legal consequence on the In re Group Management Corp., 03-
93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 case—that is, the plaintiffs’ voluntary nullification of its 2219
lawsuit, all orders, judgments, and proceedings after the statute of limitation had run on all
claims, notwithstanding the RICO criminal usury, unlawful debt character of the alleged debts, GX
1-4, the legal consequences of Rule 41(a)(2) voluntarily nullified, abrogated, and vitiated all
judicial relief, Dkt. 28, granted by the Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court to the unregistered broker-
dealer plaintiffs. See United States v. L-3 Comm’cs EO Tech, Inc., 921 F.3d 11, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2019)
(collecting cases) (“it is hornbook law” that voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit by plaintiffs annulled,
vitiated, and abrogated all prior proceedings, orders, and judgments in the [02cv2219] lawsuit …
the slate is wiped clean).
7 The Respondents are bound absolutely and strictly prohibited from any challenge, denial,
dispute, or objection with respect to the November 7, 2008, USAG’s 28 USC 519, voluntary Article
II, appellate political decision to abandon, abort, terminated, and dismiss with prejudice 07-5670,
Gov-I, and the legal consequences of that Section 519 decision—that is, the Respondents are
ipso facto in civil and criminal contempt of the August 18, 2009, Gov-I Final Judgment which
Page 11 of 151
party, triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality regarding all subsequent fact-
finding, and triggered res judicata with respect to all issues, facts, and claims actually and/or
necessarily resolved by the USAG’s voluntary 28 USC 519 dismissal with prejudice of Gov-I and
consequently, ipso facto 05cr1115.8
The Gov-I Final Judgment entered on August 18, 2009, terminated all federal and state
courts’, agencies, and other administrative bodies’ jurisdiction over the 05cr1115 proceedings;
and ipso facto the Double Jeopardy Clause strictly prohibited all subsequent fact-finding in any
tribunal that contradicted, undermined, or challenged the preclusive effects of the Gov-I Final
Judgment. Accordingly, Appellant, the Prevailing Party is authorized by law to enforce the Gov-I
Final Judgment, the Rule 41(a)(2) Final Judgment, and the Brady Court Orders via civil and/or
criminal contempt proceedings against the Respondents named herein.
cannot be disputed, denied, opposed, or any objections received by the district court or this
Court.
8 See Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moite, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 401-02 (1981) (the effects of final
judgment are binding absolutely, without exception, on all courts, the parties, and their privies in
all subsequent proceedings between the parties ….”) (emphasis added).
Page 12 of 151
2 Requested reliefs.9
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware this 24th day of July 2023, move this Court to enter an
emergency order, (the “Emergency Order”), directed to the District Court (SDNY) to enter a show
cause order, (the “Show Cause Order”), directed to each respondent in their individual, personal,
and official capacities, (the “Respondents” or “Unindicted Coconspirators”), to file in the district
court (SDNY), and forthwith show cause in writing, via affidavit or declaration, supported by law
and fact, not later than Friday, July 28, 2023, time of the essence, why each shall not be held in
civil and willful 18 USC 401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt of: (i) the May 19, 2007, Dkt. 17,
05cr1115 (SDNY), Pauley, J. (deceased), Brady court order; (ii) the August 10, 2007, Dkt 32,
04cr1224 (SDNY), Sweet, J. (deceased), Brady court orders, jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”);
(iii) the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment (Sand, J.)
deceased); and (iv) the August 18, 2009, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov-I, final
judgment, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”).
9
See Section 4, Memorandum of Law, section III, Exhibit 5 (Proposed Emergency Show Cause Order).
Page 13 of 151
Appellant’s Propose Emergency Show Cause Order.
No. 23-865/23-869
United States Court of Appeals
_______________________________________X
Ulysses T. Ware,
Appellant-Petitioner,
v. Case No. 23-865/23-869
The United States., et al.,

Respondents.
_______________________________________X
___________
Proposed Emergency Show Cause Order
WHEREAS, on Monday, July 24, 2023, Appellant, presented to the Court a Rule 27.1
Emergency Motion to Show Cause to enforce (I) the Brady Court Orders entered in the sub judice
Criminal Proceedings, (II) the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41 final judgment entered in
Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v. Group Management Corp., et al., case no. 02cv2219 (SDNY), and (II)
the August 18, 2009, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I.
WHEREAS, Appellant has made a credible claim supported by clean, convincing, and
undisputed evidence of irreparable “harms, injuries, and damages” caused by the respondents’
“continued willful and in bad faith resistance to the res judicata preclusive effects” of the Brady
Court Orders and Final Judgments.
Page 14 of 151
WHEREAS, Appellant presented to the Court a sworn Declaration of fact, undisputed
clear and convincing evidence, which set out facts which sufficiently pleaded the factual basis for
civil and criminal contempt claims and contempt relief.
WHEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED this Court will GRANT the requested reliefs, and ORDERS
the following relief be GRANTED, to wit:
1. IT IS ORDERED THAT in regard to each Respondent named in the Memorandum of Law,
Section IV of the Show Cause Motion, (the “Motion”), this matter is remanded to the
District Court (SDNY), to be assigned to a new District Judge;
2. IT IS SO ORDERED THAT the District Court (SDNY) shall:
(A) forthwith enter an Emergency Show Cause order directed to each Respondent,
personally and individually, to not later than Friday, July 28, 2023, at 1:00 PM, time of
the essence, the District Court (SDNY) is ORDERED to enter the Show Cause Order on the
(1) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (2) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115, and (3) Alpha Capital, AG,
et al. v. IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY) dockets;
(B) the District Court is ORDERED to direct each Respondent in their personal and
individual capacities to not later than Monday, July 31, 2023, at 10:00 AM, time of the
essence, to file in the respective District Courts a declaration or affidavit, supported by
law and fact, and serve a copy of the same on Appellant, asserting under oath why the
Respondent shall not be adjudged, and held in civil and criminal contempt of the Brady
Court Orders, the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and the Gov-I Final Judgment.
Page 15 of 151
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the respondent(s) do not file into the Court and serve a copy
of the same on Appellant regarding what has been ORDERED in sections 1 and 2, above, then
(A) it is ORDERED that each of the respondents is hereby held and adjudicated in civil
contempt of the Brady Court Orders, and Final Judgments, and (B) it is ORDERED that each
respondent shall appear in the District Court (SDNY), with counsel, on Tuesday, August 1,
2023, at 11:00 AM, time of the essence, for a compensatory damages proceedings status
conference;
1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that on Tuesday, August 1, 2023, at 11:00 AM, time of the
essence, each respondent and legal counsel shall appear in the U.S. District Court (SDNY),
located at either 500 Pearl St, or 40 Foley Sq., New York, NY, and show cause pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim P. 42 why each shall not be adjudged and adjudicated in willful civil and
criminal contempt, the willful resistance, of the Brady Court Order and the Final
Judgments, and why they shall not be referred to the Office of the United States Attorney
(SDNY) and prosecuted for multiple counts of 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) criminal contempt.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of July 2023 in New York, NY.
__________________________________________
Circuit Judge
End of Order
Page 16 of 151
3 Declaration of undisputed fact in support of civil and criminal
contempt.
Appellant’s Declaration in support of Civil Contempt, and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42(a)
criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), court enforcement of the Brady Court Orders,
the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY),
and the August 18, 2009, final judgment entered in 07-5670 (2d Cir.).
Kings County
Brooklyn, NY
July 23, 2023
I Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Appellant” or “Petitioner”), hereby this 23rd day of July 2023, in
Brooklyn, NY has personal knowledge of the facts, under oath and pursuant to 28 USC 1746,
makes this Declaration of fact in support of civil and 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3) criminal contempt,
and 28 USC 1651 All Writs Act, enforcement of (i) the Brady Court Orders, (ii) the December 20,
2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment entered in Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management
Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), Dkt 90, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”), and (iii) the August 18,
2009, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov-I final judgment, (the “Gov-I Final Judgment”).
I.
A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit

civil and criminal contempts, frauds, and frauds on the court, and RICO
loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal enterprise.
The February 2002 $1.1M criminal usury unlawful debt, (the “Criminal Usury Unlawful
Debt”), made by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management
Corp., (OTCBB: GPMT), (“GPMT”), the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, (the
“Criminal Usury Collection Lawsuit”).
a. On or about February 2001 in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, the
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s plaintiffs, (the “Plaintiffs”), then and now unregistered broker-
Page 17 of 151
dealers, (the “Unregistered Broker-Dealers”), originated, created, underwrote,
structured, and made a purported $1.1M loan (the “Criminal Usury Loan”) to GPMT,
which required that GPMT immediately register its securities with the SEC on Form SB-210
in the amount of “200% of the [Criminal Usury] Loan amount,” (the “Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt”).
b. The terms of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt were contained in convertible promissory
note instruments, (the “Convertible Promissory Notes”), and were issued pursuant to a
purported so-called Subscription Agreement, (the “Subscription Agreement”).
c. The Convertible Promissory Notes and Subscription Agreement shall be referred to herein
as (the “RICO Unlawful Debt Illegal Contracts”).
d. Paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement required GPMT to “register 200%” of
the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt amount of $1.1M with the SEC on a Form SB-2 for
immediate resale of the securities derived from the Convertible Promissory Notes, (the
“Conversion Securities”).
e. The terms of paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement and the Convertible
Promissory Notes violated N.Y. Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class
E felony; and the collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt violated 18 USC
1961(6)(B).
10
See paragraph 10.1(iv) of the so-called subscription agreement, GX 5—a criminal usury RICO 18 USC
1961(6)(B), and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, unlawful debt
collection instrument, null and void ab initio.
Page 18 of 151
f. The RICO Unlawful Debt Contracts are illegal contracts that are null and void ab initio,
unenforceable, are criminal usury loan contracts, and the collection of the unlawful debts
terms therein violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
g. On or about March 2002, the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, LH Financial Services, Inc., and
Ari Rabinowitz hired Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. to file a lawsuit, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v.
Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), (the “RICO Collection Lawsuit”), in
the U.S. District Court (SDNY) (Sand, J.) to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
h. Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith filed a
false, frivolous, and fraudulent complaint, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);
a. which falsely and fraudulently lied and committed perjury and claimed that the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;
b. lied that the Unregistered Broker-Dealers were required to be repaid the principal
and interest amounts contained in the Illegal Contracts;
c. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs
were not and had never been registered as broker-dealers;
d. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs
were 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Conversion Securities
and therefore as a matter of law ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC
77e strict-liability registration requirements;
e. in November 2007 Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly lied and committed
perjury as a government witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), with the
consent and knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors; Zitter lied and committed
Page 19 of 151
perjury and falsely testified the 02cv2219 plaintiffs are entitled to use Rule 144 as
an exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Act;
f. Zitter further lied and committed perjury with the consent and knowledge of the
USAO and testified the 02cv2219 court’s orders were lawful orders;
g. On December 20, 2007, less than one month after the 04cr1224 trial concluded,
Zitter and the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers ex parte moved the
02cv2219 district court (Sand, J.) to dismiss the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); which ex parte motion was granted by the district court
(Sand, J.), and entered at Dkt. 90, 02cv2219 (SDNY). Ex. 2, infra.
B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for

the unlawful purpose and criminal objective to create and collect RICO
criminal usury unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), provide protection for
the participants, and launder the profits and proceeds derived therefrom,
the RICO Unlawful Debt loan sharking conspiracy.
a. On or about February 2001, or before, and continuing to the present, without
interruption, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, Alpha Capital,
AG, Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro International, S.A., LH
Financial Services, Inc, Ari Rabinowitz, Solomon Obstfeld, convicted felon Edward
M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Ari Kluger, fugitive Thomas Badian, and others
known and unknown knowingly agreed, colluded, acted in concert, with unity of
purpose, and conspired to orchestrate and formed an illegal association-in-fact,
(the “Unindicted Coconspirators”); and further agreed and conspired to and did
Page 20 of 151
commit two or more acts of racketeering activities listed in 18 USC 1961(1), or
violated N.Y. Penal Laws, or other state penal laws, for the criminal objectives and
purposes to create, underwrite, fund, collect, protect, and launder the profits and
proceeds derived from direct and/or indirect participation in the operations of the
criminal usury unlawful loan sharking “business” operations; and criminally used
the U.S. mails, wires, banking system, U.S. Senators,11 private law firms,12 the U.S.
federal courts,13 judges,14 prosecutors,15 and employees, used the State Bar of
Georgia, and their agents and employees,16 used the Supreme Court of Georgia,
11 New York senator Charles Ellis Schumer and his cronies.
12Paul, Weiss, et al., LLP, Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, Grushko & Mittman, P.C., Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Cleary, Gottlieb, LLP,
13 The Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court, the District Court (SDNY), the District Court (NDGA), the
District Court (D. NV), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the Supreme Court of
the United States.
14 Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, Robert W. Sweet, Colleen McMahon, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Edgardo Ramos, Debra Ann Livingston, Andrew J. Peck, Michael H. Dolinger, Amalya
L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, Gerald B. Tjoflat, Stanley Marcus,
Charles R. Wilson, and Adelburto Jordan.
15David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steve R. Peikin,
Steven D. Feldman, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Margaret M. Garnett,
Daniel Gitner, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, Joon
Kim, and Jun Xiang.
16The RICO CCE in 2007-08 as an overt act in furtherance of its racketeering activities criminally
enticed and used the State Bar of Georgia, its employees, and agents, and the Supreme Court of
Georgia, who knowingly joined and agreed to participate in the RICO CCE, and conspired with
the State Bar and had the State Bar knowingly fabricate a false affidavit of Service; and conspired
and had the State Bar use the known fraudulent and fabricated affidavit of service in fraudulent
Page 21 of 151
used the Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, used Baker &
McKenzie, LLP, and its lawyers, used convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, and
Barbara R. Mittman, used David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, used the Atlanta, GA
bankruptcy court and its employees, used the Atlanta, GA law firm Garland,
Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and its lawyers, agents, and affiliates, used the Respondents,
and used others known and unknown, and used the means and methods of
interstate commerce, the U.S. mail, and wires, (the “RICO Loan Sharking CCE”), to
conduct the illegal and criminal operations of the Hobbs Act RICO Loan Sharking,
money laundering, extortion, kidnapping, armed robbery, false imprisonment,
and conspiracy CCE.
b. On August 13, 2003, Dkt. 65, GX 24 (1224), Judge Sand ruled, ex parte, that
Stonestreet, L.P. “beneficially owned more than 9.9% of the stock of [GPMT];” and
thus, ipso facto ruled that each of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs also “beneficially owned
more than 9.9% of GPMT’s stock;” which ruled that each of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs
were 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insiders of GPMT and were therefore prohibited to
trade in GPMT’s equity securities, and required to disgorge back to GPMT all
profits derived from trading in GPMT’s securities, see 15 USC 78p(b).
c. In Atlanta, GA on September 1, 2004, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. knowingly,
deliberately, and in bad faith conspired with the SEC, the USAO, the 02cv2219
plaintiffs, Judge Sand, the U.S. Marshals, and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
disbarment proceedings to have the Supreme Court of Georgia steal Ulysses T. Ware’s license to
practice law in Georgia.
Page 22 of 151
(NDGA) and had Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., (GPMT’s securities counsel),
kidnapped by the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn, from his law office in Atlanta,
GA as the Hobbs Act (crime of violence) means and methods to undertake RICO
18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful collection activities and criminally collect the Criminal
Usury Unlawful Debts, GX 1-4; and Judge Thrash in furtherance of the CCE’s
unlawful debt collection activities demanded that Ulysses T. Ware draft and issue
fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions and issue 10,000,000 free-trading shares of
GPMT’s securities to the 2219 unregistered broker-dealer plaintiffs, then valued
between $22.25M and $225M of GPMT, to the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, else Mr. Ware
would face indefinite incarceration (kidnapping) until the fraudulent legal
opinions and shares were delivered to Zitter and the Unregistered Broker-
Dealers ;
d. Judge Thrash as a Hobbs Act overt act of kidnapping, armed robbery, and unlawful
debt collection act, on behalf of the RICO CCE illegally and unlawfully, in the “clear
absence of all jurisdiction” in Atlanta, GA on September 1, 2004, willfully and in
bad faith imposed an illegal $250,000 bail (ransom for Hobbs Act kidnapping) on
Ulysses T. Ware as a criminal ransom—unlawful debt collection activity, pressure
and to force Appellant, Mr. Ware, to draft, sign, and issue, false and fraudulent
Rule 144 legal opinions to the Unregistered Broker-Dealers who were legally
ineligible for Rule 144 exemption to Section 5 registration requirements—see SEC
Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), and also see U.S. v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir.
1968);
Page 23 of 151
e. on September 9, 2004, without Zitter having been properly admitted to the District
Court (NDGA), Zitter, Judge Sand, and the RICO CCE conspired and colluded with
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. who then permitted Zitter to unlawfully appear
before the District Court (NDGA) and fraudulently argue for collection of the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt;17
f. on November 17, 2004, the RICO CCE contracted with U.S. Attorney (SDNY) David
N. Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, and others, and hired and bribed, or gave
favors, or other illegal gratuities to Kelley and the USAO; who then knowingly
fabricated a false and fraudulent indictment, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), that
attempted to charge Ulysses T. Ware with three counts of 18 USC 401(3) criminal
contempt for Ulysses T. Ware refusing to fabricate, create, and issue bogus and
fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions to the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers
to enable an unregistered public offering of GPMT’s Conversion Securities.
g. In November 2007 the RICO CCE’s participants hired District Judge Robert W.
Sweet to rig and fix the bogus and fraudulent 04cr1224 purported trial in favor of
the USAO by arranging and coordinating with Sweet to enter known bogus,
fraudulent, and frivolous legal rulings, orders, and judgments in favor of the USAO
and the RICO CCE to protect the RICO CCE, its profits, proceeds, and participants.
17Judge Sand, Dkt. 88, (02cv2219), subsequently ruled that on September 1, 2004, Judge Thrash
and the U.S. Marshals lacked lawful authority and jurisdiction to have raided the Atlanta, GA law
office of Appellant Ulysses T. Ware and kidnapped Mr. Ware regarding the unlawful collection of
the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debts, GX 1-4 (1224).
Page 24 of 151
h. On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims
in the 02cv2219 complaint, government trial witness in 04cr1224 Kenneth A.
Zitter, Esq., an officer of the court, ex parte, on behalf of the 02cv2219 Broker-
Dealers moved in secret and demanded the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2).
i. On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, District Judge Sand granted the 02cv2219
plaintiffs’ voluntarily demanded Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice, and
entered final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”), in 02cv2219 (SDNY) in
favor of and for GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and
Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”).
j. In 2009 the USAO’s appeal section then run by AUSA Katherine Polk-Failla,
colluded, conspired, and acted in concert with the RICO CCE; and AUSAs Polk-
Failla, Sarah E. Paul, and Maria E. Douvas, with the knowledge and consent of the
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Preet Bharara, researched, drafted, fabricated, signed, and
on behalf of the RICO CCE submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) in U.S.
v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) a known to be a bogus and fraudulent government
appeal brief while knowing the 02cv2219 (SDNY) underlying criminal proceedings
had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, which
“annulled” “vitiated” and voided the government’s trial exhibits, GX 1-4, GX 5, GX
7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 entered in the 04cr1224 trial.
k. In 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) 09-0851cr panel Circuit Judges
Katzmann, Hall, and District Judge Barbara S. Jones (SDNY), sitting by designation,
Page 25 of 151
were hired by the RICO CCE to rig and fix in favor of the government and the RICO
CCE the moot U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) appeal.
l. Circuit Judges Katzmann, Hall, and Jones, while knowing the underlying 02cv2219
(SDNY) lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20,
2007, nevertheless, lied, committed perjury, obstructed justice, conspired and
knowingly committed a fraud on the court, as officers of the court, violated the
Code of Conduct for Federal Judges and purportedly conducted, in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction, ultra vires Article III appellate judicial review on the
annulled and then moot GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 orders and judgments
entered in the annulled and mooted 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit;
m. which frauds on the court, civil, and criminal contempts have caused Petitioners
actual irreparable harms, injuries, and damages in the sum certain amount of
$225,000 per day,18 each and every day beginning on December 20, 2007, and
continuing each day at the sum certain rate of $225,000 each day thereafter until
such time that all civil contempts and frauds on the court are terminated.19
18 The New York state unlawful detainment and unlawful custody compensation is paid at the rate
of $326,000 per day. Notwithstanding actual irreparable harm, injury, and damages to Ulysses T.
Ware’s professional reputation as an attorney at law; and notwithstanding the statutory 3x
damage compensatory and punitive damages available for RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt
collection injuries associated with GX 1-4 (the unlawful, criminal usury convertible promissory
notes). See U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and +$3.0 billion
forfeiture for unlawful debt collection activities).
19 There are 5696 days between 12/20/2007 and 07/24/23 multiplied by $225,000 per day in
irreparable damages = $1.281.6 billion in total civil contempt, 3x RICO treble damages, Hobbs Act
kidnapping, extortion armed robbery, and fraud on the court compensation. See Ex. 1, infra.
Page 26 of 151
C. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, racketeering
activities, and frauds committed by Leonard B. Sand.
a. District Judge Leonard B. Sand, deceased, was hired by the RICO CCE to provide corrupt
judicial services for the collection, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), and protection—obstruction of
justice illegal schemes, for the unlawful profits and proceeds derived by the RICO CCE’s
racketeering activities; and to provide protection for the participants in the RICO CCE and
for their families, friends, and professional privies.
b. Judge Sand knowingly rigged and fixed the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s litigation, and
entered bogus and frivolous orders, GX 11,20 GX 24, and judgments, GX 7, and Dkt. 80,
that enabled the RICO CCE to undertake unlawful collection activities to collect the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
c. Judge Sand on or about November 2002 while he lacked all subject matter jurisdiction
over the 02cv2219 lawsuit entered a purported final judgment, GX 7.
d. GX 7 is null and void ab initio entered while the district court lacked all Article III subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims in the 02cv2219 complaint.
e. Judge Sand knowingly lied and committed a fraud on the court on or about December
2003 when he conspired and racketeered with the RICO CCE and entered the civil
contempt judgment against Petitioners, Dkt. 80, GX 34.
20 “GX” refers to government trial exhibits entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
Page 27 of 151
f. On December 20, 2007, Judge Sand knowingly entered final judgment on the plaintiffs’
voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte motion, dismissed the 02cv2219 lawsuit with prejudice,
annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and proceedings, and conferred
prevailing party status on GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and
Becky Landers, (the “Prevailing Parties”), to the Rule 41(a)(2) Final Judgment.
g. In or about August 2011, Dkt. 102, Judge Sand knowingly and deliberately conspired with
the RICO CCE, committed a fraud on the court, knowingly violated and resisted the
preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment; undertook actions and omissions that
obstructed justice done by Judge Sand on behalf of the RICO CCE that enabled the RICO
CCE to continue to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt, done in the clear absence of
all jurisdiction entered Dkt. 102 as the unlawful means and methods to delay, obstruct,
conceal, suppress, and cover up his and the crimes of the RICO CCE, done in in bad faith,
and caused actual injuries, harms, and damages to Appellant.
h. From the entry of Dkt. 102 in 2011 to the entry of Dkt. 117, and all times to his death in
2016, Judge Sand knowingly and in bad faith lied, obstructed justice, conspired to obstruct
justice, and committed Hobbs Act RICO unlawful debt collection activities, 18 USC
1961(6)(B), racketeering activities which resisted the preclusive effects of the Rule 41
Final Judgment; refused to enforce the Rule 41 Final Judgment on behalf of Appellant;
and conspired with the RICO CCE and others and agreed to and deliberately entered a
series of fraudulent and obstruction of justice orders designed to protect the RICO CCE’s
unlawful profits, proceeds, and participants.
Page 28 of 151
D. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering
activity, and frauds committed by Kenneth A. Zitter related to the
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and the 04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation.
a. On or about March 2002, the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, LH Financial Services, Inc., and
Ari Rabinowitz hired Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. to file a lawsuit, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v.
Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), (the “RICO Collection Lawsuit”), in
the U.S. District Court (SDNY) (Sand, J.) to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
b. Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith filed a
false, frivolous, bogus, and fraudulent complaint, 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debts, GX
1-4, collection lawsuit, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);
c. which lawsuit falsely and fraudulently lied and committed perjury and claimed that the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;
d. lied that the Unregistered Broker-Dealers were required to be repaid the unlawful,
criminal usury debt principal and interest amounts contained in the Illegal Contracts;
e. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs were
not and had never been registered as broker-dealers in the United States and New York
state, or any state;
f. lied by omission and committed a fraud on the court by not revealing the plaintiffs were
15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Conversion Securities and therefore
as a matter of law ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC 77e strict-liability
registration requirements;
Page 29 of 151
g. in November 2007 Zitter on behalf of the RICO CCE knowingly lied and committed perjury
as a government witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), with the consent and
knowledge of the USAO’s prosecutors; Zitter knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally
lied and committed perjury and falsely testified the 02cv2219 plaintiffs were entitled to
use Rule 144 as an exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Act;
h. Zitter further lied and committed perjury with the consent and knowledge of the USAO
and testified the 02cv2219 court’s orders (GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34) were lawful
orders;
i. Zitter testified and admitted under oath as a government witness in 04cr1224 that he and
Judge Sand arranged for the U.S. Marshals (SDNY and NDGA) to “forcibly” “using
whatever degree of force necessary” to enter Ulysses T. Ware’s law office with guns
drawn threatening to murder Mr. Ware on September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA—ipso facto
a Hobbs Act armed robbery, kidnapping, and extortion crime of violence; and arranged
the kidnapping of Mr. Ware to “punish you [Mr. Ware] … because you would not give us
the stock of GPMT [i.e., 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO unlawful debt collection activities].”
j. Zitter and the RICO CCE in furtherance of the unlawful collection of the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt conspiracy used the wires of the United States and in 2003 to 2007
communicated terroristic threats (“ … I’ll have Judge Sand throw your ass in prison and
you will never get out ….”), threats of violence (“ … I’ll have the marshals arrest your ass
and throw you in prison if you don’t give us that stock and the opinions ….”), and
egregious racial slurs (“ … nigger who do you think you are fucking with ….”) to Ulysses
Page 30 of 151
T. Ware in an effort to collect (18 USC 1961(6)(B)) the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debts, GX
1-4.
k. On December 20, 2007, less than one month after the 04cr1224 trial concluded, Zitter
and the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers ex parte, voluntarily, in secret moved the
02cv2219 district court (Sand, J.) to immediately dismiss the 02cv2219 lawsuit with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); the ex parte secret motion was granted by the district
court (Sand, J.), and the Rule 41 Final Judgment was entered on December 20, 2007, at
Dkt. 90, 02cv2219 (SDNY). Ex. 2, infra.
l. From December 20, 2007, to the present (July 24, 2023) without interruption Zitter, the
RICO CCE, and its participants have deliberately conspired, colluded, orchestrated, and
coordinated with Colleen McMahon, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Debra Ann
Livingston, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, and the Respondents, and have omitted
to inform the federal courts the 02cv2219 lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on
December 20, 2007; and Zitter, the Respondents, and the RICO CCE’s participants have
willfully in bad faith resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects, and
continued to lie, commit perjury, obstruct justice, conspire, and undertake 18 USC
1961(6)(B) Hobbs Act racketeering activities to give legal effect to the annulled and
vitiated orders, judgments, and proceedings related to the 02cv2219 lawsuit.21 Which
21In 2021 District Judge Edgardo, AUSA Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, and
others colluded, conspired, aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated the theft, extortion, and
robbery of Appellant for $50,000 in bail money posted in the 1115 and 1224 Criminal
Proceedings—while Ramos, the Respondents, and Appellee lacked all jurisdiction over the 1224
and 1115 Criminal Proceedings. Ergo, the 2021 $50,000 extortion, robbery, and theft is a Hobbs
Act 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity.
Page 31 of 151
have caused Petitioners irreparable harms, and will continue to cause irreparable harm
to Petitioner until such time as the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects are
enforced.
E. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, conspiracy, frauds, and

racketeering activities committed by the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy
Court, its judges, and employees related to 02cv2219 (SDNY) Rule
41 Final Judgment in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-
mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, related to the 02cv2219 lawsuit, and
04cr1224 (SDNY) litigation, and the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus
proceedings.
a. From beginning on or about March 2003 continuing to the present, without interruption,
the Atlanta, GA U.S. Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), its judges,22 and employees,23 jointly, (the
“Bankruptcy Court”), regarding the Chapter 11 case, In re Group Management Corp., 03-
93031-mhm (BC NDGA), (the “93031” or “Chapter 11”), knowingly, willfully, and
deliberately directly or indirectly, have aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated the
Respondents and the RICO CCE’s participants to conduct racketeering activities, 18 USC
1961(6)(B) activities, for the purpose of, (i) collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt
and (ii) willful resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment. See Dkt. 28 (Murphy, J.) (bogus
order that dismissed GPMT’s Chapter 11, 03-93031, with prejudice to enable the RICO
22 Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Wendy L. Hagenau.
23 Bankruptcy Clerk (NDGA) M. Regina Thomas, and clerk Patricia Sinback.
Page 32 of 151
CCE to collect the unlawful debts, GX 1-4); Dkt. 256, Dkt. 274, and Dkt. 275 (Hagenau, C.J.)
(bogus, frivolous, ultra vires, null and void ab initio purported court orders entered by
Hagenau to enable the continuation of Hobbs Act extortion robbery, and unlawful debt
collection activities to occur).
b. On May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28, Order of dismissal of 93031 with prejudice (Murphy, J.), in the
clear absence of all subject matter jurisdiction to grant the 02cv2219 plaintiffs,
Unregistered Broker-Dealers, any judicial relief; Murphy deliberately as a conspiracy to
commit a fraud on the court, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 157, as an
overt act to enable the unlawful collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt, conspired
with the RICO CCE’s participants, the USAO (SDNY), Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, and its partners, J. Henry Walker, IV, Dennis S. Meir, and John
W. Mills, III, jointly, (“KTS”), and others both known and unknown, deliberately and
intentionally granted the Unregistered Broker-Dealers’ ultra vires motion, Dkt. 15, Dkt.
16, and deliberately in bad faith to aid and abet the RICO CCE’s objectives to collect the
Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt dismissed GPMT’s Chapter 11 case with prejudice, Dkt. 28.
c. Beginning in 2003, and continuing without interruption to July 24, 2023, and beyond, to
the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court, its agents, judges, and employees, has functioned as a
direct or indirect agent and/or willing participant in the Respondents’ and the RICO CCE’s
racketeering activities;
d. From 2011 to the present without interruption the Bankruptcy Court deliberately with
malice, with criminal motivation and intention agreed and conspired and have
undertaken all actions and/or omissions necessary to suppress, conceal, cover-up, and
Page 33 of 151
hide the evidence that each to the 02cv2219 plaintiffs in 2003 were unregistered broker-
dealers, which accordingly, as a matter of law each plaintiff therefore lacked Article III
standing in 2003 to have authorized the Bankruptcy Court, Murphy, J., to have
entertained, Dkt. 15, Dkt. 16, or granted any judicial relief, Dkt. 28, the May 21, 2003,
Order of dismissal with prejudice of GPMT’s Chapter 11 case to Unregistered Broker-
Dealers.
e. From 2021 the Bankruptcy Court, Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, and the
Respondents have undertaken and formed an illegal association-in-fact with KTS, the
USAO (SDNY), the State Bar of Georgia, the District Court (SDNY), the District Court
(NDGA), and others both known and unknown, (the “Bankruptcy CCE”), having its criminal
objectives and purposes to obstruct justice, conceal, hide, suppress, remove, destroy any
judicial public records and other documents and papers from the Bankruptcy Court that
would expose the overt RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection acts and
activities taken by the Bankruptcy Court from 2003 to the present on behalf of the RICO
CCE.
f. Since beginning in or about 2003 as a fraud on the court, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
and as overt acts in furtherance of the RICO collection activities of the RICO CCE, the
Bankruptcy Court, and M. Regina Thomas with the consent, advisement, and knowledge
of Wendy L. Hagenau and others has forged, fabricated, and manufactured known false
and fraudulent incomplete 93031 dockets as Rule 5006 certified dockets.
g. Beginning on March 8, 2021, Dkt. 34, to the present, Dkt. 275, Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS,
M. Regina Thomas, the Bankruptcy Court, and others, have colluded and conspired with
Page 34 of 151
the RICO CCE, the USAO (SDNY), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Circuit
Judges Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan), the State Bar of Georgia, the Respondents,
and others known and unknown; undertook numerous racketeering activities and, (i)
refused all requests of Petitioners to conduct the required Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(h)(3)
Article III jurisdictional status conference; (ii) refused all requests to refer the 93031
Chapter 11 case to the U.S. Department of Justice with a judicial referral to open a criminal
investigation of the Unregistered Broker-Dealers, which violated 18 USC 1519 and 2071;
and (iii) refused all requests to reverse and vacate Dkt. 28, the null and void ab initio May
21, 2003, Order (dismissal with prejudice of 93031).
F. Willful contempts, frauds on the court, racketeering activity,

obstruction of justice, and frauds committed by Atlanta, GA law firm
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP., in In re Group Management
Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11.
a. Beginning on or before April 8, 2003, see Dkt. 11 (93031), entry of appearance KTS in
93031, KTS has colluded, conspired, and committed two or more racketeering activities
on behalf of the RICO CCE: (i) conspired with the Bankruptcy Court to conceal its clients,
the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, Unregistered Broker-Dealers, status as unregistered broker-
dealers, and thus, the lack of Article III standing to appear in 93031 in any capacity; and
(ii) conspired, colluded, and racketeered with the Respondents, the USAO, Zitter, the RICO
CCE, the Bankruptcy Court, the State Bar of Georgia, the District Court (SDNY), and others
known and unknown to obstruct and impede Petitioners’ right to vacate and set aside
Dkt. 28, and to conduct Rule 9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court proceedings.
Page 35 of 151
b. Beginning in 2007 and continuing to the present without interruption KTS, the Bankruptcy
Court, the District Court (SDNY), the USAO, and others known, and unknown have acted
on behalf of the RICO CCE and conspired to obstruct justice, and willfully in bad faith resist
the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects, res judicata, and refused to move the
Bankruptcy Court in 93031 to vacate and set aside Dkt. 28, the May 21, 2003, null and
void ab initio purported Order (Murphy, J.);
c. KTS has conspired with the Respondents, the RICO CCE, and the Bankruptcy Court and
willfully resisted the res judicata effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, violated its duty
of candor as an officer of the court, and concealed the unregistered broker-dealer status
of its clients;
d. and KTS willfully conspired with the Respondents, the Bankruptcy Court, the USAO, the
District Court (SDNY), the State Bar of Georgia, and the RICO CCE and concealed and
suppressed the fact its clients in February 2001 created, and from 2001 to the present,
has attempted to collect the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt in violation of 18 USC
1961(6)(B) using KTS and the Bankruptcy Court as a Hobbs Act RICO unlawful debt
collection agency; which has caused irreparable injuries, harms, and damages to
Petitioners in the sum certain amount of $225,000 per day, beginning on December 20,
2007, and accruing each day to the present, and; the Petitioners will continue to suffer
irreparable RICO, fraud on the court, criminal and civil contempt harms, injuries, and
damages until KTS moves in the Bankruptcy Court to vacate, set aside, and annul Dkt. 28,
the null and void ab initio Order (Murphy, J.), and annul, vacate, set aside, and reverse
Page 36 of 151
Dkt. 256, 274, and 275 (Hagenau, C.J.) (null and void ab initio, ultra vires, 18 USC
1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection obstruction of justice devices).
G. Willful contempts, racketeering activities, conspiracy, obstruction of

justice, and frauds committed by the State Bar of Georgia and its
employees.
a. Beginning from on or about 2007 and continuing to the present, the State Bar of Georgia,
its employees, agents, and others, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, jointly, (the “State
Bar”), knowingly, recklessly, and irresponsibly agreed, colluded, conspired, racketeered,
and aided and abetted the Respondents, the RICO CCE and its participants to engage in
Hobbs Act RICO unlawful debt collection activities; and aided and abetted the
Respondents, the USAO, Appellee, and the RICO CCE to obstruct justice by the fabrication
of a purported 2007 fake and fraudulent “affidavit of service,” and committed mail and
wires fraud offenses.
b. The State Bar since 2007 has continuously acted in concert, orchestrated, coordinated,
agreed to, and did conspire and collude with the Respondents, District Judge William H.
Pauley, III, the USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, KTS, the Bankruptcy Court, and
others and did falsify, fabricate, and conduct known bogus and fraudulent disbarment
proceedings on behalf of the Respondents, and the RICO CCE as the illegal device and
artifice to prevent, obstruct, delay, and impede Ulysses T. Ware from challenging the
RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering conspiracy in the federal and state courts
on behalf of GPMT and others.
Page 37 of 151
c. The State Bar since December 20, 2007, has resisted the preclusive res judicata effects of
the Rule 41 Final Judgment and has refused to vacate the fraudulent 2008 alleged
disbarment judgment entered by the Supreme Court of Georgia; entered as an over act
to obstruct justice, and as an overt act to aid and abet the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and
money laundering conspiracy.
d. The State Bar has continuously since 2007 deliberately, in bad faith, relentlessly
conspired and resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the August 18, 2009, U.S. v. Ware,
07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, (the “Gov-I Final Judgment”), final judgment’s res
judicata preclusive effects; coordinated and conspired with the RICO CCE and its
participants, and orchestrated, aided, abetted, and facilitated a criminal protection
conspiracy for KTS, the Bankruptcy court’s judges, and employees who offered and
provided racketeering activity services to the RICO CCE to obstruct, impede, delay,
frustrate, and undermine the timely and fair adjudication of Petitioners’ claims raised in
the 93031 Chapter 11, 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY)
proceedings; and the State Bar has knowingly, recklessly, and criminally resisted the
preclusive effects of the Gov-I August 18, 2009, Final Judgment’s legal effects on the
bogus and fraudulent 2008 In re Ware disbarment proceedings. The State Bar is in civil
and willful criminal contempt of the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgments, and the Brady
Court Orders—the State Bar colluded and conspired with Alexander H. Southwell, Jeffrey
B. Norris, the SEC, and William H. Pauley, III (deceased) to hide, conceal, suppress, and
cover up Brady evidence of the conspiracy between Pauley, the SEC, and Appellee.
Page 38 of 151
H. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering
activity, and frauds committed by the District Court (NDGA)
regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115
(SDNY) proceedings
a. Beginning on September 1, 2004, and continuing to the present, without interruption
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) allowed himself to be used, played as a fool,
hired, employed, and bribed by the Respondents and the Hobbs Act RICO CCE’s
participants in violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges and Thrash knowingly,
recklessly, irresponsibly, in bad faith aided, abetted, assisted, coordinated, orchestrated,
and facilitated the Hobbs Act extortion, armed robbery, crime of violence kidnapping, 18
USC 1201, 1202, of Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, GPMT’s securities counsel in Atlanta, GA
coordinated and executed by the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn (a Hobbs Act crime of
violence), as unlawful debt collectors on behalf of the RICO CCE’s unlawful debt, loan
sharking, and money laundering operations;
b. the September 1, 2004, Hobbs Act crime of violence, armed robbery, extortion, and
kidnapping of Appellant, Mr. Ware, by Thrash and the U.S. Marshals was arranged,
facilitated, and coordinated with Respondents, SEC’s lawyers (Jeffrey B. Norris), the
USAO, and District Judge Kent J. Dawson (D. NV) in a conspiracy to witness tamper in the
deposition of SEC lawyer Stephen Webster, Esq., who possessed personal knowledge of
the SEC and USAO’s bootleg grand jury proceedings then being illegally conducted in the
District Court (D. NV) in the SEC-DOJ’s commingled grand jury proceedings, 03-0831 (D.
NV);
Page 39 of 151
c. District Judge Thrash and the District Court (NDGA) directly participated and conspired
with the SEC, the USAO, and the RICO CCE on September 1, 2004, and continuously to the
present, have permitted the District Court (NDGA), its judges, and employees to be used
as the criminal means and method to execute 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO collection activities
in willful resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the regarding the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt, and in willful resistance to the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata
preclusive effects.24
I. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the District Court
(SDNY) regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115
(SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY).
a. Since beginning in or about 2004, and continuing to the present, 2023, without
interruption, the District Court (SDNY), its judges, employees, and agents, jointly, (the
“District Court SDNY”), have knowingly and in bad faith, functioned as an illegal
association-in-fact, a continuing criminal enterprise, criminally acted and functioned not
as an Article III U.S. District Court, but, rather has operated and functioned as an agent,
facilitator, unindicted coconspirator, and a willful material participant in the Hobbs Act
extortion, kidnapping, armed robbery, crimes of violence, loan sharking, money
laundering, and obstruction of justice operations of the Respondents, and the RICO CCE;
24 See Ware v. United States, 12cv4309-TWT (NDGA), (Thrash, J.) (Thrash conspired with the RICO
CCE and the USAO and rigged, fixed, obstructed, and impeded Ulysses T. Ware’s 2012 habeas
corpus proceeding while having an actual conflict of interest in the proceedings).
Page 40 of 151
and has materially enabled and eagerly authorized numerous acts of racketeering activity
that had furthered the RICO unlawful debt collection operations of the RICO CCE.
b. The District Court SDNY since December 20, 2007, has aided, abetted, and enabled the
Respondents, the RICO CCE, and the Unindicted Coconspirators to willfully and in bad
faith resist all court orders and judgments entered in 02cv2219, 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and
Gov-I Final Judgement;
c. and has enabled and facilitated the Respondents, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain,
and Colleen McMahon to commit two or more racketeering activity offenses knowingly
and recklessly—that is, obstruction of justice, mail, and wire frauds, 18 USC 2, 241, 242,
371, 401(2), 401(3), 1519, 1961(6)(B), and 2071;
d. knowingly, deliberately, recklessly, in bad faith resist, violate, and disobey commands,
and implicit preclusive effects of the Brady Court Orders, the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final
Judgments; and
e. has willfully and in bad faith aided and abetted the obstruction of the 22cv3409 (SDNY)
2241 actual innocent habeas corpus proceedings to provide protection for the
Respondents, the participants, the illegal profits, and proceeds derived from the Hobbs
Act 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt, GX 1-4, racketeering activities committed by the
RICO CCE and the Respondents.
J. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Office of the United
States Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”) in regard to 02cv2219 (SDNY),
04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Page 41 of 151
a. Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Won Shin, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Melissa Childs,
Jun Xiang, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Geffrey Berman, Preet Bharara, Alexander
H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, David N. Kelley, Joon Kim, Sarah E. Paul,
Katherine Polk-Failla, Steven D. Feldman, Michael J. Garcia, and others known and
unknown, jointly, (the “USAO”), from beginning in 2003 to the present, 2023, without
interruption, aligned, and acted in concert with the SEC, the participants in the RICO CCE,
the Respondents, and others known and unknown, and knowingly colluded, acted in
concert, confederated, coordinated, conspired, and formed an illegal association-in-fact,
a criminal enterprise, (the “USAO CCE”), having the criminal objectives and purposes to
aid, abet, facilitate, enable, and function as the protection and collection operations for
the Hobbs Act RICO CCE’s loan sharking, extortion, armed robbery, kidnapping, money
laundering, and unlawful debt collection operations with respect to criminal usury
unlawful debts.
b. The USAO CCE has from December 20, 2007, to the present, July 24, 2023, with malice
has willfully and in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final
Judgment.
c. The USAO CCE has from August 18, 2009, to the present, July 24, 2023, with malice has
willfully in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the Gov-I Final
Judgment.
d. The USAO CCE has from May 19, 2006, to the present, July 24, 2023, with malice has
resisted and disobeyed the commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, entered in
05cr1115.
Page 42 of 151
e. The USAO CCE has from August 10, 2007, to the present, July 24, 2023, with malice has
resisted and disobeyed the written commands of the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 32, entered
in 04cr1224.
f. Beginning in or about 2002-03 in the DOJ-SEC commingled Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) fake
and bogus lawsuit the Respondents, and the USAO CCE knowingly agreed, colluded,
confederated, and conspired with the SEC, Kent J. Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C.
Barasch, Joan E. McKown, and others known and unknown, and devised an illegal plan
and scheme, the Bootleg Grand Jury, which violated Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent.
g. The Respondents knowingly colluded and conspired with the SEC, Kent J. Dawson, and
the FBI and formed an illegal grand jury proceedings, (the “Bootleg Grand Jury”); and
h. the Bootleg Grand Jury had the illegal objective and purpose to circumvent the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and collect unlawful evidence for use in the USAO CCE’s
imminent 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings.
K. Willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court, racketeering

activity, and frauds committed by Colleen McMahon in regard to
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and 04cr1224 (SDNY).
a. Beginning in or around May 2019, then Chief District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon
knowingly and intentionally joined the RICO CCE’s unlawful debt collections operations,
and in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, undertook, obstructed, impeded, delayed, and
frustrated Appellant’s right to reinstate the counterclaim filed in 02cv2219 lawsuit, and
Page 43 of 151
Colleen McMahon, in the clear absence of all jurisdiction deliberately conspired and did
commit a fraud on the court, obstructed justice, and resisted the preclusive effects of the
Rule 41 Final Judgment, and frivolously entered Dkt. 120 while failing to disclose that she
and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, then personally owned, according to the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts judicial public records, more than +$20 million in
RICO unlawful, criminal usury convertible promissory notes (CPNs) illegal debt
instruments.
b. Since 2003 and continuing to the present, July 2023, Colleen McMahon and her spouse,
Frank V. Sica, have made +55 investments in criminal usury convertible promissory note
investments, (the “Criminal Usury CPN Investments”).
c. In 2019 when then chief judge McMahon entered the nonsensical purported Order, Dkt.
120, Judge McMahon then knew that she and her spouse had made more than +55 Usury
CPN Investments, then having a reported value between $10.1 and $55 million; an actual
financial conflict of interest which Judge McMahon suppressed and concealed as an overt
act to obstruct justice and conceal and suppress her and her spouse’s financial crimes
which violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, and
violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
d. Since 2019 Judge McMahon has violated the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, violated
federal law, 28 USC 455(a), and 45(b)(1-5), and intentionally refused to recuse herself
from judicial involvement in the moot, and annulled 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit.
e. Since 2019, and continuing to the present, July 2023, Judge McMahon has criminally
resisted the Rule 41 res judicata preclusive effects; and Judge McMahon has acted
Page 44 of 151
recklessly, with a criminal depraved mind and motive, and obstructed justice, delayed,
impeded, and denied the Prevailing Parties in 02cv2219 (SDNY)—that is, Appellant
Ulysses T. Ware, GPMT, Silver Screen Studios, and Elorian and Becky Lander, their legal
right to enforce the Rule 41 Final Judgment and reinstate the 02cv2219 counterclaim.
L. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Probation
Office (SDNY), (the “USPO”).
Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Tyler.
a. Beginning in 2005 the USPO took possession of the passport of Ulysses T. Ware pursuant
to bail condition set in 04cr1224 (SDNY). To the present, July 2023, the USPO has
conspired and colluded with the Respondents, the USAO, the Appellee, and the District
Court (SDNY) and refused all requests made by Appellant Ulysses T. Ware to return his
passport.
b. In 2007 the USPO and Colleen Tyler knowingly conspired with District Judge William H.
Pauley, III and knowingly in bad faith, in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, prepared and
submitted a false and fraudulent pre-sentence report, (the “PSI”), in 05cr1115.
c. In 2008-09 the USPO and Thomas J. McCarthy knowingly conspired with District Judge
Robert W. Sweet, after the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit had been dismissed with prejudice
on December 20, 2007, orchestrated and fabricated a fraudulent PSI, and submitted the
fraudulent PSI into the court records in 04cr1224.
Page 45 of 151
d. In 2008-09 the USPO and McCarthy conspired with Sweet and the USAO and fabricated
the 04cr1224 PSI as the illegal means and method to aid and abet the Respondents’ and
the RICO CCE to obtain bogus restitution—Hobbs Act RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) extortion,
unlawful debt collection, for its February 2001 Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt—that is, a
RICO unlawful debt collection device and procedure which violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B),
and resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
e. From May 23, 2019, to May 23, 2022, the USPO, David Mulcahy, and the USAO conspired
with Judge William H. Pauley, III, and conspired to impose bogus, fraudulent, and
nonexistent alleged “special conditions of supervised release” while knowing the moot
05cr1115 judgment did not contain any written special conditions of supervised release;
and conspired with Pauley and the Respondents to resist the Brady Court Orders, the Rule
41 Final Judgment, and the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
M. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Laura Taylor-Swain.
a. Beginning in 2021 and continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Laura Taylor-Swain knowingly, willfully, in bad faith, conspired, colluded, obstructed
justice, stole, destroyed, suppressed, concealed, and removed judicial public records
submitted by Appellant to the District Court (SDNY)’s Committee on Lawyer Misconduct
which violated 18 USC 1519 and 18 USC 2071; and Taylor-Swain knowingly and in bad
faith conspired with the Respondents, Appellee, the USAO, Andre Damian Williams, Jr.,
Page 46 of 151
Merrick B. Garland, and others to cover up, conceal, suppress, and remove from the
District Court Ulysses T. Ware’s lawyer misconduct petitions submitted to the District
Court (NDGA) for adjudication—violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and
federal law, 18 USC 2, 371, 1519, 2071; 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3).
b. Beginning in 2021 and continuing to the present, July 2023, Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Laura Taylor-Swain has knowingly, willfully, in bad faith colluded, conspired, resisted the
Brady Court Orders, the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and the Gov-I Final Judgment; and
refused to conduct Local Rule 1.5(b)(5) lawyer misconduct proceedings regarding
Respondents, the USAO, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Merrick B. Garland, Daniel Gitner,
and Margaret M. Garnett concerning the USAO’s non-compliance with the Brady Court
Orders entered in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115; and the USAO and DOJ’s resistance to the Rule
41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects.
c. In June 2022 during the Ware v. United States, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and
Laura Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241(a) habeas corpus proceedings, see Dkt. 60-
63, respondent, material witness, and unindicted coconspirator Laura Taylor, in an
unprecedented degree of criminal judicial misconduct, willful criminal depravity, fraud on
the court, obstruction of justice, while not officially assigned to 22cv3409 purported to
enter a nonsensical order, Dkt. 60, 06/16/22 Order (Taylor-Swain, C.J.), to aid and abet
the RICO CCE’s participants evade justice, evade being held in civil and criminal contempt,
and from being held accountable for their frauds on the court and numerous crimes
committed against Petitioners.
Page 47 of 151
N. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Chief Circuit Judge
(2d Cir.) Debra Ann Livingston regarding Edgardo Ramos’ crimes,
civil and criminal contempts, and frauds on the court.
a. From beginning on or about May 27, 2022, Chief Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Debra Ann
Livingston, has acted with willful depravity, unprecedented criminal judicial misconduct,
aided, abetted, and conspired with the USAO and Edgardo Ramos, and has acted and
omitted to act, and has deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith obstructed the timely and
complete investigation and adjudication of the In re Edgardo Ramos complaint for judicial
misconduct, 02-22-90049-jm (2d Cir.), (the “Judicial Complaint”—that is, Livingston
knowingly, deliberately, in bad faith violated the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges and
rigged and fixed the Judicial Complaint process and coordinated the willful violation and
resistance of the Brady Court Orders, the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgment by the
Respondents, Edgardo Ramos, and aided and abetted the Hobbs Act CCE to continue to
conceal and suppress its Hobbs Act RICO unlawful debt collection crimes committed in
02cv2219, 04cr1224, 05cr1115, 03-0831 (D. NV), and 03-93031 (BC NDGA).
b. Judge Livingston has acted and functioned recklessly, willfully, and deliberately in
opposition to, and obstructed the Rules that govern the judicial complaint process; Judge
Livingston has acted with a unprecedented criminal depravity, moral turpitude, and
willfully conspired with Ramos, the USAO, the RICO CCE participants, and others to
obstruct and impede the required investigation of the crimes committed by Edgardo
Ramos and the USAO during the 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409 (SDNY) proceedings.
Page 48 of 151
c. Judge Livingston has conspired, acted, and functioned recklessly, and functioned with a
criminal depraved mind, undertook obstruction of justice judicial misconduct, and
irresponsibly has aided, and abetted Ramos and the USAO to continue to cause
irreparable harms, injuries, and damages to Ulysses T. Ware’s legal rights in 04cr1224,
05cr1115, and 22cv3409 (SDNY); and Judge Livingston has conspired and effectively
denied and suspended, indefinitely, Ulysses T. Ware’s right to the writ of habeas corpus in
violation of the Constitution.
O. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by District Clerk (SDNY)
Ruby Krajick.
a. From beginning in or about 2005, and continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, Ruby
Krajick, the District Court (SDNY), and its employees, acted in concert, colluded, and
conspired with the USAO and District Judge William H. Pauley, III, and others, known and
unknown, with a criminal depraved mind and motivation, knowingly, willfully, and in bad
faith aided, recklessly abetted, and enabled the USAO and Pauley to resist (i) the 05cr1115
Brady Court Order’s commands, (ii) resist the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and resist the Gov-
I Final Judgment.
b. Krajick and the District Court (SDNY), conspired and acted in concert with The
Respondents, Pauley, and Edgardo Ramos, and have removed, concealed, suppressed,
hid, and fabricated judicial dockets, and removed, and concealed the purported
Page 49 of 151
September 2006 purported Rule 11 plea documents associated with a person purportedly
known as “Jeremy Jones” in violation of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, and 2071.
c. Krajick, the Respondents, and the District Court since 2021 have conspired and colluded
with Edgardo Ramos, and others, and continued to conceal, hide, suppress, and remove
all traces and records of Jeremy Jones’ alleged September 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract,
USSG 5k perjury letter, transcripts, and other benefits, gifts, favors, gratuities, and other
things of value paid to Jones by the USAO for Jones knowingly to lie and commit perjury
during the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial.
d. Krajick, the Respondents, and the District Court (SDNY) since 2006 have concealed,
suppressed, and hid all records of the kickbacks, bribes, gifts, favors, and illegal gratuities
paid to Marlon G. Kirton by the USAO and/or William H. Pauley, III for Kirton’s
participation RICO CCE’s operations to fabricate a conviction and sentence in 05cr1115
(SDNY).
e. Krajick, the Respondents, and the AOC, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court, have
continuously since 2005, conspired, colluded, acted in bad faith, and recklessly, with a
criminal depraved minds and motivation obstructed the fair, impartial, unbiased, and
correct adjustment of Federal Tort Claim Act petitions submitted to the AOC for
adjustment by Ulysses T. Ware regarding the negligent torts committed by Krajick, the
Respondents, and the District Court (SDNY).
Page 50 of 151
P. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. v. Ware, 09-
0851cr (2d Cir.) panel: Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and
Barbara S. Jones (retired).25
a. From beginning in 2010, and continuing to July 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit’s U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), (Katzmann, Hall, and Jones), (the
“Panel”), in bad faith, recklessly, and with criminal depraved minds and motivation,
recklessly colluded, conspired, and racketeered with the Respondents, the USAO, the SEC,
the RICO CCE, and others and rigged and fixed the 09-0851 appeal in such a way and
affirmed the moot 04cr1224 proceedings’ purported judgment of conviction and
sentence (Sweet, J.).
b. The Panel knew and/or recklessly in bad faith disregarded the facts and the law, the
underlying sub judice 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s orders, judgments, and proceedings had
been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2); yet, nevertheless, from 2010 to the present, 2023, the Panel knowingly,
wantonly, recklessly, and irresponsibly undertook criminal obstruction of justice actions,
committed frauds on the court, frauds, conspiracy, aided, abetted, and facilitated on
behalf of the Respondents, the USAO and the RICO CCE’s unlawful profits, proceeds, and
participants and resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
25 Then District Judge (SDNY) Barbara S. Jones sat by designation on the 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) panel.
Page 51 of 151
Which has and will continue to cause irreparable RICO, civil contempt, and other harms,
injuries, and damages to Ulysses T. Ware’s personal and business interests.
Q. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the USAO’s 09-0851
appeals team (Preet Bharara, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul,
and Maria E. Douvas, the “Appeal Team”).
a. From beginning in 2007 to the present, July 24, 2023, the Appeal Team knowingly,
willfully, in bad faith, recklessly, acted, and functioned with a wanton and depraved
criminal mind and motivation, and fabricated, drafted, signed, and in 2010, filed with the
Court of Appeals in 09-0851 the fraudulent appeal brief, (the “Fraudulent Brief”), as the
criminal means and methods to resist and violate the Brady Court Order (04cr1224) and
the Rule 41 Final Judgment; and the means and methods to cover up, conceal, suppress,
and hide material actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in violation of the District
Court, this Court’s, and the DOJ’s Rules of Ethics, Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of complete
candor to the tribunals.
b. The Appeal Team and the Panel knowingly colluded, conspired, and did obstruct justice,
on behalf of the Respondents, and the RICO CCE’s participants, and after the 02cv2219
lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, by
government 04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., the Appeal Team and the Panel
(Katzmann, Hall, and Jones), arranged, orchestrated, and with wanton depravity and
racial animosity rigged and fixed the 09-0851cr moot appeal in favor of the Respondents,
the USAO, and the RICO CCE’s participants and affirmed the moot appeal in favor of the
Page 52 of 151
Respondents and the RICO CCE’s participants to conceal and suppress the Hobbs Act RICO
unlawful debt collection crimes committed in 02cv2219, 03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC
NDGA), 04cr1224, and 05cr1115.
c. The depraved and reckless crimes, frauds on the court, civil and criminal contempt
committed by the Panel and the Appeal Team committed in 04cr1224 and 09-0851cr (2d
Cir.) have caused, and will continue to cause Appellant Ulysses T. Ware irreparable RICO
and compensatory civil contempt damages, injuries, and harms to his personal and
business interests unless the USAO and the Panel are enjoined, and held in civil and
criminal contempt.
R. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Edgardo Ramos.
a. From beginning in 2021 and to the present July 24, 2023, Edgardo Ramos has acted and
functioned as a covert agent of the USAO, the RICO CCE, and the Unindicted
Coconspirators; and Ramos has knowingly and in bad faith in violation of the Codes of
Conduct for Federal Judges colluded, conspired, obstructed justice, and aided, abetted,
and conducted the 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 22cv3409 proceedings to obstruct justice,
conducted the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings in the “clear absence of all
jurisdiction,”
b. and Ramos knowingly in bad faith, and recklessly in disregard for the law and the facts
facilitated the USAO to obstruct justice by the willful and bad faith commission of two or
more acts of racketeering activity, which enabled the USAO to willfully and in bad faith
Page 53 of 151
resist the res judicata preclusive effects of the (i) Rule 41 Final Judgment, (ii) the Gov-I
Final Judgment, and (iii) the Brady Court Orders.
c. In 2021 Ramos in collusion and while conspiring with the Respondents, and the USAO,
while he lacked all subject matter jurisdiction over the moot 04cr1224 and 05cr1115
Criminal Proceedings, Ramos knowingly, recklessly, and in bad faith aided, abetted, and
enabled the USAO to steal and embezzle $50,000.00 in bail posted by Ulysses T. Ware and
his family—Hobbs Act RICO 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, and 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt
collection activity to repay bogus restitution (extortion) to the 02cv2219 plaintiffs.
d. In 2021-22 Ramos knowingly and in bad faith colluded and conspired with the
Respondents, the USPO, and its employees, and Ramos in violation of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges willfully resisted the Brady Court Order, the preclusive effects
of the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgment, and conspired with and
enabled the Respondents, and the USPO to criminally impose illegal and unconstitutional
alleged “special conditions of supervised release” on Ulysses T. Ware when Ramos and
the Respondents, and the USPO knew and were actually aware the moot purported
judgments in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 did not contain any special conditions of supervised
release.
e. Since 2022 Ramos has colluded, conspired, obstructed justice, and acted in concert with
Respondents, the USAO, the SEC, the RICO CCE, and the Unindicted Coconspirator, and
conspired to obstruct the timely adjudication of the 28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent
habeas corpus proceedings, 22cv3409 (SDNY), by willfully and in bad faith refusing to
enter the required 28 USC 2243 show cause order to the USAO, his unindicted
Page 54 of 151
coconspirator as the criminal illegal means and methods, and in violation of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges has resisted the Brady Court Orders’ disclosure and
production requirements; and the preclusive effects of the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final
Judgments in violation of 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3).
S. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by District Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, 03-0831 (D.
NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409
(SDNY).
a. Beginning on or before September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.,
knowingly and willfully coordinated, colluded, and conspired with Respondents, the
USAO, the SEC, the FBI, and the RICO CCE’s participants, and agreed to act in concert with
the U.S. Marshals and executed and coordinated a vicious and potentially deadly crime of
violence, a Hobbs Act armed robbery, extortion, and loan sharking unlawful debt
collection activity and kidnapped and held as a hostage Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.,
at gun point, on behalf of the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering RICO
unlawful debt collections operations, which violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
b. Thrash conspired, colluded, and agreed to aid, abet, and facilitate Respondents’, the SEC,
the USAO, and the RICO CCE to undertake RICO loan sharking debt collection
procedures—that is, the Hobbs Act armed robbery, extortion, and crimes of violence
committed on September 1, 2004, the kidnapping of Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.,
Page 55 of 151
GPMT’s securities counsel, in exchange for gifts, favors, kickbacks, illegal gratuities, and
other things of value, i.e., Thrash’s promotion to chief judge of the District Court (NDGA).
c. From September 1, 2004, and to the present, July 24, 2023, Thrash has continued to
collude and conspire with the SEC, the USAO, and the RICO CCE’s participants; and Thrash
has acted in concert with the RICO CCE’s participants and rigged and fixed multiple judicial
proceedings in such a manner to protect the ill-gotten profits, proceeds, and participants
in the RICO CCE’s loan sharking and money laundering operations.
d. Thrash in 2012 knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith agreed, colluded, and conspired with
the Respondents, the USAO, the SEC, the RICO CCE’s participants and rigged and fixed the
habeas corpus proceeding, Ware v. USA, et al., 12cv4397 (NDGA) (Thrash, J.), by
knowingly and willingly obstructed the adjudication of Ulysses T. Ware’s actual innocent
claims; and willfully and in bad faith resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of (i) the
Rule 41 Final Judgment, and (ii) the Gov-I Final Judgment.
T. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by U.S. Bureau of
Prisons.
a. Beginning on or about December 20, 2007, continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, the
U.S. Bureau of Prison, (the “BOP”), colluded, conspired, acted in concert, and racketeered
with Respondents, the USAO, the SEC, and the RICO CCE’s participant and willfully in bad
faith resisted and impeded the execution of the res judicata preclusive effects of (i) the
Rule 41 Final Judgment and (ii) the Gov-I Final Judgment.
Page 56 of 151
b. From January 2007 to the present, July 24, 2023, the BOP has colluded, conspired, and
acted in concert with the State Bar of Georgia and its employees, the USAO, and the RICO
CCE’s participants, and has continued to agree and support the State Bar’s false and
fabricated purported “affidavit of service” that falsely asserted that Appellant Ulysses T.
Ware was in the custody of the BOP on January 15, 2007, in the MDC Brooklyn, NY federal
prison; while the BOP knows that Ulysses T. Ware was not in the custody of the BOP on
January 15, 2007.
U. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts.
a. Beginning in 2009 and continuing to the present July 24, 2023 the Administrative Office
of the U. S. Courts, (the “AOC”), entered into a nefarious criminal conspiracy with
Respondents, the USAO, the Bankruptcy Court employees, the District Court (NDGA)
employees, the District Court (SDNY) employees, the USPO (SDNY) employees, and
others, (the “Court Employees”); and the AOC’s officials have knowingly lied, committed
fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and other racketeering activities, resisted the res
judicata preclusive effects of (i) the Rule 41 Final Judgment and (ii) the Gov-I Final
Judgment, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”).
b. The AOC’s crimes have enabled Ruby Krajick, M. Regina Thomas, Lance C. Wilson, James
N. Hatten, Patricia Sinback, Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf, Richard Dessources, and other
clerks to fabricate dockets, falsify judicial court records, conspire to obstruct justice by
Page 57 of 151
the removal, suppression, concealment, and destruction of judicial court records filed by
Ulysses T. Ware in judicial proceedings in violation of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2),
401(3), 1519, and 2071.
c. The AOC and its officials have since 2009 deliberately violated federal law and resisted
the Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects to such an extent, and in such a
manner to obstruct justice and not in good faith properly adjust Federal Tort Claim Act
petitions presented to the AOC by Ulysses T. Ware.
V. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Department
of Justice.
a. Beginning from on or about July 2003, and continuing without interruption to the present,
July 24, 2023, Respondents, the U.S. Department of Justice, its privies, agents, officials,
proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos, unindicted coconspirators, and others in active
concert therewith, jointly, (the “DOJ”), formed an illegal association-in-fact, (the “DOJ
CCE”), with the objective and purpose to fraudulently kidnap, arrest, indict, prosecute,
convict, sentence, and false imprison Appellant Ulysses T. Ware in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), as a depraved racially-motivated retaliatory hate
crime, (the “Hate Crimes Persecution”).
b. The Respondents, DOJ CCE’s participants, knowingly and with criminal depravity and
perfidy arranged, orchestrated, enabled, and facilitated the Hate Crimes Persecution by
and through the commission of two or more acts of RICO activities, to wit, by the payment
Page 58 of 151
of favors, gifts, bribes, kickbacks, illegal gratuities, and other things of value to willing
participants who undertook two or more racketeering activities to knowingly and in bad
faith effectuated the DOJ CCE to obtain its objective.
c. The DOJ CCE has from beginning in 2003 continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, used
the U.S. Federal Courts, its judges, employees, agencies, officials, and state courts, and
agencies, as willing participants in the DOJ CCE, the “DOJ CCE’s Unindicted
Coconspirators” or the “DOJ Stooges”; and used the DOJ Stooges as the means and
methods to commit two or more racketeering activities to obtain the objectives of the
DOJ CCE.
d. The DOJ CCE has knowingly, in bad faith, and with depravity, and wanton recklessness
since December 20, 2007, has resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and since August 18,
2009, resisted the Gov-I Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects in violation of 18
USC 401(3), and other statutes; and has actively and adamantly resisted the Brady Court
Orders’ search, disclosure, and production requirements.
e. Unless immediately held in contempt, enjoined, and restrained the Respondents, the DOJ
CCE, and its willing participants will continue to resist and disobey the Brady Court Orders,
the Rule 41, and Gov-I Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects; and Appellant
Ulysses T. Ware will continue to suffer irreparable RICO, civil contempt, criminal
contempt, and fraud on the court harms, injuries, and damages.
Page 59 of 151
W. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”).
Jeffrey B. Norris, Joan E. McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Stephen Webster, et al.
a. Beginning in or about 2002-03, and continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, the SEC
knowingly colluded, acted in concert, and conspired with Respondents, the USAO, the FBI,
Kent J. Dawson, William H. Pauley, III, and others both known and unknown, and
orchestrated an unprecedented criminal fraud—that is, aided, abetted, and facilitated the
USAO and the FBI, special agent David Makol, et al., and enabled, orchestrated, and
fabricated the Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings in 03-0831 (D. NV).
b. The SEC acting by and through Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, Joan E. McKown,
Stephen Webster, and others, jointly, (the “SEC”), in 2003 during the 03-0831 (D. NV)
Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings arranged with District Judge Kent J. Dawson, a criminal,
the USAO and the FBI and coordinated the Bootleg Grand Jury, circumvented the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, (the “Federal Rules”), and agreed, gathered, and unlawfully
collected evidence using the civil rules of procedure for use in the USAO’s criminal
proceedings, 04cr1224 and 05cr1115; and agreed and deliberately violated Ulysses T.
Ware’s constitutional right to remain silent.
c. In 2007 during the USAO’s 04cr1224 prosecution the Respondents, the SEC, the USAO’s
prosecutors, and Robert W. Sweet, coordinated, arranged, planned, and facilitated the
known perjured and false testimony of SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, approved by SEC chief
Page 60 of 151
counsel Joan E. McKown and Michael J. Garcia, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, and
Robert W. Sweet.
d. Sweet, the SEC, Norris, McKown, and the USAO knowingly, willfully, in bad faith,
conspired to conceal and suppress Norris’ professional bad acts, i.e., Brady impeachment
evidence, in willful and bad faith resistance and disobedience to the August 10, 2007,
Dkt. 32, Brady Court Order, (04cr1224), professional bad acts for which Norris had been
sanctioned by the SEC in 2007.
e. From November 20, 2007, to the present, July 24, 2023, the SEC has conspired, colluded,
acted in concert, and racketeered with Respondents, and the USAO, and has willfully and
in bad faith failed and refused to undertake its duty of candor to the federal courts—that
is, the SEC has knowingly committed a fraud on the court, and failed to come forth and
admitted that Norris and the USAO knowingly committed perjury and presented false and
misleading testimony during the 04cr1224 trial regarding the Bootleg Grand Jury
proceedings.
f. From December 20, 2007, to the present, July 24, 2023, the SEC has willfully and in bad
faith resisted the Rule 41 Judgment’s preclusive effects, and refused to notify and inform
the federal courts regarding the frauds on the court committed by the USAO during the
Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings, committed during 04cr1224, and committed by the
USAO, the UPSO, and Sweet after trial in 2007.
Page 61 of 151
X. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by William H. Pauley, III.
a. Beginning in or about 2001 District Judge William H. Pauley, III, (deceased) and continuing
to his death in 2021, without interruption, Judge Pauley, colluded, conspired, acted in
concert, and knowingly and willfully directly and indirectly participated in, and aided,
abetted, and facilitated the Hobbs Act loan sharking and money laundering racketeering
activities of the RICO CCE by obstructing justice, hiding, concealing, and suppressing
dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence, lied and committed perjury in open court on
numerous occasions, and resisted and violated the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10;
b. Pauley knowingly conspired with the USAO, the RICO CCE’s participants, the SEC, the
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), the District Court (NDGA) and resisted the res judicata
preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment and the Gov-I Final Judgment;
c. Pauley beginning in 2006 knowingly conspired with the FBI, the USAO, the SEC, the
Bankruptcy Court, the State Bar, the RICO CCE, and others and orchestrated and
coordinated the State Bar’s fraudulent 2008 purported disbarment of Ulysses T. Ware as
an overt act to enable the collection of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt;
d. Pauley in 2005 conspired with the RICO CCE’s participants and in open court shouted in
an angry and delusional tone, “ … Mr. Ware you have violated orders of the 02cv2219
(SDNY) district court and have not provided bogus and fraudulent legal opinions to the
Unregistered Broker-Dealers, therefore I am [retaliating against you—actual bias and
Page 62 of 151
prejudice and] requiring that you appear at all proceedings in person regarding this
matter ….” (paraphrased) (emphasis in original).
e. Pauley from 2001 to his death in 2021, without interruption, acted and functioned as a
covert agent, an unindicted coconspirator, and willing participant in the Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt’s creation, collection, money laundering, and protection racketeering
operations; and Pauley aided and abetted the USAO, the District Court (SDNY), and the
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) to knowingly and deliberately, in bad faith resist the preclusive
res judicata effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, and the Gov-I Final Judgment.
f. From 2005 to this death in 2021, without interruption, Pauley knowingly and in bad faith
functioned as a covert agent of the USAO and SEC , and colluded, and conspired with the
RICO CCE’s participants, the USAO, the SEC, the FBI, Marlon G. Kirton, the USPO, the
District Court (NDGA), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the State Bar, the
District Court (D. NV), the District Court (SDNY), Ruby Krajick, Edward T.M. Garland, Gary
G. Becker, Michael H. Dolinger, Alexander H. Southwell, Michael J. Garcia, Michael F.
Bachner, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS, and other Unindicted
Coconspirators; and Pauley willfully resisted the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata
effects, coordinated the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings in such an obstructive manner to
obstruct justice, and protect the loan sharking and money laundering racketeering
activities of the RICO CCE by the willful commission of two or more racketeering activities,
to wit, mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, honest services conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
racketeering to obstruct justice, money laundering, RICO unlawful debt creation and
collection, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
Page 63 of 151
Y. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,
racketeering activity, and frauds committed by Robert W. Sweet.
a. From beginning in 2004 and continuing to his death in 2019, Robert W. Sweet, without
interruption, acted and functioned as a covert agent of the Respondents, the USAO, the
RICO CCE, and the Unindicted Coconspirators; and agreed, acted in concert, aided,
abetted, facilitated, and enabled the continued creation and collection of RICO unlawful
debts by the RICO CCE and its participants; and
b. from 2007 until his death in 2019 Sweet colluded and conspired with the USAO, the SEC,
and the RICO CCE’s participants, and committed two or more racketeering activities and
obstructed justice, and Sweet knowingly resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the
Rule 41 Final Judgment to the extent to obstruct justice and refused to reverse, vacate,
and annul the conviction, sentence, and fines fraudulently imposed by Sweet in the U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) proceedings while Sweet and the USAO lacked an 18 USC 3231
“offense” in the 04cr1224 charging document.
c. Sweet aided, abetted, and assisted the USPO and Thomas J. McCarthy to fabricate and
falsify the presentencing report (“PSI”) filed in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
d. Sweet, the USPO and McCarthy agreed, arranged, and orchestrated, and Sweet
coordinated the preparation, drafting, and filing into the Court the false PSI as the criminal
means and methods on behalf of the RICO CCE to enable the RICO CCE to obtain
purported restitution of $1.1 million, the amount of the Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt.
Page 64 of 151
e. Sweet, the USPO, McCarthy, and the USAO in 2009 willfully and in bad faith resisted the
Rule 41 res judicata preclusive effects and entered a null and void ab initio consecutive
sentence in 04cr1224 on behalf of the RICO CCE.
f. Sweet, the USPO, the USAO, and McCarthy’s crimes, frauds, frauds on the court, civil and
criminal contempts, and racketeering activities caused and will continue to cause
irreparable injuries, harms, and damages to Ulysses T. Ware.
Z. Crimes, willful contempts, conspiracy, frauds on the court,

racketeering activity, and frauds committed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and
Jordan) apropos 02cv2219 vis-à-vis 03-93031 (BC NDGA).
2. Beginning in 2012 and continuing to the present, July 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit’s judges, Tjoflat, Wilson, Marcus, and Jordan, (the “Circuit Judges”),
criminally aligned themselves with Respondents, and the RICO CCE, and criminally
agreed, colluded, conspired, obstructed justice, aided, abetted, and facilitated the RICO
CCE to continue to collect the Hobbs Act Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt, GX 1-4 (04cr1224),
and coordinated and entered non-sensical orders in two petitions for writ of mandamus
filed by Appellant Ulysses T. Ware regarding the 93031 Bankruptcy Court’s frauds on the
court committed by KTS, and the Bankruptcy Court.
3. The Circuit Judges in 2012-13 knowingly, deliberately, and in bad faith resisted the res
judicata preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment on the 93031 Bankruptcy Court’s
proceedings and colluded and conspired with the RICO CCE participants, and rigged and
Page 65 of 151
fixed the mandamus proceedings and aided and abetted the RICO unlawful debt
collection operations of the RICO CCE.
4. The Circuit Judges conspired and were knowingly complicit in the Bankruptcy Court’s
malicious resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects by
their completely frivolous and fraudulent mandamus rulings.
Signed this 23rd day of July 2023, in Brooklyn, NY under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury,
pursuant to 28 USC 1746, having personal knowledge of the facts.
Ulysses T. Ware
_______________________________
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Brooklyn, NY
End of Declaration
Page 66 of 151
Exhibits
Page 67 of 151
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 09/24/23 and sum
certain compensatory actual damages claim calculation.
There are 5,686 days between 12/20/2007 and 07/24/2023 multiplied by $225,000 per day in
irreparable damages = $1.281.6 billion in total compensatory civil contempt, RICO 3x treble
damages, Hobbs Act kidnapping, armed robbery, unlawful and false imprisonment, and fraud on
the court compensation.
Page 68 of 151
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 69 of 151
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(XAP)(2d Cir.).
Page 70 of 151
4 Memorandum of law.
I.
1 Local Rule (SDNY) 86.3 Contempt
Contempt Proceedings in Civil Cases [formerly Local Civil Rule 83.9]
(a) A proceeding to adjudicate a person in civil contempt, including a case provided for in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(1) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), shall be commenced by the service of a notice of motion or
order to show cause. The affidavit upon which such notice of motion or order to show cause is
based shall set out with particularity the misconduct complained of, the claim, if any, for
damages occasioned thereby and such evidence as to the amount of damages as may be
available to the moving party. A reasonable counsel fee, necessitated by the contempt
proceedings, may be included as an item of damage. Where the alleged contemnor has appeared
in the action by an attorney, the notice of motion or order to show cause and the papers upon
which it is based may be served upon said attorney; otherwise, service shall be made personally,
together with a copy of this Local Civil Rule 83.6, in the manner provided for by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for the service of a summons.
If an order to show cause is sought, such order may, upon necessity shown, embody a direction
to the United States marshal to arrest the alleged contemnor and hold such person unless bail
is posted in an amount fixed by the order, conditioned on the appearance of such person in all
further proceedings on the motion, and further conditioned that the alleged contemnor will
hold himself or herself amenable to all orders of the Court for surrender.
(b) If the alleged contemnor puts in issue his or her alleged misconduct or the damages thereby
occasioned, said person shall upon demand be entitled to have oral evidence taken, either before
the Court or before a master appointed by the Court. When by law such alleged contemnor is
entitled to a trial by jury, said person shall make written demand before the beginning of the
hearing on the application; otherwise, the alleged contemnor will be deemed to have waived a
trial by jury.
I If the alleged contemnor is found to be in contempt of court, an order shall be entered (1)
reciting or referring to the verdict or findings of fact upon which the adjudication is based; (2)
setting forth the amount of damages, if any, to which the complainant is entitled; (3) fixing the
fine, if any, imposed by the Court, which fine shall include the damages found and naming the
Page 71 of 151
person to whom such fine shall be payable; (4) stating any other conditions, the performance of
which will operate to purge the contempt; and (5) directing, where appropriate, the arrest of
the contemnor by the United States marshal and confinement until the performance of the
condition fixed in the order and the payment of the fine, or until the contemnor be otherwise
discharged pursuant to law. A certified copy of the order committing the contemnor shall be
sufficient warrant to the marshal for the arrest and confinement of the contemnor. The
complainant shall also have the same remedies against the property of the contemnor as if the
order awarding the fine were a final judgment.
(d) If the alleged contemnor is found not guilty of the charges, said person shall be discharged
from the proceedings and, in the discretion of the Court, may have judgment against the
complainant for costs and disbursements and a reasonable counsel fee.
COMMITTEE NOTE The Committee recommends the deletion of the second sentence of
paragraph I of this Local Civil Rule on the ground that it is substantive rather than procedural in
nature. See generally Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 989
(2007).
Page 72 of 151
2 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
3 Rule 42. Criminal Contempt.
(a) DISPOSITION AFTER NOTICE.

Any person who commits criminal contempt26 may be punished for that
contempt after prosecution on notice.
(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an
order to show cause, or in an arrest order.
The notice must:
(A) state the time and place of the trial;
(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and
(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt
and describe it as such.
(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the
contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government unless the
interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the
government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney
to prosecute the contempt.
(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal
contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so
provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the
criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that
judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless
the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must
impose the punishment.
26
18 USC 401: Criminal Contempt.
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its
discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the
administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
Page 73 of 151
I.
A. Claims and Contentions.
Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference and make a part here of as if set forth herein,
in heac verba, Appellant’s July 23, 2023, Declaration, Section 3, supra, as the factual basis for his
claims, and contends:
I. that the respondents named in Section 4, part IV, infra, have from beginning from, (i)
May 19, 2006, the entry of the 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady Court Order, (ii) entry of the August 10,
2007, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Court Order, (the “Brady Court Orders”); (iii) the December 20,
2007, the entry of the Rule 41 Final Judgment in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Ex. 2, infra, and (iv) entry of
the August 18, 2009, Gov-I Final Judgment, Ex. 3, infra, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”):
1. knowingly, willfully, deliberately, and in bad faith took affirmative steps and omissions
and resisted the res judicata preclusive effects of the Final Judgments;
2. aided, abetted, assisted, facilitated, and knowingly undertook affirmative action, or
omitted to take all necessary steps to comply with the Brady Court Order and Final
Judgments; and acted in concert with others required to comply with the Final Judgments;
3. Civilly committed numerous affirmative acts and/or omissions of contempt of the Final
Judgments; and
4. Knowingly and willfully violated 18 USC 401(2), and 18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt of
the Brady Court Orders’ and Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects by continuing
to disregard the Brady Court Orders and Final Judgments, and continued to knowingly
Page 74 of 151
enforce orders, judgments, and proceedings annulled, vitiated, voided, set aside, and
vacated by the Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects.
B. The Legal standard: Civil contempt.
“Civil contempt ... consists of a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court
order27 by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply28.” In re Dual–
Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). A party may also
be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to violate a court order. See Regal
Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (“defendants may nullify a decree by carrying out
prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original
proceeding”). “The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor
violated the court's order by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ not merely a preponderance of the
27 Exhibits 2, and 3, are lawful and valid court orders, (the “Final Judgments”). Entered in favor
of Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Prevailing Party”). The USAO’s prosecutors and its agents undertook
affirmative steps and omissions, assisted the respondents, and knowingly and willfully aided,
abetted, resisted, disobeyed, and obstructed the complete compliance with the res judicata
preclusive effects of the Final Judgments.
On August 18, 2009, Exhibit 3, the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) in United States v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(XAP), Gov.-I, the Government’s dismissed with prejudice Rule 28.1 cross-appeal, entered final
judgment in favor of Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party, and ratified the November 7, 2008,
Article II appellate political decision, (the “USAG’s Article II Appellate Political Decision”), by the
United States Attorney General, (the “USAG”), executive branch to terminate and dismiss with
prejudice 07-5670 (2d Cir.) actually and necessarily 05cr1115 (SDNY) as a matter of law.
28 The respondents from December 20, 2007, to the present, July 24, 2023, have knowingly,
willfully, in bad faith, committed a fraud on the federal courts, conspired to and have obstructed
justice, continued to undertake RICO unlawful debt collection activities, continued to unlawfully
restrain, and restrict Petitioner, Ulysses T. Ware, and have continued to knowingly with malice,
and in bad faith resist the res judicata preclusive effects of the Final Judgments.
Page 75 of 151
evidence.” Dual–Deck, 10 F.3d at 695 (citing Vertex Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics,
Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1982) ).
Civil contempt sanctions may be imposed upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, "to
coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order, and to compensate the
complainant for losses sustained." United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258,
303-04 (1947). (emphasis added).
A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to violate a
court order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (“defendants may not nullify
a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not
parties to the original proceeding”).
A party to an injunction, a court order, or final judgment who assists others in performing
forbidden conduct may be held in contempt, even if the court's order did not explicitly forbid his
specific acts of assistance. See NLRB v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 413 (1960)
(Frankfurter, J., concurring) (observing that “[e]very affirmative order in equity carries with it the
implicit command to refrain from action designed to defeat it”); see also United States v.
Shipp, 214 U.S. 386, 422–23 (1909) (holding sheriff in contempt for failing to prevent lynching
and observing that he “in effect aided and abetted it”). (emphasis added).
In Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 871 (3d Cir.1990) the court noted, “The law
does not permit the instigator of contemptuous conduct to absolve himself of contempt liability
by leaving the physical performance of the forbidden conduct to others. As a result, those who
Page 76 of 151
have knowledge of a valid court order and abet others in violating it are subject to the
court's contempt powers.”29. (emphasis added).
The appeal courts that have reviewed the issue concerning the extent to which one can
be sanctioned for contempt have explained one need not actually commit the contempt to be
held liable, NLRB v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL–CIO, 882 F.2d 949, 954 (5th Cir.1989) (
“One need not commit an unlawful act in order to be liable for conspiring to evade a judgment
of a court: it is contempt to act solely for the purpose of evading a judgment.”). (emphasis added).
One can and will be held in contempt for knowingly assisting another to commit contempt,
United States v. Paccione, 964 F.2d 1269, 1274 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[A] person who knowingly assists
a defendant [the Contemnors] in violating an injunction subjects himself to civil as well as criminal
proceedings for contempt." (quoting Alemite, 42 F.2d at 832) (emphasis added)); Cf. United
States v. Karen Bags, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1052, 1064 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("The elements necessary to
prove aiding and abetting [criminal contempt] are `the commission of the underlying offense by
someone, a voluntary act or omission, and a specific intent that such act or omission promote
the success of the underlying criminal offense.'" (quoting United States v. Perry, 643 F.2d 38,
29
The Government employees, DOJ, and SEC are deemed as a matter of law to have actual and/or
constructive knowledge and awareness of the Court Orders. The Government’s trial witnesses, Norris,
Zitter, and Font, are deemed to have actual knowledge of the Court Orders. The State Bar employees
obtained knowledge and awareness from Mr. Ware of the Court Orders and initiated and continued
unlawful and retaliatory disbarment proceedings against Mr. Ware in willful resistance to the Court Orders
as an over act in conspiring with the Government’s employees to steal Mr. Ware’ personal property, license
to practice law, in violation of due process of law. The respondents all were made aware by Petitioners on
multiple occasions of the existence of the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgments.
Page 77 of 151
46 (2d Cir. 1981)) (emphasis added)), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Klayminc, 780 F.2d 179 (2d
Cir. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, sub nom. Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987).
Civil contempt sanctions may also monetarily compensate for any harm that previously
resulted from the civil contempt conduct. See Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 159 F.3d 86, 93 (2d
Cir.1998); Weitzman v. Stein, 98 F.3d 717, 719 (2d Cir.1996) (stating that sanctions for civil
contempt serve two purposes: to coerce future compliance and to remedy any harm past
noncompliance caused by the other party).
Courts have commented that a district court has broad power to hold respondents in
contempt and fashion an appropriate remedy that hold the respondents accountable for the
harms, injuries, and damages—that is, in the sum certain amount of $2.225 billion, caused by the
unlawful conduct, "[s]o far as the first of these functions is concerned, the district judge, sitting
in equity, is vested with wide discretion in fashioning a remedy." Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Carousel
Handbags, 592 F.2d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 1979).
The compensatory goal of civil contempt, by contrast, can be met by awarding to the
plaintiff any proven damages. The district court in a case may also in its equity function award
appropriate attorney fees and costs to a victim of contempt. Id.
The district court has broad discretion to fashion a coercive remedy based on the nature
of the harm and the probable effect of alternative sanctions, and its determination will not be
disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. EEOC v. Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers, 247 F.3d 333,
336 (2d Cir.2001).
Page 78 of 151
In Lindland v. U.S. Wrestling Ass'n, 227 F.3d 1000, 1006 (7th Cir.2000) the court
explained, “The ‘active concert or participation’ clause is designed to prevent what may well
have happened here: the addressee of an injunction [court order or final judgment], eager to
avoid its obligations, persuades a friendly third party [the respondents acting in concert] to take
steps [i.e., omitting to enforce the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgments] that frustrate the
injunction's [Brady Court Orders’ or Final Judgments’] effectiveness.”
The district court also has the authority to impose a coercive civil penalty that includes
civil incarceration until complete compliance is made by the respondents. The classic example of
a coercive, civil contempt sanction involves confining a contemnor indefinitely30 until he
complies with an affirmative command such as an order "to pay alimony, or to
surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance." Gompers
v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911). In addition, imprisonment for a fixed term
is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he complies with the
court's order. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, n. 6 (1966), (upholding as civil a
determinate 2-year sentence which included a purge clause).
In Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911), the Supreme Court affirmed a contempt
judgment against a corporation's president for the corporation's failure to comply with a
30Given the respondents have over a long period, from December 20, 2007 to the present, July
24, 2023, deliberately, intentionally, and in bad faith, with malice refused all requests to “cease
and desist” all contempts of the Final Judgments, see Dkt 124 (02cv2219) (Demand to cease and
desist), no remedy other than immediate civil incarceration will be effective on recalcitrate and
obstinate contemnors who have displayed total disdain and disrespect for their legal obligations
to Petitioners and to the Court.
Page 79 of 151
subpoena. "A command to the corporation," the Court held, "is in effect a command to those
who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. If they, apprised of the writ directed
to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for
the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of
disobedience, and may be punished for contempt." Id. at 376. (emphasis added).
The federal courts have held that confinement resulting from a civil contempt proceeding
is viewed as coercive if the defendant can secure his release by doing that which he was ordered
to do. See WRIGHT & MILLER, at § 2960; see also Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 370, ("While any
imprisonment, of course, has punitive and deterrent effects, it must be viewed as remedial if the
court conditions release upon the contemnor's willingness to testify.").
In such a circumstance, the contemnor is able to purge the contempt and obtain his
release by committing an affirmative act, and thus "carries the keys of his prison in his own
pocket." Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442.31
C. The Legal standard: Criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), sanctions.
31 Regarding complete and immediate compliance with the Final Judgments’ res judicata
preclusive effects that have been continuously resisted by the respondents and their agents from
December 20, 2007, nothing short of civil incarceration will have the appropriate seriousness to
move the respondents to respect the Court’s judgments and undertake their legal responsibilities
to the Court and Petitioners. The respondents have shown over many years [see the 2012
attempts by Petitioners to have the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) and KTS in 03-93031 comply with
the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects and vacate and set aside Dkt. 28] they
do not respect the authority of the Court, or the rights of the Petitioners.
Page 80 of 151
"Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense," Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194,
201 (1968). (emphasis added). "Criminal contempt is used to punish the contemnor or vindicate
the court's authority;32 civil contempt seeks to, (i) coerce the contemnor into compliance with
the court's orders or (ii) to compensate the complaining party for losses incurred as a result of
the contemnor's conduct." Hess v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 846 F.2d 114, 115
(2d Cir. 1988) (emphasis added).
In United States v. Paccione, 964 F.2d 1269, 1274 (2d Cir. 1992), the court noted, "[A]
person who knowingly assists a defendant in violating an injunction subjects himself to civil as
well as criminal proceedings for contempt." (quoting Alemite, 42 F.2d at 832) (emphasis
added)); Cf. United States v. Karen Bags, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1052, 1064 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("The
elements necessary to prove aiding and abetting [criminal contempt] are `the commission of the
underlying offense by someone, a voluntary act or omission, and a specific intent that such act or
omission promote the success of the underlying criminal offense.'" (quoting United States v.
Perry, 643 F.2d 38, 46 (2d Cir. 1981). (emphasis added).
II.
32 The respondents herein have over many years, from December 20, 2007, to the present, July
24, 2023, deliberately, willfully, and in bad faith, knowingly resisted the res judicata preclusive
effects of the Rule 41, Ex. 2, and Gov-I Final Judgments, Ex. 3. The validity of the Final Judgments
has never been challenged by the respondents in any court; and moreover, the respondents have
encouraged others not involved in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
litigation to also not fully comply with the Final Judgments’ res judicata preclusive effects and
respect the Courts’ authority to grant relief to the Petitioners. Such overt lawlessness has
subjected the respondents, through their own actions and omissions, to the criminal contempt
power of the Court.
Page 81 of 151
A. Analysis and discussion.
1. Eleven (11) legal reasons why the Respondents, the Unindicted

Coconspirators, to wit: e.g., Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau,
Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Laura Taylor-Swain, Debra Ann Livingston, the Office of
the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), the U.S. Probation Office, the District Court (NDGA), the
Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), the District Court (SDNY), Kilpatrick, Townsend, &
Stockton, LLP, the State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia, and all those
in active concert are ipso facto guilty of civil and 18 USC 401(3) willful criminal
contempt of the Brady Court Orders, the 12/20/2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment
entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Ex. 2, and Ex. 3 supra; and the August 18, 2009, Gov.-I
final judgment.
i. First, Appellant moves the Court, in regard to the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) moot
proceedings: specifically, in regard to government trial exhibits GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24,
jointly, (the “Annulled Orders”),33 the purported factual basis for the government’s
frivolous and moot indictment’s claims in the purported U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY),
indictment, cf., ¶¶8-11 in the moot indictment, (the “Moot Indictment”).34
ii. Second, Appellant moves the Court and informs the Court that the Rule 41 Final
Judgment, Ex 2, infra, as a matter of binding circuit precedent, see A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr,
33See Ex. 1, supra, the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90 Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, (the “Rule 41
Final Judgment”).
34 The purported indictment in 04cr1224 is moot ab initio as a matter of law: the purported
charging instrument failed as a matter of law to sufficiently charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal
contempt “offense.” Why? Because ipso facto as a matter of law, see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17
(1995), “all Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters are required to register with the SEC pursuant
to Section 5 all distribution of securities” (paraphrased) (emphasis added)—that is, GX 1-4, (the
“Illegal Criminal Usury Convertible Promissory Notes” or “Illegal Contracts”)). Cf., 15 USC 78cc(b)
unregistered broker-dealers, see Ex. 4, infra, lack Article III standing to enforce the Illegal
Contracts in an Article III federal court either, (i) directly (02cv2219) or (ii) indirectly (03-0831 (D.
NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Page 82 of 151
197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952),35 rendered the Annulled Orders Moot Indictment
“moot” and “vitiated” as of December 20, 2007, upon entry of Dkt. 90, the Rule 41 Final
Judgment.36
iii. Third, currently, given the December 20, 2007, voluntary annulment, vitiation, and
abrogation of the Annulled Orders and the Moot Indictment by former District Judge Sand
(deceased) on the plaintiffs’ voluntary motion, after the statute of limitation had run in
all claims, by the plaintiffs in 02cv2219, the indispensable and absolutely required Article
III live case or controversy between the real parties in interest no longer exist regarding
both 02cv2219 and 04cr1224.
iv. Fourth, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs in the 02cv2219 complaint’s ¶¶12-13 and the
government in ¶¶8-11 of the Moot Indictment, and also pursuant to ¶10.1(iv) of GX 5,
(the “Illegal Underwriting Contract”), pleaded themselves out of court: the plaintiffs and
the government’s prosecutors pleaded on the face of their respective complaint/Moot
Indictment, binding judicial admissions/affirmative defenses, (the “Annulling Pleadings”)
which rendered their respective proceedings 02cv2219/04cr1224 ipso facto null and void
ab initio, and moot.
35 “The reason for this is that voluntary dismissal of [the 12/20/2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2)
02cv2219] suit leaves the situation so far as procedures therein are concerned the same as
though the 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 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 [i.e., the
02cv2219 plaintiffs’ ex parte Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal], or a subsequent law, the existing
controversy has come to an end, the case becomes moot and should be treated accordingly."
(emphasis added).
36The Rule 41 Final Judgment conferred prevailing party status on GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, Silver
Screen Studios, and Elorian and Becky Landers, (the “Prevailing Parties”); and authorized each to
enforce the Rule 41 Final Judgment by the civil and Rule 42 criminal contempt processes.
Obviously, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) District Court is obligated by its inherent Article III authority to
enforce its own “lawful” orders and judgments, i.e., the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
Page 83 of 151
v. Fifth, the Annulling Pleadings, see Part II, section A(i), supra, are binding judicial
admissions,37 absolutely without exception, on the Respondent, the Unindicted
Coconspirators, including Edgardo Ramos, Andre Damian Williams, Colleen McMahon,
Wendy L. Hagenau, Laura Taylor-Swain, Barbara S. Jones, Leonard B. Sand, the State Bar
of Georgia (and its employees, agents, and subcontractors), the Supreme Court of
Georgia, the District Court (NDGA), the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”),
the U.S. Probation Office, (the “USPO”), and all those in active concert therewith (“their
privies”) pursuant to the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s absolute finality and res judicata
preclusive effects, see Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moite, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 401-02
(1952).38
vi. Sixth, the application of the legal standard explained in Federated, supra, to the
indisputable existence and fact of the voluntary Rule 41 Final Judgment’s entry on
37 Pillars v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), 957 F.3d 357, 360 (2d Cir. 2020) (“A
judicial admission is a statement made by a party or its counsel which has the effect of
withdrawing a fact from contention and which binds the party making it throughout the course
of the proceeding. See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers &
Lybrand, LLP , 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003); Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 757
F.2d 523, 528 (2d Cir. 1985). To constitute a judicial admission, the statement must be one of
fact—a legal conclusion does not suffice. See Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van
Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l B.V. v. Schreiber , 407 F.3d 34, 45 (2d Cir.
2005) ("[J]udicial admissions are statements of fact rather than legal arguments made to a court."
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
38“There is little to be added to the doctrine of res judicata as developed in the case law of this
Court. A final judgment [i.e., the 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment, Ex. 1, infra] on the merits
of an action [the 02cv2219 lawsuit] precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues
that were or could have been raised in that action [the 02cv2219 lawsuit].” Id. at 398. (emphasis
added). Moreover, Federated, Id at 401-02, also held, “The doctrine of res judicata serves vital
public interests beyond any individual judge's [i.e., Edgardo Ramos, Wendy L. Hagenau, Colleen
McMahon, Laura Taylor-Swain, et al.] ad hoc determination of the equities in a particular case.
There is simply no principle of law or equity which sanctions the rejection by a federal court of
the salutary principle of res judicata [] … [t]his Court has long recognized that [p]ublic policy
dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound
by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as
between the parties." (internal citations and quotes omitted) (emphasis added).
Page 84 of 151
12/20/2007, the Court explained, Id. at 402, “There is simply no principle of law or equity,
[i.e., there is no exception,] which sanctions the rejection by a federal court [03-0831 (D.
NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY), the
“Federal Courts” or the “Moot Proceedings”] of the salutary (i.e., beneficial, worthwhile,
valuable) principle of res judicata.”39
vii. Seven, the Court put it bluntly in its Federated opinion. The Court was without
equivocation and explained there are no exceptions which will be lawfully recognized by
the Federal Courts at “law” or at “equity” which the Federal Courts are permitted to use
as an unlawful device, scheme, or other artifice to lawfully impede, obstruct, delay,
prevent, escape or “ad hoc” “reject[]” the Appellant’s legal rights as the Prevailing Parties
in 02cv2219 conferred by the 12/20/2007 Rule 41 Final Judgment. Therefore, the Rule 41
Final Judgment’s entry on 12/20/2007 on behalf of the Prevailing Parties absolutely
without exception in law or equity is required to be lawfully recognized, and thus,
immediately enforced by the civil or Rule 42 criminal contempt processes in the Federal
Courts.
viii. Eight, the application of the rule of law in Federated, Id., and A.D. Dick, Id. at 501-02, read
in pari materia with Willard v. Wood, 164 U.S. 502, 523 (1896) (the statute of limitation
is not tolled by the [02cv2219] plaintiff[s’] voluntary dismissal of their lawsuit), taken
jointly with the indisputable fact of the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata absolute
preclusive effects—that is, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs on 12/20/2007, actually and
necessarily, implicitly and expressly, judicially admitted and confessed they were no
longer ‘real parties in interest’ with respect to the 02cv2219 proceedings; and ipso facto,
39 Accordingly, by what legal theory, or fraudulent scheme, has the Federal Courts, and their
Unindicted Coconspirators, used criminally to impede, delay, prevent, prohibit, obstruct, and
conspire to reject Petitioners’ applications based on the “salutary” principle of res judicata that
was triggered on 12/20/2007, upon the entry of Rule 41 Final Judgment? The Court in Federated,
supra, explained there is no principle in “law” or in “equity” that lawfully authorized the Federal
Courts to have impeded or obstructed Appellant’s Rule 9024/60(d)(3), Bankr. Rule 9011(b)(1-4),
Rule 11(b)(1-4), civil contempt, Rule 42 criminal contempt, fraud on the court, 2241 actual
innocent habeas corpus proceedings (22cv3409 (SDNY)), and other applications to enforce the
Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
Page 85 of 151
judicially admitted they no longer possessed any legal rights as “parties” in (i) the
02cv2219 proceedings, and (ii) were no longer alleged creditors in 03-93031 (BC NDGA).40
Accordingly, currently, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) and 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Federal Courts
without dispute lack a “live” Article III dispute—that is, a live41 “controversy” between the ‘real
parties in interest’ and thus, ipso facto lacking a “live” case or “controversy” between the real
parties in interest in the respective proceedings, as a matter of law the Federal Court lack Article
III subject matter jurisdiction over Moot Proceedings delineated in section 6, infra.
ix. Nine, all issues, facts, claims, or subsequent proceedings (In re Group Management Corp.,
03-93031 BC NDGA, Chapter 11, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY)) that depended
in whole and/or in part, actually or necessarily, on the Annulled Orders (GX 7, GX 11, GX
40 See Dkt. 10, 11, 15, 16, and 28 in 03-93031 (BC NDGA) for the bogus, fraudulent, legally, and
factually frivolous, vexatious, bad faith, filed for an improper purpose, see Bankr. Rule 9011(b)(1-
4), and criminal pleadings filed by the Atlanta, GA law firm of Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton,
LLP, and its partners, and bogus (purported) ultra vires, and moot Order (Murphy, J.), entered on
behalf of the unregistered broker-dealers 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs as overt acts in furtherance
of the conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 157; and as an overt criminal act to collect
the RICO criminal usury loan sharking February 2001 $1.1M debt that was a prima facia violation
of 18 USC 1961(6)(B). See U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence,
and RICO forfeiture judgment (+$3.0B) for RICO unlawful debt collection activities).
41All issues, facts, and claims have been resolved in favor of Petitioner by the Rule 41 Final
Judgment on 12/20/2007; and protected from all subsequent dispute or challenge between
Petitioners and the Unindicted Coconspirators, their “privies” and all in active concert with the
Unindicted Coconspirator by the “salutary principle” of res judicata.
Page 86 of 151
24,42 or Dkt. 8043) or the annulled 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings, see A.B. Dick, 197 F.2d
at 502, are controlled by the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects.
Federated, Id. at 402. Therefore, the Federal Courts are duty bound, without exception in
“law” or “equity”, to enforce the Rule 41 Final Judgment via civil and/or criminal contempt
proceedings, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), and by their inherent Article III supervisory or
equitable jurisdiction and authority to enforce lawful final judgments raised in claims by
the Petitioners.44
42 Recall that GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24 were the alleged factual bases for the purported risible 18
USC 401(3) alleged criminal contempt charges in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). Section 401(3)
is applicable to only “lawful” orders or judgments entered by a federal court that had Article III
subject matter jurisdiction over its respective proceedings.
A priori the 04cr1224 district court ipso facto, per se, lacked all 18 USC 3231 subject matter
jurisdiction over the alleged criminal contempt proceedings, because it is not an “offense” to not
criminally violate SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) and draft, sign, and issue bogus and fraudulent
Rule 144 legal opinion to the unregistered broker-dealers 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to criminally
enable an unregistered public offering of GPMT’s securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and
78ff. Cf., U.S. v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and restitution for
the sale of unregistered securities by unregistered broker-dealers). See also Dkt 106 to Dkt. 111,
(22cv3409 (SDNY)) for the 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff crimes committed by Colleen McMahon
and Frank V. Sica criminal sale of unregistered criminal usury convertible promissory notes from
2003 to 2022.
43 See then Chief Judge District Court (SDNY) Colleen McMahon’s risible, trivially frivolous, bogus,
and fraudulent May 17, 2019, purported Order, Dkt. 120 (02cv2219)—that is, civil contempt and
18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) willful “resistance” to the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata
preclusive effects; which Judge McMahon as an overt act in furtherance of the RICO unlawful
debt conspiracy claimed, fraudulently, that Petitioners had no legal rights, despite being the legal
Prevailing Parties in 02cv2219, to reinstate their counterclaim in 02cv2219 even though the bogus
dismissal of Petitioners’ counterclaim was annulled on 12/20/2007 by the Rule 41 Final
Judgment. A.B. Dick, 197 F.2d at 501-02.
44
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). (“Of particular relevance here, the inherent
power also allows a federal court to vacate its own judgment upon proof that a fraud has been
perpetrated upon the court. This "historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten
judgments," is necessary to the integrity of the courts, for "tampering with the administration of
justice in [this] manner . . . involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against
the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public. Moreover, a court has the power to
Page 87 of 151
x. Ten, the Federal Courts, their judges, their clients, and all those in active concert
therewith, directly and/or indirectly, undertaking any action or series of actions and/or
omissions designed to, or having the effect, that overtly or implicitly resist the res judicata
preclusive effects of the Rule 41 Final Judgment are guilty of aiding and abetting the civil
and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt of the Rule 41 Final
Judgment; and
xi. Eleven, to date, after numerous request by Appellant, see Section 6, Ex. A, infra, the
Unindicted Coconspirators nor the DOJ have not searched for, disclosed, and produced
all Brady materials in their actual and/or constructive possession as required by the Brady
doctrine and its progenies. See Id. Ex. B, infra (the March 20, 2023, EOUSA’s FOIA
response in In re Ware, 000907).
2. Conclusion.
Petitioners have presented “clear and convincing evidence” and legally on-point binding
legal precedents that control, and that have resolved, actually and/or necessarily, all issues, facts,
claims, and proceedings related to or associated with the annulled 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings,
orders, and judgments. A.B. Dick, Id. at 502.
Specifically, the Rule 41 Final Judgment, was voluntarily demanded by the 02cv2219
plaintiffs’ counsel, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., on 12/20/2007, see Ex. 2, supra, after the statute of
limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 complaint;45 is a binding judicial admission,
conduct an independent investigation in order to determine whether it has been the victim of
fraud.” (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
45See Willard, 164 U.S. at 523, “The general rule in respect of limitations must also be borne in
mind that if [the 02cv2219] plaintiff mistakes his remedy, in the absence of any statutory provision
saving his rights, or where, from any cause, a plaintiff becomes nonsuit, or the action abates or is
Page 88 of 151
resolved by the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata preclusive effects, that the plaintiffs,
voluntarily agreed and conceded:
i. They no longer desired to be treated as legal adverse parties to the 02cv2219
proceedings;
ii. they no longer claimed any “concrete injury-in-fact caused by the defendants,” see Lujan,
504 U.S. at 560-61, they agreed and annulled the GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and Dkt. 80 orders
and judgments;
iii. they implicitly no longer desired to be legally recognized as purported creditors of GPMT
(see 03-93031 (BC NDGA), Dkt. 10, 11, 15, 15, and 28; and ipso facto annulled, vitiated,
and abrogated the bogus and fraudulent May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28 purported Order of
dismissal with prejudice (Murphy, J.)) with respect to the February 2001 RICO criminal
usury unlawful debt;
iv. they no longer desired to hold Petitioners in civil or criminal contempt of the Annulled
Orders;
v. they no longer desired that any Federal Court continues to enforce any order, judgment,
or proceedings in their favor;
vi. they abdicated and disavowed any legal right to enforce any order or judgment previously
entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY);
dismissed, and, during the pendency of the action, the limitation runs, the remedy is barred.”
(emphasis added).
Page 89 of 151
vii. they implicitly agreed not to challenge or oppose Petitioners’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
motions in 02cv2219 (SDNY) and 03-93031 (BC NDGA)46 for entry of final judgment in
favor of the Petitioners, and agreed, implicitly to not oppose or challenge Petitioners’
motion to expressly vacate, set aside, annul, vitiate, and abrogate all prior orders,
judgments, and proceedings in 02cv2219 (SDNY); and
viii. they agreed, conceded, and admitted “the remedy [sought in the bogus and frivolous
02cv2219 complaint, and sought in the bogus, frivolous, vexatious, baseless, and bad faith
03-93031 (BC NDGA) pleadings, Dkt. 10, 11, 15, 16, and 28] was barred.”
The correct application of the rule of law and reasoning contained in the binding
precedents to the indisputable fact, the Rule 41 Final Judgment, accordingly, all issues, facts, and
claims in regard to the civil and 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) criminal contempt proceedings have
been actually or necessarily resolved, and are ipso facto res judicata; moreover, applying the
Court’s reasoning in Federated, 452 U.S. at 401-02, to the facts, the outcome of the civil, criminal
contempt, fraud on the court, and sanctioning, Rule 11, 28 USC 1927, and inherent power, have
been resolved in favor of the Petitioners: “ … that those who have contested an issue shall be
46 The 02cv2219 plaintiffs expressly, by necessary implication, no longer being ‘real parties in
interest’ agreed, implicitly, and necessarily by the res judicata preclusive effects of the voluntary
Rule 41 Final Judgment, see Federated, 452 U.S. at 401-02, to not oppose or challenge
Petitioners’ Rule 12(h)(3) jurisdictional challenge, Rule 9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court,
60(b)(4), (5) applications for judicial relief filed in 03-93031 (BC NDGA); Rule 9011(b)(1-4)
sanctions; and Rule 9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court motions for hold Wendy L. Hagenau, M.
Regina Thomas, Patricia Sinback, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Gerald B. Tjoflat, Stanley
Marcus, Charles R. Wilson, Adelburto Jordan, James Morawitz, and KTS and its partners financially
liable for damages in the sum certain amount of $225,000 per day, each of every day, beginning
on December 20, 2007, continuing to such time as the May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28, purported Order is
reversed, vacated, set aside, and expressly annulled.
Page 90 of 151
bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever
settled as between the parties." (emphasis added).
The Rule 41 Final Judgment’s res judicata, inherent, and implicit preclusive effects as a
matter of law rendered the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BCNDGA), and 04cr1224 (SDNY)
proceedings null and void ab initio, and moot, Federated, Id.; A.B. Dick, Id. at 502; and ipso facto
convicted each of the Unindicted Coconspirators, and all those in active concert therewith guilty
as a matter of law of civil and willful criminal contempt of the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
3. Requested reliefs.
Petitioners request that the Court enter the reliefs detailed in Section 2, supra,
Respectfully submitted for:
Appellant-Petitioner Ulysses T. Ware.
Submitted by:
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
July 24, 2023.
Page 91 of 151
III. Exhibits
Page 92 of 151
Exhibit 1: Calculation of number of days between 12/20/2007 and 07/24/23 and sum
certain compensatory actual damages claim calculation.
There are 5,696 days between 12/20/2007 and 7/24/23 multiplied by $225,000 per day in
irreparable damages = $1.281.6 billion in total civil contempt and fraud on the court
compensation.
Page 93 of 151
Exhibit 2: 12/20/2007, Rule 41 Final Judgment entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 94 of 151
Exhibit 3: August 18, 2009, Gov-I, final judgment entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(XAP)(2d Cir.).
Page 95 of 151
Exhibit 4: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for
each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, ipso facto dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence
suppressed and concealed by Edgardo Ramos as an over act in furtherance of the RICO
loan sharking and money laundering continuing criminal enterprise run by the 02cv2219
(SDNY) plaintiffs and other federal judges and prosecutors.
Page 96 of 151
Exhibit 5: Omitted.
Page 97 of 151
IV Respondents—the Unindicted Coconspirators.
Based on the undisputed factual record before the District Court (SDNY) and the Court of
Appeals (2d Cir.) probable cause currently exist to indict and arrest in the district where found,
and held without bail,47 to wit: Merrick B. Garland, Damian Williams, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M.
Garnett, Lisa Monaco, Kenneth Polite, Jr., Won Shin, Jun Xiang, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany,
Audrey Strauss, Geoffrey Berman, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia, David N. Kelley,
Alexander H. Southwell, Steve D. Feldman, Andrew L. Fish, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas,
Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Wendy L. Hagenau, Coleman Ray Mullins, Joyce Bihary,
Margaret H. Murphy, Patricia Sinback, M. Regina Thomas, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora,
Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt, Gary G. Becker, Marlon G. Kirton, Jeremy Jones, David Makol,
Maria A. Font, Michael H. Dolinger, Andrew J. Peck, Kent J. Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris, Thomas J.
McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker,
IV, William NeSmith, Paula Fredricks, Jenny Mittlemen, Adrienne Nash, Leigh Burgess, William A.
Myers, Jonathan Hewitt, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, Kelley Quinn, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, convicted
felon Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Debra Ann
Livingston, Ruby Krajick, Richard Dessources, Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf, LaShann DeArcy-Hall,
Lawrence B. Mandala, Thomas Leghorn, Bernard London, London Fisher, LLP, Robert Alberal,
47
The September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA, Hobbs Act kidnapping and armed robbery at gunpoint (crimes of
violence) of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by the U.S. Marshals to collect the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful
criminal usury debts (GX 1-4) on behalf of the Unindicted Coconspirators is not a bailable offense—that is,
the Unindicted Coconspirators are (i) a danger to the community and (ii) a flight risk given all face 360
months to life imprisonment for their crimes.
Page 98 of 151
Baker & McKenzie, LLP, LH Financial Services, Konrad Ackermann, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt),
Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, and Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, jointly
and collectively, an illegal association in fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), a continuing criminal
enterprise, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators” or “Hobbs Act CCE”).48
48
Each member of the CCE beginning on or about 2001 in the Southern District of New York, and
elsewhere, using the means and methods of interstate commerce, and continuing without interruption to
the present, July 23, 2023, and will continue until all Brady Materials and judicial court record are searched
for, disclosed, and produced, each have knowingly, willfully, and deliberate, directly or indirectly,
committed two or more RICO predicate crimes defined in 18 USC 1961(1), violated NYS Penal Law, section
190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, and violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B)—that is, each individually,
personally, jointly or collectively knowingly, directly or indirectly, undertook acts, actions, and initiated
bogus, fraudulent, and manifestly frivolous legal proceedings, entered null and void ab initio judicial orders
and judgments, stole, hid, suppressed, concealed, and removed judicial court records; aided, abetted,
assisted, facilitated and originated, underwrote, funded, and collected illegal criminal usury unlawful
debts; used judicial proceedings (02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224
(SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)) to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts (GX 1-4); violated the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges, violated the DOJ and federal courts’ Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct;
lied, committed perjury, fabricated and falsified court records and evidence; and deliberately undertook
and initiated a Jim Crow racially-motivated false imprisonment conspiracy operation and campaign and
violently retaliated (“up to and including the use of deadly force to collect the criminal usury unlawful
debts, GX 1-4” (paraphrased, Sand, J. (deceased)) against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. on Sept. 1, 2004, in Atlanta,
GA, for his refusal to join the CCE and extort Group Management Corp. of +$500 million of its free-trading
securities by issuing and signing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions—a Hobbs Act extortion,
loan sharking, and money laundering offense, (the “Merrick Garland Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy”).
Page 99 of 151
5 Summary and conclusion.
Appellant has presented overwhelming clear and convincing, undisputed evidence in the
form of declarations and factual exhibits which established the civil and willful criminal contempts
of the Respondents. The records before the district court and before this Court shows that the
Respondents have not searched for, disclosed, and produced all Brady materials as ordered by
the Brady Court Orders. Furthermore, the records further show that the Respondents and their
agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos have continued, have resisted, and have violated the
implicit preclusive effects of the Rule 41 and Gov-I Final Judgments evident by the Respondents’
and their agents’ continued reliance on the abrogated and mooted 04cr1224 and 05cr1115
orders, judgments, and proceedings. Accordingly, the law and the facts require that each
Respondent be adjudged and held in civil and criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders, and
the Final Judgments.
Page 100 of 151

6 Exhibits in support of Show Cause Motion.
Page 101 of 151

Exhibit A--Part 16-1—Certificate of no response by Merrick B. Garland and
the DOJ.
No. 23-865/23-869 (10)(Part 16-1)
Filed on 7/23/2023 5:31:04 AM
_____
Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)
v.
___________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Certificate of No Response.
No response by Merrick B. Garland or the DOJ to Part 16 (Exhibit 1, infra), and
Exhibit 2, infra re: Notice of Emergency Motion to Show Cause Re: Brady
Court Order Civil and Criminal Contempt by Attorney General Merrick B.
Garland49 Pursuant to 28 USC 519 for the Immediate Search, Disclosure, and
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd, Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
49
“Jeremy Jones.”
Page 102 of 151

Table of Contents
Ulysses T. Ware’s Certificate of No Response. ......................................................................................... 105

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware ................................................................................................................. 106
Exhibit 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 110
Exhibit 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 115
I Introduction. ..................................................................................................................................... 117
II The government knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith aided and abetted by the district courts
(Pauley, J., and Sweet, J.) willfully breached, resisted, and violated the Brady court orders entered in
the criminal proceedings to commit a fraud on the court and Mr. Ware. ............................................. 119
III Willful and intentional perjury, fraud on the court, and conspiracy to obstruct justice by the
District Court (Pauley, J.), AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D.
Feldman, Maria E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia,
Damian Williams, Jun Xiang, Merrick B. Garland, and others, jointly, an illegal association in fact as
defined in 18 USC 1961(4), a continuing criminal enterprise. ................................................................ 122
IV The USAO, the District Court (SDNY), the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.), and the SEC’s collusion and
conspiracy to suppress actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in the possession of the SEC, see
Ex. 6, infra. ................................................................................................................................................ 124
V Conclusion---Probable cause exist to prosecute DOJ prosecutors.................................................. 125
Exhibit 1—Jones’ CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton’s confirmation that Jones (1) covertly entered an
alleged Rule 11 plea, (2) covertly “cooperated” with the government and (3) covertly received a “5k
letter.” ................................................................................................................................................... 127
Exhibit 1-1—Alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract proceedings—a judicial public record,
which there is no record in any federal court in the United States of an alleged Rule 11 plea being
entered by Jeremy Jones in open court or otherwise. ........................................................................ 128
Exhibit 2—Jeremy Jones’ Alleged Sentencing hearing transcript before District Judge Pauley
allegedly on September 11, 2008, in “open court.” ........................................................................... 129
Exhibit 2-2—AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin’s purported USSG 5k1.1 downward departure motion for
Jeremy Jones’ “very substantial assistance” for the knowing and suborned commission of perjury,
conspiracy to commit perjury, obstruct justice, witness tampering, and knowingly giving false and
misleading testimony on behalf of the government during the 05cr1115 trial for which Jones was
paid +$600,000 in financial benefits. ................................................................................................... 130
memorandum filed in 05cr1115 (SDNY), a judicial public record(s). .................................................. 131
Exhibit 2-4 (con’t)---Sept 2008 sentencing hearing reference to a government “July 11, 200[8] letter”
a judicial public record. ........................................................................................................................ 132
Page 103 of 151

Exhibit 2-5 (con’t)—reference to a government letter submitted to the Court, a judicial public
record. ................................................................................................................................................... 133
Exhibit 2-6 (con’t)—AUSA Goldin’s reference to secret, concealed, and suppressed Brady evidence—
that is, AUSA Feldman’s April 2008 “very substantial assistance” perjury and lying by Jeremy Jones
the government’s principal witness” in exchange for +$600k in secret and undisclosed financial and
other pecuniary and penal benefits. ................................................................................................... 134
Exhibit 3—Dolinger, J., alleged acceptance of Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury contracts alleged
Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings in 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.) which have never been disclosed
or produced by the district court or the government in violation of the Brady doctrine. ................ 135
Exhibit 3-1—Pauley, J., suppressed, concealed, stolen, removed, and undocketed Dkt. 23,
10/11/2006 Order (Pauley, J.) purporting to accept the stolen alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 perjury
plea and cooperation of Jeremy Jones. See Figure F, the 05cr1115 docket which has no public record
of Dkt. 23 or Dkt. 24, Figure D, supra................................................................................................... 136
Exhibit 3-2--05cr1115 alleged official public docket. No public record of Dkt. 23 (Pauley’s alleged Oct.
11, 2006, acceptance of Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury plea contract) or Dkt 24 (alleged Sept. 22,
2006, alleged Rule 11 perjury allocution by Jeremy Jones), and no record of the actual alleged Sept.
22, 2006, Rule 11 perjury contract—criminal conspiracy with the government to violate 18 USC 2,
241, 242, 371, 1519, and 2071, and the Due Process Clause and First Amendment right of access. 137
Exhibit 4—05cr1115 (SDNY), Dec. 11, 2006, Dkt. 29, Order (Pauley, J.) denying Brady production
based on the lies, and perjury of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, and Michael J.
Garcia, cf., with Ex. 3, and Ex. 3-1, the Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule 11 proceedings of a person
claimed to be “Jeremy Jones.” ............................................................................................................. 138
Exhibit 5—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, certification of
unregistered broker-dealer status for each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff. ............................................. 139
Exhibit 6—the Government’s and SEC’s actual innocent, suppressed and concealed Brady
exculpatory evidence which impeached and vitiated Jeremy Jones’ fabricated Rule 11 plea and
known perjured trial testimony, and impeached the government’s trial witnesses’ known false,
perjured, and misleading testimony. ................................................................................................... 140
Exhibit 6-1—Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s letter to the Government informing the USAO Jones was not
added to the Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings. .................................................................. 141
Exhibit 6-1 (con’t)—Jones was used by the government as a pawn and a stooge, and threaten to
commit perjury aided and abetted by Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. was bribed and paid kickbacks by
District Judge Pauley disguised as CJA payments to facilitate Jones’ Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury
(made in violation of public policy) illegal and unenforceable contracts and fabricated trial
testimony—the “very substantial assistance.”.................................................................................... 142
End of document ...................................................................................................................................... 143
Page 104 of 151

Ulysses T. Ware’s Certificate of No Response.
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Sunday, July 23, 2023

PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE.50

CERTIFICATE OF NO RESPONSE BY MERRICK B. GARLAND AND THE DOJ TO THE
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
50
The Merrick B. Garland, Ari Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Colleen
McMahon, Frank V. Sica, David N. Kelley, and DOJ’s Hobbs Act Extortion, Money Laundering, Loan
Sharking, Kidnapping, and Armed Robbery Conspiracy to violate 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2),
401(3), 1519, 1621, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071; 28 USC 2255(f)(2), (f)(4), and 42 USC 1983,
1985(2), 1985(3); and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, (the “RICO
Crimes”).
Page 105 of 151

Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 23rd day of July 2023, under oath subject to the penalty of
perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, state the following
facts as true and correct, and made this Declaration, and attach hereto and incorporate by
reference, in heac verba, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, infra.
Fact 1
On July 21, 2023, Ulysses T. Ware, served Exhibit 1, infra, via U.S. mail and email under
implied consent on Merrick B. Garland, pursuant to 28 USC 519, and served the same on Damian
Williams, Won Shin, and the U.S. Department of Justice, jointly, (the “DOJ”).
Fact 2
The DOJ was given until Saturday, July 22, 2023, at 5:00 PM, time of the essence, to
respond, disclose and produce all Brady materials and judicial court records in the actual and/or
constructive possession of the DOJ and its agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos. No
response was received by Ulysses T. Ware.
Fact 3
As of July 22, 2023, at 5.01 PM no response, disclosure, or production of the required
Brady materials or judicial court records associated with the alleged September 2006 purported
Rule 11 judicial proceeding of a person who Merrick B. Garland claims is “Jeremy Jones”—without
any proof in any court records, is actually “Jeremy Jones” has been made by the DOJ, (the “Brady
Materials”).
Fact 4
Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ are required by court orders, (the “Brady Court Orders”),
entered in the sub judice criminal proceedings, (the “Criminal Proceedings”), to have made full
and complete disclosure of the Brady Materials “prior to trial” in 2007.51
Fact 5
Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ are, July 23, 2023, currently in civil and willful 18 USC
401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders’ search, disclosure, and production
51
See the Brady Court Orders, to wit: (1) Dkt. 32, Order, August 10, 2007, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Sweet, J.
(deceased); and (2) Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10, May 19, 2006, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Pauley, J. (deceased). The DOJ’s line
prosecutors (Southwell, Goldin, Feldman, Douvas, and Goldin, and their supervisors) acknowledged in
court filings as officers of the court their then present and their now continuing Brady duties and
obligations.
Page 106 of 151

requirements apropos the Brady Materials—that is, the willful violations of 18 USC 2, 241, 242,
371, 1519, and 2071; 28 USC 2255(f)(2), (f)(4); and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3).
Fact 6
Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ are guilty of the violation of 18 USC 2071—the theft,
removal, suppression, concealment, and obstruction of the judicial court records associated with
the alleged September 2006 alleged Rule 11 judicial proceedings that involved a person whom
Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ have claimed and alleged in court papers, as officers of the court,
subject to the DOJ’s and the District Court (SDNY) Rules of Ethics Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of
complete candor to the tribunals was in fact actually “Jeremy Jones” without providing any
record proof of the identity of whoever allegedly appeared in the alleged September 2006
purported Rule 11 judicial proceeding in the Magistrate Court (SDNY) (Dolinger, J.).52
Fact 7
Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ have knowingly as DOJ officers of the court committed a
conspiracy to obstruct justice, and knowingly committed a fraud on the federal courts regarding
the Brady Materials.
Fact 8
The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is required to open an investigation
on Merrick B. Garland and the DOJ’s prosecutors involved in the Criminal Proceedings or who are
required to search, disclose, and produce the Brady Materials, to wit: Daniel Gitner, Margaret M.
Garnett, Lisa Monaco, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, Jun Xiang, Kenneth Polite, Jr., and others.
Fact 9
The District Court (SDNY) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s lawyer
disciplinary committees are required to open an investigation into Merrick B. Garland and the
52
On June 5, 2023, the District Court (SDNY) records department supervisor David Ng, and assistant
supervisor “Ms. Saraya” stated in person to Ulysses T. Ware, “ … we do not have any September 2006 Rule
11 records, plea agreement, [USSG 5k1.1] cooperation agreements … we do not have them, if we had
them I would give them to you … you will have to look elsewhere … we do not have any September 2006
[judicial court] record concerning Jeremy Jones ….” (paraphrased) (emphasis added). If the Court’s records
department “do not have them” then what is the chain of custody of the alleged September 2006, Rule
11 and USSG 5k1.1 documents if they exist at all? Ostensibly, the judicial public records have been
deliberately and intentionally removed, and/or are currently being deliberately, intentionally, and in bad
faith—that is, a fraud on the court, suppressed, concealed, and hidden from Ulysses T. Ware in violation
of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1519, and 2071.
Page 107 of 151

DOJ regarding the willful violation of the Courts’ Rules of Ethics Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of
complete candor to the tribunals apropos the Brady Materials and other matters.
Fact 10
Merrick B. Garland, numerous times, has appeared on CNN, looked into the camera, and
stated “ … no man is above the law, we at the Department take seriously our obligation to follow
the facts and apply the law to the facts in every case [except where I, the white lawyers, white
federal judges, and the white controlled] Department [of Justice are involved in District Judge
(SDNY) Colleen McMahon,53 Frank V. Sica, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), and Ari Rabinowitz’s
international Hobbs Act Loan sharking, money laundering, and extortion criminal enterprise
conspiracy, in that case there will be no investigation at all you can count on that]….” (emphasis
added).
Fact 11
Based on the undisputed factual record before the District Court (SDNY) and the Court of
Appeals (2d Cir.) probable cause currently exist to indict and arrest in the district where found,
and held without bail,54 to wit: Merrick B. Garland, Damian Williams, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M.
Garnett, Lisa Monaco, Kenneth Polite, Jr., Won Shin, Jun Xiang, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany,
Audrey Strauss, Geoffrey Berman, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia, David N. Kelley,
Alexander H. Southwell, Steve D. Feldman, Andrew L. Fish, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas,
Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Wendy L. Hagenau, Coleman Ray Mullins, Joyce Bihary,
Margaret H. Murphy, Patricia Sinback, M. Regina Thomas, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora,
Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt, Gary G. Becker, Marlon G. Kirton, Jeremy Jones, David Makol,
Maria A. Font, Michael H. Dolinger, Andrew J. Peck, Kent J. Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris, Thomas J.
McCarthy, David Mulcahy, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker,
IV, William NeSmith, Paula Fredricks, Jenny Mittlemen, Adrienne Nash, Leigh Burgess, William A.
Myers, Jonathan Hewitt, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, Kelley Quinn, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, convicted
felon Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Debra Ann
Livingston, Ruby Krajick, Richard Dessources, Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf, LaShann DeArcy-Hall,
53
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has confirmed that District Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY)
and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, personally have owned, and/or currently own more than +$20
million in illegal, NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, and RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt, criminal usury
convertible promissory note (CPN) loan sharking and other illicit investments.
54
The September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA, Hobbs Act kidnapping and armed robbery at gunpoint (crimes of
violence) of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by the U.S. Marshals to collect the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful
criminal usury debts (GX 1-4) on behalf of the Unindicted Coconspirators is not a bailable offense—that is,
the Unindicted Coconspirators are (i) a danger to the community and (ii) a flight risk given all face 360
months to life imprisonment for their crimes.
Page 108 of 151

Lawrence B. Mandala, Thomas Leghorn, Bernard London, London Fisher, LLP, Robert Alberal,
Baker & McKenzie, LLP, LH Financial Services, Konrad Ackermann, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt),
Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, and Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, jointly
and collectively, an illegal association in fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), a continuing criminal
enterprise, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators” or “Hobbs Act CCE”).55
Signed this 23rd day of July 2023, under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal
knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.
Ulysses T. Ware
_______________________________
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
End of declaration.
55
Each member of the CCE beginning on or about 2001 in the Southern District of New York, and
elsewhere, using the means and methods of interstate commerce, and continuing without interruption to
the present, July 23, 2023, and will continue until all Brady Materials and judicial court record are searched
for, disclosed, and produced, each have knowingly, willfully, and deliberate, directly or indirectly,
committed two or more RICO predicate crimes defined in 18 USC 1961(1), violated NYS Penal Law, section
190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, and violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B)—that is, each individually,
personally, jointly or collectively knowingly, directly or indirectly, undertook acts, actions, and initiated
bogus, fraudulent, and manifestly frivolous legal proceedings, entered null and void ab initio judicial orders
and judgments, stole, hid, suppressed, concealed, and removed judicial court records; aided, abetted,
assisted, facilitated and originated, underwrote, funded, and collected illegal criminal usury unlawful
debts; used judicial proceedings (02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224
(SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)) to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts (GX 1-4); violated the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges, violated the DOJ and federal courts’ Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct;
lied, committed perjury, fabricated and falsified court records and evidence; and deliberately undertook
and initiated a Jim Crow racially-motivated false imprisonment conspiracy operation and campaign and
violently retaliated (“up to and including the use of deadly force to collect the criminal usury unlawful
debts, GX 1-4” (paraphrased, Sand, J. (deceased)) against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. on Sept. 1, 2004, in Atlanta,
GA, for his refusal to join the CCE and extort Group Management Corp. of +$500 million of its free-trading
securities by issuing and signing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions—a Hobbs Act extortion,
loan sharking, and money laundering offense, (the “Merrick Garland Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy”).
Page 109 of 151

Exhibit 1
Page 110 of 151

No. 23-865/23-869 (09)
Filed on 7/21/2023 1:19:30 PM
_____
v.
___________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Notice of Emergency Motion to Show Cause Re:
Brady Court Order Civil and Criminal Contempt by Attorney General Merrick B.
Garland56 Pursuant to 28 USC 519 for the Immediate Search, Disclosure, and

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

56
“Jeremy Jones.”
Page 111 of 151

123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Friday, July 21, 2023

PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE.
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
Page 112 of 151

I Introduction.
Mr. Garland:
I am writing to you in your official capacity, 28 USC 519, as the Attorney General,57 an
officer of the court, and DOJ lawyer, personally and officially subject to the Court of Appeals,
the District Court (SDNY), and the DOJ’s Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4,
8.4, and your duty of complete candor to the tribunal.58
Mr. Garland, Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant, and the defendant in the underlying sub
judice Criminal Proceedings, hereby this 21st day of July 2023, give notice to you and the
Department of Justice, its employees, officials, agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos, jointly,
(the “DOJ”),59 that unless all Brady evidence and judicial court records (1) in the actual and/or
constructive possession of the DOJ, or (2) under the actual or implied control of the DOJ are
57
28 USC § 519. Supervision of litigation. Except as otherwise authorized by law, the Attorney General
shall supervise all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, and shall
direct all United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and special attorneys appointed
under Section 543 of this title in the discharge of their respective duties.
58
As a DOJ officer of the court Won Shin owed a duty of candor to opposing counsel, and owes a duty to
not mislead or misrepresent the facts or the law to the court regarding the outstanding Brady court orders’
noncompliance by the DOJ and its lawyers, agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos.
59
Including but not limited to: Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Kenneth Polite, Damian Williams, Daniel
Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Jun Xiang, Won Shin, Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, Audrey Strauss,
Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Steve D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E.
Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Preet Bharara, Marlon G. Kirton, Jeremy Jones, Michael H.
Dolinger, David Makol, Maria A. Font, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Jeffrey B. Norris, the SEC, Kenneth A. Zitter,
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, J. Henry Walker, IV, Thomas J. Leghorn, London Fisher, LLP, Bernard
London, Lawrence M. Mandala, Robert Alberal, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY),
Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L.
Kearse, the State Bar of Georgia, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Michael F.
Bachner, David B. Levitt, Gary G. Becker, Ari Rabinowitz, and Laura Taylor-Swain, jointly, (the “DOJ”).
Page 113 of 151

searched for, disclosed, and produced to Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant, not later than 5:00 PM
on Saturday, July 22, 2023, time of the essence, then Ulysses T. Ware will file the Emergency
Motion for the DOJ to show cause and be held in civil and willful criminal contempt, 18 USC
401(2), 401(3), of the Brady Court Orders entered in the Criminal Proceedings, (the “Emergency
Motion”), will be made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 23-865 and 23-869
on Monday, July 24, 2023.
Mr. Garland, if the DOJ desires to discuss the matter Mr. Ware will be available via email
at utware007@gmail.com on July 22, 2023, until 5:00 PM. If not, Mr. Ware will have the DOJ
served with the Motion on July 24, 2023, and seek an emergency hearing on the matter.
NO FURTHER NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
End of document.
Page 114 of 151

Exhibit 2
Page 115 of 151

No. 23-865/23-869 (07)
Filed on 7/20/2023 5:22:25 AM
_____
v.
___________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Brady Demand on Attorney General
Merrick B. Garland60 Pursuant to 28 USC 519 for the Immediate
Search, Disclosure, and Production of all Brady evidence and Judicial
Public Records associated with Government Witness Jeremy Jones;
Grand Jury and Trial Witnesses—unregistered broker-dealer Ari
Rabinowitz, and FRE 404(b) witness former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B.
Norris.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
60
“Jeremy Jones.”
Page 116 of 151

123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Thursday, July 20, 2023

I Introduction.
Mr. Garland:
I am writing to you in your official capacity, 28 USC 519, as the Attorney General, 61 an
officer of the court, and DOJ lawyer, personally and officially subject to the Court of Appeals,
61
28 USC § 519. Supervision of litigation. Except as otherwise authorized by law, the Attorney General
shall supervise all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, and shall
direct all United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and special attorneys appointed
under Section 543 of this title in the discharge of their respective duties.
Page 117 of 151

the District Court (SDNY), and the DOJ’s Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4,
8.4, and your duty of complete candor to the tribunal.62
On June 26, 2023, and again on July 17, 2023, Mr. Ware served Damian Williams, and
Merrick B. Garland by necessary implication, via email with copies of the L.R. 27-1 leave to file
motion and appendices filed in 23-865 and 23-869. Mr. Garland, as you are no doubt aware
Section 519 imposed on you the heavy burden, which you accepted, for the supervision of all
litigation in the courts regarding the United States, and additionally, the “direct[ion] of all United
States Attorney,” Andre Damian Williams (your former law clerk), and Won Shin, et al.—to wit,
the 23-865 and 23-869 pending appeals, (the “Appeals”). Accordingly, in your supervisory role
over the Appeals, you are directly responsible and personally and officially liable for the United
States and the DOJ’s prosecutors’ deliberate, intentional, bad faith, and malicious civil and 18
USC 401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders. In other words, the Attorney
General of the United States Merrick B. Garland is currently in civil and willful criminal contempt
of the Brady Court Orders entered in the sub judice U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”)63
and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),64 criminal proceedings, (the “Criminal Proceedings”).
First, this letter of demand, (the “Brady Demand Letter”), is in regard to the immediate
production and disclosure of all judicial public records, and Brady evidence with respect to the
62
As a DOJ officer of the court Won Shin owed a duty of candor to opposing counsel, and owes a duty to
not mislead or misrepresent the facts or the law to the court regarding the outstanding Brady court orders’
noncompliance by the DOJ and its lawyers, agents, proxies, surrogates, and alter-egos.
63
See August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, order, Sweet, J. (deceased).
64
See May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Tr 5-10, order, Pauley, J. (deceased).
Page 118 of 151

government’s 05cr1115 “principal witness” a person the government claimed is actually named
“Jeremy Jones” and all other trial and/or grand jury witnesses who testified at trial.
As you are aware the government was ordered by the district court (Pauley, J.)
(deceased), Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10, May 19, 2006, order, to produce “all” Brady evidence “before the
start of trial,” which the government’s line prosecutors (AUSAs Southwell and Goldin)
acknowledged, and also acknowledged the government’s “continuing” obligation to produce the
Brady materials to Mr. Ware, before, during, and after the 05cr1115 trial. See Id. Thus, there is
no dispute or debate regarding the government’s Brady obligations apropos the 05cr1115 trial.
The record is clear, convincing, and set.
Second, see Ex. 3-1, infra, Judge Pauley allegedly on Oct. 11, 2006, accepted Jones’ alleged
Sept. 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract and plea to the bogus charges in the superseding 05cr1115
indictment, S-2, see Ex. 1-1, infra—however, there is no official record of Pauley’s acceptance of
the alleged Rule 11 plea on any docket in a federal court in the United States, and according to
the District Court’s (SDNY) records department supervisor (David Ng) and assistant supervisory
on June 5, 2023, the alleged records—the Rule 11 perjury and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts “are
not in this office, we don’t have them … if we did I would give them to you ….” (emphasis added).
II The government knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith aided and

abetted by the district courts (Pauley, J., and Sweet, J.) willfully breached,
resisted, and violated the Brady court orders entered in the criminal
proceedings to commit a fraud on the court and Mr. Ware.
Page 119 of 151

Mr. Garland, thus, the question is where are the alleged Sept. 2006 and subsequent
alleged official judicial public records regarding Jeremy Jones’ and the government’s trial
witnesses' involvement with the government, its prosecutors, and District Judge William H.
Pauley, III, and Robert W. Sweet?65 See U.S. v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1988).66 Binding
circuit precedent in Haller, supra, and persuasive precedent in In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887
(D. C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, Merrick B., J.) also held a defendant has the right to all cooperation and
Rule plea agreements of the government’s or its own witnesses, evidence which could show
motive for Jeremy Jones, Jeffrey B. Norris, Ari Rabinowitz, and the other government’s trial
witnesses to lie, knowingly commit perjury, and give knowingly false and misleading testimony
during the 05cr1115 and 04cr1224 trials.67
65
See 18 USC 2071—a federal felony offense for the removal, suppression, concealment, or destruction of
Jones’ Rule 11 and related perjury judicial court records. Accordingly, I strongly suggest before being
compelled to produce the judicial court records, that you and the USAO immediately come forth as an
officer of the court and make a full and complete disclosure, else, the consequences will be devastating to
your legal career.
66
“As to the first issue, we conclude there is a right of access to plea hearings and to plea agreements. See
In re Washington Post, 807 F.2d 383, 389 (4th Cir. 1986). Plea hearings have typically been open to the
public, and such access, as in the case of criminal trials, see Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 605-06, 102 S.Ct.
at 2619-20 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 569, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2823, 65
L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion)), serves to allow public scrutiny of the conduct of courts and
prosecutors. Moreover, the taking of a plea is the most common form of adjudication of criminal
litigation. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (well
over three-fourths of criminal convictions rest on guilty pleas). Accordingly, the qualified first amendment
right of access extends to plea hearings and thus to documents filed in connection with those
hearings. See In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1987) (qualified right of access extends
to documents filed in connection with pretrial motion to suppress).” (emphasis added).
67
Id. at 893-94: “With the testimony of Doe’s girlfriend that Jones had been alone in the basement, Doe
had corroboration of Jones’ opportunity to plant the weapons. What he needed was evidence of motive,
and any of several kinds of cooperation agreements might have provided it. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at
683, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (stating that where “the possibility of a reward had been held out” to witnesses for
providing useful information, “[t]his possibility ... gave [the witnesses] a direct, personal stake in
respondent’s conviction”). For example, if there were an agreement that the prosecution would seek the
Page 120 of 151

The records in the sub judice criminal proceedings (04cr1224 and 05cr1115), (the
“Criminal Proceedings”), do not indicate any production by the government of Jones’ or the other
government trial or grand jury witnesses’ cooperation agreements, Rule 11 pleas, transcripts,
debriefing notes, ex parte applications to seal,68 orders to seal, transcripts on sealing application,
benefits received, benefits offers, and other incentives to lie and knowingly commit perjury with
the consent and knowledge of the government. In fact, the docket sheet in 05cr1115, see Ex. 3-
2, infra, was deliberately falsified and fabricated by the District Court (Pauley, J.), the
government, and District Clerk Ruby J. Krajick in a nefarious and malicious conspiracy to obstruct
justice, to violate 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, and 2071 (the theft, removal, suppression or
concealment of official court records), and to conceal, suppress, and prevent Mr. Ware from
access to the Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence regarding the government’s
“principal [trial] witness,” a person the government continues to claim is actually named “Jeremy
Jones” without any proof of identity in the record.
reduction of Jones’ Superior Court sentences if he provided “substantial assistance in investigating or

prosecuting another person,” see Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), that agreement might have given him a motive to
plant the guns. Similarly, if cooperation with the police were a condition of Jones’ continued probation on
his Superior Court convictions, that might have provided an incentive. And Jones might also have had a
motive if the police had agreed to pay him in return for information leading to successful arrests.6 As noted
above, there is evidence in the record that at least the latter two kinds of agreements may exist.” (emphasis
added).
68
See the government’s suppressed and concealed August 2007 secret ex parte application to District
Judge Sweet in 04cr1224 (SDNY)—a bogus and completely fraudulent and trivially frivolous ex parte
application by AUSAs Maria E. Douvas and Nicholas S. Goldin, with the knowledge and consent of their
supervisors to suppress and conceal Brady evidence regarding disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B.
Norris’ professional bad acts and sanctions imposed by the SEC. Norris was the government’s purported
FRE 404(b) “bad acts” witness in 04cr1224 (SDNY) who lied and committed perjury on behalf of the
government regarding the 2003 DOJ-SEC Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding in
exchange for a “favorable letter” to Norris’ supervisors—Norris’ motive to lie and knowingly commit
perjury during the 04cr1224 trial with the government knowledge and consent.
Page 121 of 151

If in fact, Judge Pauley on Oct. 11, 2006, accepted the alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 plea of
Jones, see Ex. 3, and Ex. 3-1, infra, (1) that alleged acceptance of a valid and lawful Rule 11 plea
was required to have been placed on the public docket as a judicial public records, Haller, Id., and
(2) also produced immediately to Mr. Ware by the government pursuant to the May 19, 2006,
Brady court order production requirements. That was not and has never been done by the
government—that is, to date, June 29, 2023, the government has been in willful civil and criminal
contempt of the May 19, 2006, Brady court order. An egregious and unprecedented violation of
the District Court (SDNY) and the DOJ’s Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4,
8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals which requires an immediate referral to the
DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the District Court (SDNY) Committee on Lawyer
Discipline69 of all government lawyers involved in the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 Criminal
Proceedings.
III Willful and intentional perjury, fraud on the court, and conspiracy to
obstruct justice by the District Court (Pauley, J.), AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, David N. Kelley, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, Maria
E. Douvas, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Preet Bharara, Michael J.
Garcia, Damian Williams, Jun Xiang, Merrick B. Garland, and others,
jointly, an illegal association in fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), a
continuing criminal enterprise.
69
Cf., AUSA Alexander H. Southwell’s knowing lying, perjury, false and misleading statement to the Court in
violation of the Rule and duty of complete candor,
Page 122 of 151

Mr. Garland, as a DOJ lawyer and officer of the court, subject to the Court’s and the DOJ’s
Rules of Professional Conduct—the duty of complete candor to the tribunals, you have a current
duty to the tribunals to immediately come forth as an officer of the court and make a full and
complete disclosure of the facts and details of the government’s frauds, corruptions, and overt
acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct justice and violate the Brady court orders. If not,
then you have sealed your fate.
First, see Ex. 4, infra, the district court (Pauley, J.) Dec. 11, 2006, order entered denying
Mr. Ware’s requested adjournment for nondisclosure of Brady evidence. Note that Judge Pauley
stated the government via AUSA Alexander H. Southwell (the lead prosecutor in 05cr1115 and
the ringleader of the government’s crimes) knowingly lied, committed perjury, misled, and duped
the district court by lying that all Brady materials had been disclosed, when both Southwell and
Pauley knew that Jones’ fabricated and manufactured Rule 11 perjury plea and USSG 5k1.1
cooperation agreements had not been disclosed or produced to Mr. Ware—an egregious breach
and violation, civil and criminal contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Brady court order, and Rule 5(f).
That is not debatable by the government.
Crimes were committed by the government and Pauley as overt acts in furtherance of the
government’s and SEC’s conspiracy to have Mr. Ware fraudulently convicted because Mr. Ware
refused to participate in government 04cr1224 trial witness Ari Rabinowitz (Alpha Capital, AG, LH
Financial Services, Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, et al.) and Kenneth A.
Zitter, Esq.’s ongoing international RICO Hobbs Act loan sharking and money laundering criminal
enterprise and issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
Page 123 of 151

plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers (legally ineligible for any exemption to 15 USC 77e, 77x,
and 78ff registration requirements, cf., SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 1995), and United States v.
Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968)) according to FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification (actual
innocent, dispositive, Brady exculpatory evidence), see Ex. 5, infra.
IV The USAO, the District Court (SDNY), the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.),
and the SEC’s collusion and conspiracy to suppress actual innocent Brady
exculpatory evidence in the possession of the SEC, see Ex. 6, infra.
Mr. Garland, as an officer of the court subject to DOJ and the Court’s Rules of Professional
Conduct, and your duty of complete candor to the tribunal I draw your attention to Ex. 6, infra—
the suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory official SEC email of disgraced
former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris sent to the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones
prior to the 2007 05cr1115 trial. The SEC’s lawyers, investigators, and Norris in 2002-03 had
concluded based on the deposition testimony of government trial witnesses (Jeremy Jones,
Carlton Epps, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, and Charles H. Jackson, jointly, (the “Government’s
Perjury Witnesses” or “Perjury Witnesses”)) there was no conspiracy between Mr. Ware and
Government’s Perjury Witnesses, and thus, the Perjury Witnesses were not added to the DOJ-
SEC’s 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings. Indisputable actual
innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, cf., with Ex. 6-1, infra, letter of Jones’ CJA lawyer Marlon G.
Kirton, Esq., also confirmed that Jones was not added to the Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings.
Had Mr. Ware been permitted to exercise his Sixth Amendment right to “put on a
complete defense to the charges”—that right was egregiously denied by the conspiracy and
Page 124 of 151

collusion of the government and the district court (Pauley, J.), see Dkt. 35, Dec. 3, 2007, order,
based on the government’s fraudulent and corrupt in limine motion, Dkt. 28,70 the Brady
evidential content of Ex. 6 would have been presented to the jury, and if Mr. Ware had not been
fraudulently denied his right to compel and subpoena the SEC’s lawyers involved in the Las Vegas
Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings, their testimony there was no conspiracy between the Perjury
Witness and Mr. Ware also would have been placed before the trial jury and Mr. Ware would have
been acquitted at trial of the 05cr1115 bogus charges.
Notwithstanding the fact the Perjury Witnesses were all incentivized and motivated to lie
and commit perjury by the received and/or covert promised benefits offered by the government.
V Conclusion---Probable cause exist to prosecute DOJ prosecutors.
Mr. Garland, as an officer of the court, owing a duty of complete candor to the tribunals,
and being subject to the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4, you have an
official supervisory, personal, and professional choice to make: on the one hand, you might
consider lying, also committing perjury and continuing to commit a fraud on the federal courts
and not immediately disclose and produce the Brady evidence. A doomed strategy I do not
recommend. Or on the other hand, you can immediately come forth, protect your career and law
70
AUSA Southwell’s fraud on the court in limine motion deliberately made to (1) violate Mr. Ware’s Sixth
Amendment right to compel and subpoena the SEC’s lawyers involved in the Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury
Proceedings and have each testify that Jones and the government’s 05cr1115 trial witnesses were not
involved in any conspiracy with Mr. Ware, and (2) to conceal the USAO’s conspiracy and collusion with the
SEC’s lawyers and District Judge Kent J. Dawson (D. NV) to illegally use the Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV)
proceedings as an illegal and unconstitutional Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings to illegally, in
circumvention of the Fed. R. Crim. P. and Mr. Ware’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and gather
illegal evidence for use in the imminent retaliatory USAO’s 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 prosecutions.
Page 125 of 151

license, exercise your duty of complete candor to the tribunals, and notify the tribunals of the
numerous crimes, frauds, and corruptions that you are now aware of supported by clear and
convincing evidence. The choice is yours to make. However, I would admonish you that Fate is
watching, and you cannot cheat Fate.
Mr. Garland, as the direct DOJ supervisory official over the pending Appeals litigation it is
your ethical responsibility as an officer of the court, and required by your duty of complete candor
to the tribunal to immediately make a full, complete, and comprehensive disclosure to the Court
of Appeals and the District Court (SDNY) now that you have been personally and officially
informed and notified apropos outstanding the Brady search, disclosure and production with
respect to the sub judice Criminal Proceedings.
Furthermore, given the continuous and blatant refusal of your and the DOJ prosecutors
to fully comply with the demands of the Brady doctrine and the Brady Court Orders, probable
cause to prosecute for 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1519, and 2071 has been
established by the March 20, 2023, DOJ’s EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 FOIA response.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Cc: Office of the Director of the FBI
U.S. Dept of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility
Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
Page 126 of 151

Exhibit 1—Jones’ CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton’s confirmation that Jones (1) covertly entered
an alleged Rule 11 plea, (2) covertly “cooperated” with the government and (3) covertly
received a “5k letter.”
Page 127 of 151

Exhibit 1-1—Alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 perjury contract proceedings—a judicial public
record, which there is no record in any federal court in the United States of an alleged Rule
11 plea being entered by Jeremy Jones in open court or otherwise.
Page 128 of 151

Exhibit 2—Jeremy Jones’ Alleged Sentencing hearing transcript before District Judge Pauley
allegedly on September 11, 2008, in “open court.”
Page 129 of 151

Exhibit 2-2—AUSA Nicholas S. Goldin’s purported USSG 5k1.1 downward departure motion
for Jeremy Jones’ “very substantial assistance” for the knowing and suborned commission
of perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, obstruct justice, witness tampering, and knowingly
giving false and misleading testimony on behalf of the government during the 05cr1115
trial for which Jones was paid +$600,000 in financial benefits.
Page 130 of 151

memorandum filed in 05cr1115 (SDNY), a judicial public record(s).
Page 131 of 151

Exhibit 2-4 (con’t)---Sept 2008 sentencing hearing reference to a government “July 11,
200[8] letter” a judicial public record.
Page 132 of 151

Exhibit 2-5 (con’t)—reference to a government letter submitted to the Court, a judicial
public record.
Page 133 of 151

Exhibit 2-6 (con’t)—AUSA Goldin’s reference to secret, concealed, and suppressed Brady
evidence—that is, AUSA Feldman’s April 2008 “very substantial assistance” perjury and
lying by Jeremy Jones the government’s principal witness” in exchange for +$600k in
secret and undisclosed financial and other pecuniary and penal benefits.
Page 134 of 151

Exhibit 3—Dolinger, J., alleged acceptance of Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury
contracts alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings in 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.) which
have never been disclosed or produced by the district court or the government in violation
of the Brady doctrine.
Page 135 of 151

Exhibit 3-1—Pauley, J., suppressed, concealed, stolen, removed, and undocketed Dkt. 23,
10/11/2006 Order (Pauley, J.) purporting to accept the stolen alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule
11 perjury plea and cooperation of Jeremy Jones. See Figure F, the 05cr1115 docket which
has no public record of Dkt. 23 or Dkt. 24, Figure D, supra.
Page 136 of 151

Exhibit 3-2--05cr1115 alleged official public docket. No public record of Dkt. 23 (Pauley’s
alleged Oct. 11, 2006, acceptance of Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury plea contract) or Dkt
24 (alleged Sept. 22, 2006, alleged Rule 11 perjury allocution by Jeremy Jones), and no
record of the actual alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 perjury contract—criminal conspiracy
with the government to violate 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1519, and 2071, and the Due
Process Clause and First Amendment right of access.
Page 137 of 151

Exhibit 4—05cr1115 (SDNY), Dec. 11, 2006, Dkt. 29, Order (Pauley, J.) denying Brady
production based on the lies, and perjury of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D.
Feldman, and Michael J. Garcia, cf., with Ex. 3, and Ex. 3-1, the Sept. 22, 2006, purported
Rule 11 proceedings of a person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones.”
Page 138 of 151

Exhibit 5—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, certification
of unregistered broker-dealer status for each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff.
Page 139 of 151

Exhibit 6—the Government’s and SEC’s actual innocent, suppressed and concealed Brady
exculpatory evidence which impeached and vitiated Jeremy Jones’ fabricated Rule 11 plea
and known perjured trial testimony, and impeached the government’s trial witnesses’
known false, perjured, and misleading testimony.
Page 140 of 151

Exhibit 6-1—Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s letter to the Government informing the USAO Jones
was not added to the Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings.
Page 141 of 151

Exhibit 6-1 (con’t)—Jones was used by the government as a pawn and a stooge, and
threaten to commit perjury aided and abetted by Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. was bribed and
paid kickbacks by District Judge Pauley disguised as CJA payments to facilitate Jones’ Rule
11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury (made in violation of public policy) illegal and unenforceable
contracts and fabricated trial testimony—the “very substantial assistance.”
Page 142 of 151

Exhibit B—EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response.
Page 143 of 151

Exhibit C—Part 1, 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady Court Order (Pauley, J.).
Page 144 of 151

Exhibit C--Part 2, 05cr1115 Brady Court Order.
Page 145 of 151

Exhibit D—Part 1, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Court Order (Sweet, J.).
Page 146 of 151

Exhibit D--Part 2, 04cr1224 (SDNY) Brady Court Order.
Page 147 of 151

Exhibit E—02cv2219, December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final
judgment.
Page 148 of 151

Exhibit F—07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I, August 18, 2009, final judgment.
Page 149 of 151

End of document
Page 150 of 151

Page 151 of 151

Part 17 07.24.23 Re Appellant's Rule 27-1 Emergency Motion To Show Cause

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

Part 17 07.24.23 Re Appellant's Rule 27-1 Emergency Motion To Show Cause

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

23-865/23-869 (11)(Part 17)

Respectfully submitted by:

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Via email to won.shin@usdoj.gov and Damian.williams@usdoj.gov

PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE.2

debt collection proceedings,4 the plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers, voluntarily, ex parte,

and never returned to complete cross-examination, which forced a deliberate mistrial by

consequently, ipso facto 05cr1115.8

criminal contempt proceedings against the Respondents named herein.

judgment, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”).

v. Case No. 23-865/23-869

The United States., et al.,

Court Orders and Final Judgments.

civil and criminal contempt claims and contempt relief.

the following relief be GRANTED, to wit:

1. IT IS ORDERED THAT in regard to each Respondent named in the Memorandum of Law,

District Court (SDNY), to be assigned to a new District Judge;

2. IT IS SO ORDERED THAT the District Court (SDNY) shall:

essence, to file in the respective District Courts a declaration or affidavit, supported by

SO ORDERED this 28th day of July 2023 in New York, NY.

A. Factual background of the conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit

purported so-called Subscription Agreement, (the “Subscription Agreement”).

as (the “RICO Unlawful Debt Illegal Contracts”).

d. Paragraph 10.1(iv) of the Subscription Agreement required GPMT to “register 200%” of

terms therein violated 18 USC 1961(6)(B).

false, frivolous, and fraudulent complaint, Dkt. 1, in 02cv2219 (SDNY);

Unregistered Broker-Dealers had suffered an injury-in-fact;

and interest amounts contained in the Illegal Contracts;

were not and had never been registered as broker-dealers;

were 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s Conversion Securities

77e strict-liability registration requirements;

perjury as a government witness in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), with the

an exemption to Section 5 of the 1933 Act;

Zitter and the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers ex parte moved the

B. Formation of the illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, for

a. On or about February 2001, or before, and continuing to the present, without

AG, Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro International, S.A., LH

purpose, and conspired to orchestrate and formed an illegal association-in-fact,

11 New York senator Charles Ellis Schumer and his cronies.

money laundering, extortion, kidnapping, armed robbery, false imprisonment,

and conspiracy CCE.

profits derived from trading in GPMT’s securities, see 15 USC 78p(b).

c. In Atlanta, GA on September 1, 2004, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. knowingly,

GPMT’s securities to the 2219 unregistered broker-dealer plaintiffs, then valued

would face indefinite incarceration (kidnapping) until the fraudulent legal

absence of all jurisdiction” in Atlanta, GA on September 1, 2004, willfully and in

Ulysses T. Ware as a criminal ransom—unlawful debt collection activity, pressure

ineligible for Rule 144 exemption to Section 5 registration requirements—see SEC

Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt;17

fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions to the 02cv2219 Unregistered Broker-Dealers

to enable an unregistered public offering of GPMT’s Conversion Securities.

in the 02cv2219 complaint, government trial witness in 04cr1224 Kenneth A.

with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2).

plaintiffs’ voluntarily demanded Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice, and

entered final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”), in 02cv2219 (SDNY) in

Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”).

v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) a known to be a bogus and fraudulent government

“annulled” “vitiated” and voided the government’s trial exhibits, GX 1-4, GX 5, GX

7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 entered in the 04cr1224 trial.

CCE the moot U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) appeal.

2007, nevertheless, lied, committed perjury, obstructed justice, conspired and

entered in the annulled and mooted 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit;