No. 23-865/23-869(66-6.

1)
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
_____
Ware v. United States, et al.
Filed on 3/5/2024 3:52:22 PM
_____________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Certificate of Estoppel,
No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by
GSL re Appx 66-6 to:
Petitioner (Appellant) Ulysses T. Ware’s Leave to File Application for: (1) Recall of
the Prematurely Entered December 4, 2023, Mandate1 and (2) Fed. R. App. P.
40(a)(1)(A) application for panel rehearing and suggested Rule 35 rehearing en banc
regarding the December 4, 2023, mandate entered in 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) for
numerous manifest actual innocent claims and factual predicate errors of law and
fact.

Submitted by Appellant:

Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

1 See Ex. 1, infra, and cf., Fed. R. App. P. Rule 41(b) read in pari materia with Rule 40(a)(1)(A)—
the December 4, 2023, purported mandate was prematurely issued prior to the expiration of “45
days” for Appellant to timely file a Rule 40(a)(1)(A) application for panel rehearing, and therefore
the “mandate” is required to be recalled and any alleged jurisdiction over the criminal usury
subject matter unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 (04cr1224), and over the 02cv2219
(SDNY) proceedings voluntarily dismissed with prejudice per Rule 41(a)(2) on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt.
90, see Ex. 17, infra, revested in the court of appeals. Cf., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95.

Page 1 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 Certificate of No Response, No Opposition,
Estoppel, and Stipulation.

I, Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant in the matter captioned above, solemnly affirm under the

penalties of perjury, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and based upon personal knowledge, the following:

¶1. Notification of Non-Response: As of 3:01 PM on March 5, 2024, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C. (GSL),

and its Affiliates have failed to (1) provide any written response in opposition to the evidence and

arguments presented in Appendix 66-6, (infra) and (2) acknowledge receipt of my communication dated

March 5, 2024, (Appendix 66-6) that detailed my request for their engagement concerning the ineffective

assistance of counsel (IAC) claims against GSL in the context of the proceedings in Ware v. USA, et al.,

Case Nos. 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.).

¶2. Implications of GSL's Inaction: This Certificate is intended to apprise the Honorable Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit of GSL’s refusal and/or failure to address the substantive inquiries and allegations

regarding its alleged Sixth Amendment violations through ineffective and prejudicial representation of the

Appellant during the criminal proceedings (Case Nos. 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, SDNY). This inaction bears

directly upon the merits of the ongoing appeal.

¶3. Presumptions and Stipulations Arising from GSL's Silence: In the absence of a response from GSL, it

should be construed, presumed, and stipulated that:

• GSL does not intend to intervene in the current Proceedings and protect its legal rights, which are

thereby deemed waived, forfeited, abandoned, and triggers estoppel against GSL.

• GSL does not contest the factual allegations related to the IAC claims as outlined in the habeas

corpus proceeding, Case No. 22cv3409 (SDNY), evidencing actual innocence.

• Such silence signifies an implicit acknowledgment of the allegations, including the provision of

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment and other grave charges.

Page 2 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
¶4. Legal and Ethical Violations: GSL, by its non-response, is deemed to have admitted to violating the

Southern District of New York Local Rules, specifically L.R. 1.5(b)(5), and Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, concerning

the duty of complete candor to the tribunal. These admissions encompass disbarable offenses committed

during the Criminal Proceedings.2

This Certificate serves to inform the Court of these crucial facts and stipulations, underscoring the

serious nature of GSL’s derelictions and the implications thereof on the integrity of the appellate process.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March 2024, in Brooklyn, New York, under the solemn

affirmation of truth and subject to the penalties of perjury.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant

March 5, 2024

Brooklyn, NY

cc: Andre Damian Williams, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
Paula Fredricks, State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel
U.S. District Court (SDNY), Office of the Chief District Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain
U.S. Court of Appeals, Office of the Chief Circuit Judge, the Hon. Debra Ann Livingston
Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Merrick B. Garland via the DOJ’s Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR), Jeffrey R. Ragsdale

Attachment: Appx 66-6 (cleaned up) (March 5, 2023, IAC claims letter of inquiry to retained
counsels GSL).

2 GSL and its affiliates have not filed any pleading or declaration in the record attempted to justify

its substandard, defective, and prejudicial representation of Appellant in the sub judice Criminal
Proceedings, and furthermore GSL has not disputed or opposed, or denied the prejudicial effect
its collusive and conspiratorial representation had on the outcome of the proceedings; nor has
GSL justified its use of Appellant’s enormous retainers paid to GSL and its affiliate, Michael F.
Bachner, Esq. for fraudulent, conflicted, incompetent, disloyal, and collusive representation
during the Criminal Proceedings egregious violation of the Sixth Amendment, Strickland, and the
District Court (SDNY) Rules of Lawyer Professional Conduct.

Page 3 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 Appx 66-6
(Cleaned up)

Page 4 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 No. 23-865/23-869(66-6)
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
_____
Ware v. United States, et al.
Filed on 3/5/2024 8:52:22 AM
_____________

Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Appx 66-6 to:

Petitioner (Appellant) Ulysses T. Ware’s Leave to File Application for: (1) Recall of
the Prematurely Entered December 4, 2023, Mandate3 and (2) Fed. R. App. P.
40(a)(1)(A) application for panel rehearing and suggested Rule 35 rehearing en banc
regarding the December 4, 2023, mandate entered in 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) for
numerous manifest actual innocent claims and factual predicate errors of law and
fact.

Submitted by Appellant:

Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

3 See Ex. 1, infra, and cf., Fed. R. App. P. Rule 41(b) read in pari materia with Rule 40(a)(1)(A)—
the December 4, 2023, purported mandate was prematurely issued prior to the expiration of “45
days” for Appellant to timely file a Rule 40(a)(1)(A) application for panel rehearing, and therefore
the “mandate” is required to be recalled and any alleged jurisdiction over the criminal usury
subject matter unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 (04cr1224), and over the 02cv2219
(SDNY) proceedings voluntarily dismissed with prejudice per Rule 41(a)(2) on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt.
90, see Ex. 17, infra, revested in the court of appeals. Cf., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95.

Page 5 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.,
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com

March 5, 2024

URGENT-PRIORITY RESPONSE REQUIRED

Via email to Edward T.M. Garland, Esq.
The law office of Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C.
3151 Maple Dr., NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
Edward T.M. Garland, et al., and Affiliates

Re: Notice regarding (1) GSL's Intention to Intervene in Ware v. USA, et al., Proceedings (23-
865/23-869, 2d Cir.) and defend the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) actual innocent claims
regarding GSL, et al., deficient and prejudicial performance as Sixth Amendment retained counsel
in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (the “Criminal
Proceedings”); and (2) Notice of Actual and/or Apparent Conflict of Interest against the United
States legal interest apropos GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, GX 4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 32
(04cr1224)(SDNY) trial exhibits, and the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceeding, see page 4,
n. 4, infra.

Dear Edward T.M. Garland, et al., and Affiliates, jointly, “GSL”:

1 I am writing to you on behalf of GSL and individually on behalf of your former client
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware4 in relation to the ongoing proceedings in Ware v. USA, et al., 23-

4 In 2005 Mr. Ware retained GSL as Sixth Amendment retained counsel to defend and advise
regarding his legal rights and interest in the Criminal Proceedings. Mr. Ware paid GSL in cash and
certified checks all requested retainers, and thus, fully expected GSL to prepare the cases for trial
as was the agreed legal strategy, maintain adversity against the government, vigorously defend

Page 6 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
865/23-869, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and your ethical and
civil monetary liability to Appellant Ulysses T. Ware. This letter serves as a formal notice, demand
for access to all legal files of the client, and inquiry regarding the intentions of (GSL) (Garland,
Samuel & Loeb, P.C., Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt,
Janice Singer, and Michael F. Bachner, jointly and/or individually) to (i) intervene in the
aforementioned proceedings and (ii) to address the defense of the actual innocent ineffective
assistance of counsel (IAC) claims that have arisen against GSL within the context of the Criminal
Proceedings, and the 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) legal proceedings.

According to the official record, as you may be aware, the Appellee, the United States,
represented by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (USAO),
Andre Damian Williams, Jr., has (perhaps intentionally or deliberately) abandoned, defaulted,
waived, and forfeited the defense of the IAC claims (cf., n. 4, infra) during the District Court
(SDNY) 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus proceedings. This unprecedented
development has significant and disastrous ethical and pecuniary implications (+$522.25
million) for GSL, not only for the instant case but also for the broader legal and professional
responsibilities of all involved parties, including GSL and the individual affiliates’ professional
responsibilities.5

his legal interests, and function as independent, loyal, competent, and conflict-free Sixth
Amendment counsel in the Criminal Proceedings. That did not occur. GSL deliberately and
knowingly violated District Court (SDNY) Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4,
and duty of complete candor to the tribunal, and knowingly and intentionally used deception,
lied, attempted to bully, engaged in disloyalty, breached their fiduciary duties to Mr. Ware, stole
Mr. Ware’s enormous retainer payments, and colluded and conspired with the U.S. Attorney
(SDNY) and others by disclosing confidential information and trial strategies to the government,
and violated Mr. Ware’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process of law and the effective
assistance of counsel in the Criminal Proceedings.

5 The legal standard in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) required the Appellee, the
USAO, to defend in the district court (SDNY), Ramos, J., with the assistance of GSL’s declarations
or affidavits, the actual innocent IAC claims raised in the 2241 actual innocent proceedings,
22cv3409 (SDNY), and now raised in the pending appeal, 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.). The record
shows that the USAO appeared in 22cv3409 (SDNY), Dkt. 31 (05/02/22) (Jun Xiang and Damian
Williams), and intentionally and deliberately did not file any adversarial or defensive
declarations or affidavits prepared by GSL in defense of the IAC claims, and therefore,
accordingly, the IAC claims have been waived, abandoned, forfeited, and the stipulated factual
basis for the IAC claims is subject to equitable and judicial estoppel against the USAO and GSL in
all future proceedings regarding all issued that GSL and/or the USAO could have raised and
litigated in the 22cv3409 habeas proceedings. I guess you can say that the USAO threw GSL under
the bus regarding the IAC and other claims.

Page 7 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 Given GSL's direct and/or indirect complicity, involvement, and participation in the illegal
association in fact 18 USC 1961(6)(B) conspiracy to collect RICO criminal usury unlawful debts,
GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 (see U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224)(SDNY) government trial exhibits)6 and
the potential legal and ethical ramifications stemming from the Appellee's aforementioned
default, it is imperative to ascertain whether GSL intends to appear and actively intervene in the
23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) proceedings to defend against the IAC claims. The resolution of these
claims is critical, as they have the potential to impact GSL's standing, liability in subsequent
litigation and civil lawsuits, and, most importantly, future disciplinary proceedings, including
potential sanctioning and/or disbarment under District Court (SDNY) L.R. 1.5(b)(5) and the State
Bar of Georgia’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

The significance of these proceedings and the allegations of ineffective assistance of

counsel and criminal collusion and conspiracy with the government’s prosecutors to inflict harm
and prejudice on your client, Mr. Ware, cannot be overstated. The default, waiver, and forfeiture
by the Appellee, and GSL, of the defense of these claims implicate serious considerations of legal
ethics, professional conduct, and the safeguarding of the rights to fair representation and due
process for all individuals. These issues invariably subject GSL to equitable and judicial estoppel,
and res judicata in all subsequent litigation and potential civil lawsuit liability.

According to the record, GSL did not apply to the district court (SDNY), Ramos, J., to intervene in
the 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY) proceedings and request permission to submit any declarations
and defend its dubious purported Sixth Amendment representation of Appellant in the Criminal
Proceedings. Therefore, GSL knowingly, willfully, and deliberately has waived, forfeited, and
abandoned its legal interests in defense of the IAC claims, and consequently, GSL collectively and
individually has/have enormous civil monetary liability resulting from that waiver, abandonment,
and forfeiture of its legal interests; furthermore, the waiver and forfeiture of defense of the IAC
claims are stipulations for the purpose of imminent L.R. (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) disciplinary
proceedings that Appellant will initiate with the Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain
forthwith for consideration by the District Court (SDNY) Committee on Lawyer Conduct.

6 GSL’s direct and/or indirect participation in the affairs or business of the loan sharing, money
laundering, extortion, kidnapping, armed robbery, trespassing, aggravated assault and battery
criminal enterprise’s operations subjects GSL, et al. to RICO 18 USC 1962(a-d) 3x civil/punitive
monetary liability for deliberate Sixth Amendment violations designed, orchestrated,
encouraged, and facilitated by the USAO to protect the profits, proceeds, and participants
involved in the Hobbs Act loan sharking criminal enterprise described in the U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, and the trial testimony of mob
boss Arie Rabinowitz, Nov. 2007, Tr. 180-248 (04cr1224). Accordingly, GSL and the USAO (SDNY)
have an actual and/or apparent conflict of interest with respect to the USAO representing GSL’s
defense of the actual innocent IAC claims, which authorizes GSL to intervene in the proceedings
and represent its own legal interests adverse to the USAO’s legal interests if GSL intends to
avoid waiver, forfeiture, abandonment, and estoppel doctrines.

Page 8 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 II

A Ethical and Legal Ramifications.

1. Breach of Duty to Provide Competent Representation: GSL’s involvement and potential

inaction in the face of the defaulted IAC claims could be interpreted as a breach of the
fundamental duty to provide competent representation. The American Bar Association's
Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent
representation to their clients, which involves the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness,
and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. The allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel directly contravene this principle, raising concerns over
GSL's adherence to ethical standards.

2. Violations of the Duty of Diligence: Rule 1.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
mandates that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client. The default, waiver, and forfeiture by the Appellee of the defense
of the IAC claims suggest a potential lapse in diligence, implicating GSL in the procedural
and substantive neglect of these claims.

3. Potential for Conflicts of Interest: The situation poses a potential conflict of interest, as
defined by Rule 1.7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which may arise from
GSL's concurrent responsibilities to the legal system, their clients, and their own
professional interests. The firm's decision regarding intervention in the Ware v. USA, et
al., proceedings requires careful consideration of these competing interests to avoid
ethical breaches. (see page 4, n. 4, supra for discussion of the USAO’s and GSL’s actual
and/or apparent conflict of interest apropos the IAC claims’ defenses required to be
defended by the USAO and GSL according to the legal standard in Strickland, Id.).7

4. Equitable and Judicial Estoppel, and Res Judicata: These legal doctrines could
significantly impact GSL's ability to contest the IAC claims in future litigation or
disciplinary proceedings. Equitable and judicial estoppel may prevent GSL from asserting
arguments that contradict earlier positions, omissions, or actions, particularly if their
inaction or omission contributed to the default, waiver, and forfeiture of these defenses.
Similarly, the principles of collateral estoppel or res judicata could bar GSL from re-

7GSL can either (1) petition the Court to intervene to defend the IAC claims, (2) GSL can seek a
conflict of interest proceeding in the District Court (SDNY), 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY), or (3)
GSL can forfeit, waive, and abandon its legal interests and accept liability for fraud, ineffective
assistance of counsel, larceny, aiding, abetting, assisting, and facilitating the continued collection
of RICO criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 (04cr1224 trial exhibits).
However, in either case, the USAO and GSL must defend the IAC claims as mandated by the
Strickland procedural protocol.

Page 9 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 litigating issues that were or could have been raised in the Ware v. USA, et al.,
proceedings, effectively limiting their legal avenues for defense.

B GSL’s Required Mitigation and Future Steps.

In response to these concerns, GSL must/should adopt a proactive and ethically

sound approach.

Mitigating the potential legal and ethical consequences may involve:

1. Conducting a Thorough Review: GSL should undertake a comprehensive review of the

Ware v. USA, et al., proceedings to identify any lapses in representation and the factors
contributing to the default, waiver, and forfeiture of the IAC defenses.

2. Active Participation in the Proceedings: If GSL intends to intervene in the Ware v. USA,
et al., proceedings, it must do so with a commitment to rigorously defend the IAC claims
by the submission of declarations by each individual involved in the representation,
ensuring that all arguments and defenses are thoroughly presented and supported by the
law and facts.

3. Preparation for Potential Disciplinary Actions: GSL should prepare for the possibility and
certainty of District Court (SDNY) L.R. Rule 1.5(b)(5) disciplinary proceedings by gathering
all evidence of their adherence to the NYS Bar Association and the District Court (SDNY)
ethical standards and the measures taken to address any lapses in representation
including submission to the courts the required escrow ledger detailing the expense of
all retainer funds on the legal defense of Mr. Ware in the Criminal Proceedings.8

III

Mr. Garland, in light of these serious and potentially dire financially bankrupting
considerations, we respectfully request a formal written response from GSL regarding your and
GSL’s intentions to intervene in the pending Ware v. USA, et al., proceedings. Specifically, we
seek clarity on how GSL plans to address the defaulted IAC claims and the steps you intend to
take to mitigate the potential legal and ethical consequences arising from these proceedings.

Please consider this letter as a formal request for information and a call to action to
uphold the highest standards of legal ethics and professional responsibility. Your timely and
comprehensive response is not only crucial for the resolution of the Ware v. USA, et al.,

8GSL appeared in the District Court (SDNY) during the Criminal Proceedings as pro hac vice Sixth
Amendment retained counsel which subjected GSL and its Affiliates to the District Court (SDNY)
and NY state ethical rules and lawyers code of conduct.

Page 10 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
proceedings but also essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice
system at large.

Given that time is of the essence regarding this matter, Appellant makes GSL aware that
unless Appellant receives a formal written response to this letter of inquiry via email to
utware007@gmail.com not later than 3:00 PM today, March 5, 2024, time of the essence,
Appellant will notify the Court of Appeals in 23-865/23-869 that GSL does not intend to intervene
in the proceedings, and accordingly, GSL admits and concedes, (A) that it provided ineffective
assistance of counsel, (2) Appellant was prejudiced by the provision of ineffective assistance of
counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment during the Criminal Proceedings, (3) GSL colluded
and conspired with the USAO’s prosecutors [AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman,
Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, and others] and violated
Appellant’s right to the effective assistance of conflict-free legal counsel; and (4) GSL admits and
concedes that it stole under false pretenses, fraud, larceny, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duties,
theft of funds, and misrepresentations Appellant’s enormous legal retainers and legal fees paid
to GSL regarding the Criminal Proceedings.

We look forward to your prompt response today March 5, 2024, by 3:00 PM, time is of
the essence, and we are available to discuss this matter further should you require additional
information or wish to engage in a dialogue regarding the best path forward.

Sincerely,

Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

March 5, 2024

cc: Andre Damian Williams, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
Paula Fredricks, State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel
U.S. District Court (SDNY), Office of the Chief District Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain
U.S. Court of Appeals, Office of the Chief Circuit Judge, the Hon. Debra Ann Livingston
Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Merrick B. Garland via the DOJ’s Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR), Jeffrey R. Ragsdale

Page 11 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.
 End of document

Page 12 of 12
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
Re: (66-6.1) Certificate of No Response, No Opposition, and Stipulation by GSL.