Docket No.

_______________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Ulysses T. Ware, Petitioner-Appellant

v.
United States, et al., Respondent-Appellee
________
Filed on Sunday, December 10, 2023, 6:22:25 PM
Petitioner’s Emergency Rule 22.1 Application to Circuit Justice Hon. Sonia
Sotomayor for Appointment of a Special Master and Other Reliefs, and
Petitioner-Appellant’s Complaint for Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Submitted by:
Ulysses T. Ware (Petitioner-Appellant) (pro se)
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Sunday, December 10, 2023, 6:22:25 PM

Page 1 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
To: Office of the Honorable Circuit Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court of the United
States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Lawyers Disciplinary Committee, U.S. District
Court (SDNY) Lawyer Disciplinary Committee, Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Justice (OIG).1

Re: Fraud on the court, Overt and Malicious Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct Committed by
Current DOJ Lawyers, to wit: Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Jun
Xiang, Melissa Childs, Won Shin, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Merrick B. Garland, Lisa
Monaco, and Vanita Gupta, jointly and severally, (the “DOJ Prosecutors” or “Prosecutors”).2

Signed this 10th day of December 2023 in Brooklyn, NY under oath and subject to the penalty of
perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)

1
The core claims in this petition are in regard to the judicial and prosecutorial embezzlement, 18 USC 2,
371, and 2071(a), (b), with respect to the theft, removal, suppression, concealment, and destruction of
judicial public records owned by the United States federal courts (actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts, the government’s 5k1.1 letters, Jencks
Act debriefings, and associated records, filings, pleadings, transcripts, and Jencks Act materials that
concern the government’s “principal witness” (quoting Kearse, J., Aug. 18, 2009, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr
(2d Cir.) opinion), and other government witnesses).

2
The Prosecutors’ predecessors, (the “Predecessors”), all aided, abetted, enabled, facilitated, deliberately,
intentionally, fraudulently, and willfully violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and their duty of complete candor
to the tribunals, to wit: David N. Kelley, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia, Geoffrey Berman, Audrey Strauss,
Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine
Polk-Failla, Andrew L. Fish, Won Shin, and Steve R. Peikin.

Page 2 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Table of Contents

I The Question Presented for Review. ................................................................................................... 8

(i) Petitioner’s Explanatory Context for the Question for Review. ...................................................... 9
II The requested return date for the requested reliefs. ....................................................................... 11
III Supreme Court Rule 29 Proof of service............................................................................................ 11
1 Opening Statement—Identity and Accountability. ........................................................................... 15
A Procedural posture. ........................................................................................................................ 16
B Reliefs and Remedies sought. ........................................................................................................ 19
C Statement of the case. ................................................................................................................... 23
D Reasons why the Court should appoint a special master to conduct a plenary fraud on the court
investigation and grant other reliefs (referral of this matter to the Director of the FBI with a judicial
request to open a criminal investigation of the Prosecutors and Unindicted Coconspirators). .......... 25
Discussion on Public Policy for Each Reason. ...................................................................................... 25
E Summary of the argument. ............................................................................................................ 27
F Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts. .................................................................................... 29
Fact 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
Fact 1.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Fact 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Fact 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
Fact 4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
Fact 5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Fact 6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Fact 7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
Fact 8 ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
Fact 9 ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
Fact 10 ......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Fact 11 ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Fact 12 ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Fact 13 ......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Fact 14 ......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Page 3 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Fact 15 ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Fact 16—Criminal fabrication, counterfeiting, and trafficking in fraudulent court records. .................. 41
A The DOJ has committed numerous instances of fraud, and criminal prosecutorial misconduct.
43
B There is no certified copy of a person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones” Rule 11 or USSG 5k1.1
perjury contracts in the possession of the District Court (SDNY) custodian of records, David Ng. . 44
C The ongoing dispute and controversy between Appellant and the federal courts turn on the
legal definition and difference between on the one hand Appellant’s “diligence,” and on the other
hand the Courts’ insistence that Appellant is “vexatious.” ............................................................... 45
Fact 17--Deliberate and intentional frauds, frauds on the court by officers of the court, deliberate
misleading statements, and intentional material omissions by the Prosecutors, aided, abetted, and
enabled by the Unindicted Coconspirators with respect to the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s effects on the client (the United States), and other legal authorities. .......................................... 47
2 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Legal Standards—Fraud on the Court, and Civil and
Criminal Contempt of the Brady Court Orders Committed by DOJ’s Prosecutors. .................................. 59
OPR’s Standard of Review ...................................................................................................................... 59
The Essential Elements for a Professional Misconduct Finding ............................................................ 59
Violation of an Obligation or Standard ................................................................................................... 60
Intentional Conduct ................................................................................................................................ 61
Conduct in Reckless Disregard of an Obligation or Standard .................................................................. 61
Conclusions Other than Professional Misconduct .................................................................................. 63
Poor Judgment ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Mistake .................................................................................................................................................... 64
3 DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct. ................................................................................................... 65
4 Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal ............................................................................................... 65
5 Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel. .............................................................................. 67
6 Rule 3.8—Special duty of the prosecutor .......................................................................................... 69
7 Rule 8.4: Misconduct .......................................................................................................................... 71
8 Duty of Complete Candor to the Tribunal—(i) Fed. R. Crim P. 5(f), (ii) USAO’s civil and criminal
contempt of the Brady court orders entered in the sub judice criminal proceedings; and (iii) Nov. 17,
2023, OIP FOIA Order (rev’d EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response in In re Ware, 000907, and remanded
for USAO (SDNY) to search (45,000 records/pages) and disclose Brady materials). ............................... 72
9 Diligence Evidence (Uncovered by Appellant and Private Investigators hired by Appellant post 2019)
Preponderance of the Evidence—Clear and convincing evidence of the Prosecutors, Federal Judges, and
Unindicted Coconspirators’ crimes and frauds. .......................................................................................... 73

Page 4 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 1—The Court of Appeals Mandate (2d Cir.): December 4, 2023, the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
unlawful debt collection activity Moot Order entered in 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) to deny Petitioner-
Appellant access to the embezzled actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, Ex. 2-24, infra. ..... 74
Exhibit 1-2—The District Court’s Order: Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain,
22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY), April 3, 2023, order (Ramos, J.) denying actual innocent habeas corpus
relief—a RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity. .................................................... 75
Exhibit 2—EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response in In re Ware, 000907, admitting the violation of
the Brady Court Orders, and Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals. ... 76
Exhibit 3—November 9, 2023, Office of Information Policy notice of reversal of the EOUSA’s March 20,
2023, refusal to search for Brady records, and remanding to the EOUSA/USAO (SDNY) for the USAO
(SDNY) to process the required search for Brady materials.................................................................... 77
Exhibit 4—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence certification of
unregistered broker-dealers for each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, and violation of federal law 15
USC 78o(a)(1) which annulled and rendered void ab initio the Prosecutors’ 04cr1224 indictment’s
charges. ................................................................................................................................................... 78
Exhibit 5—SEC Brady exculpatory email concealed and suppressed by the Prosecutors as a conspiracy
to obstruct justice, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1519, criminal contempt of the Brady Court Order,
Dkt. 17, 05cr1115, Pauley, J. ................................................................................................................... 79
Exhibit 6—Government witness Jeremy Jones’ CJA lawyer, Marlin G. Kirton, Esq., letter to the district
court (Pauley, J.) confirming that Jones did receive a USSG 5k1.1 letter from the Prosecutors for his
known perjured trial testimony in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). ........................................................ 80
Exhibit 7—EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, continued refusal to conduct the OPI’s ordered Brady search of the
USAO (SDNY) records—a deliberate and intentional resistance to the Brady Court Orders, and
violations of Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals. ............................. 81
Exhibit 8—GX-24, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) the government’s trial exhibit, which is a binding
judicial admission and affirmative defense, that each 02cv2219 plaintiffs was a 15 USC 78p(b)
statutory insider/affiliate of the issuer, GPMT, and therefore legally ineligible for Rule 144 exemption
to Section 5 registration requirements. .................................................................................................. 82
Exhibit 8—GX 24 (con’t). ......................................................................................................................... 83
Exhibit 9—Former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell’s suppressed, concealed, and hidden emails with the
SEC which proved the USAO, and the SEC were in collusion and conspired to fabricate trial evidence
used in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115. Why were Norris and Southwell talking at all during 2004 other than
for collusion and conspiracy purposes. Cf., Ex. 15, infra. ........................................................................ 84
Exhibit 10—Zitter’s Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the 02cv2219
lawsuit—annulled and vitiated the government’s trial evidence entered in 04cr1224 (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX
7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34). ................................................................................................................... 85

Page 5 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 11—July 14, 2023, unsigned SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) bootleg grand jury complaint which
pleaded the United States out of the federal court in ¶33: the SEC’s litigation position on behalf of the
United States was the INZS and SVSY press releases had no effect on the stocks’ prices. ..................... 86
Exhibit 12—Gov-I, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670 (XAP), cross-appeal final judgment entered in the USAO’s
voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Gov-I—terminated the Court of Appeals appellate jurisdiction
over 05cr1115, and terminated the United States as an adverse real party in interest in 05cr1115
which rendered 05cr1115 moot. ............................................................................................................ 87
Exhibit 13—Brady Exculpatory SEC internal email suppressed and concealed by Prosecutors. The
SEC’s lawyers agreed that the USAO’s Prosecutors, the SEC’s lawyers, and the District Judge (Kent J.
Dawson) all were in collusion and were conspiring in the 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg
Grand Jury proceeding to illegal gather inadmissible evidence for use in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). .......................................................................................... 88
Exhibit 14—AUSA Melissa Childs’ entry of appearance in 05cr1115 and 04cr1224............................... 89
Exhibit 14-1—AUSA Melissa Child’s 2021 bogus, fraudulent, and manifestly frivolous motion to collect
the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) null and void ab initio criminal usury debt, GX 1-4, a deliberate and
intentional violation of Rule 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals. ............. 90
Exhibit 15—Sept. 1, 2004, Hobbs Act attempted armed robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and RICO 18
USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debt collection crimes committed by the SEC, the USAO, the
Prosecutors, Leonard B. Sand, and the District Courts (SDNY and NDGA) in furtherance of loan
sharking and money laundering. See Ex. 9, supra. ................................................................................. 91
Exhibit 16—USAG’s Nov. 7, 2008, Article II appellate prosecutorial political decision that voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice the government’s Gov-I cross-appeal, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.)
and triggered res judicata and the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause with respect to the
government’s “fraud on the market” trial theory. .................................................................................. 92
Exhibit 17—U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr moot appeal: the underlying 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by government witness
Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., see Ex. 10, supra, which annulled and voided all trial evidence and testimony
related to GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 which rendered the 2010 09-0851 appeal moot
for lack of Article III and appellate jurisdiction. ...................................................................................... 93
Exhibit 18—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115, Tr. 31 L 18-25, Oct. 2007, post-trial Rule 29 proceedings Pauley, J.,
market inefficiency ruling—accepted Appellant’s arguments and ruled against the government, ruled
the government’s trial proof was insufficient on “efficiency of the market” and ordered a “Fatico
[evidentiary] hearing.” ............................................................................................................................ 94
Exhibit 19—GX 5, ¶10.1(iv) taken from the 02cv2219 complaint pleaded by the Prosecutors in the
04cr1224 indictment at ¶¶8-12—an actual innocent Article II affirmative defense which David N.
Kelley and Alexander H. Southwell (see Ex. 9, supra) risibly pleaded the United States out of court. GX
5 is a RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debt collection conspiracy contract, see Adar
Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) and U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d
conviction, sentence, and +$3.5B RICO forfeiture judgment for unlawful debt collection activities). ... 95

Page 6 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 20—U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) fraudulent jury charge Tr. 889 L 2-11: re Deliberate and
intentional fraudulent and criminal jury charge by District Judge Robert W. Sweet with the Consent of
the Prosecutors to criminally violate Appellant’s Due Process Clause and Sixth Amendment rights to be
convicted by a jury in a jury trial on all elements of the government’s burden of proof. ...................... 96
Exhibit 21—Soloman Obstfeld former mob boss of LH Financial Services, NYC loan sharking, and
money laundering criminal enterprise.................................................................................................... 97
Exhibit 21-1—con’t Ari Rabinowitz (gov’t witness/informant) re Alleged coconspirator in the murder
for hire of former LH Financial Services mob boss Soloman Obstfeld, the boss of the Hobbs Act RICO
loan sharking CCE. The Prosecutors knowingly called Rabinowitz as a gov’t witness in 04cr1224, and
permitted Rabinowitz to knowingly commit perjury and give false and misleading testimony regarding
the Alpha Capital, AG’s criminal usury loan sharking promissory notes GX 1-4, GX 5, and other matters.
................................................................................................................................................................ 98
Exhibit 21-2—Jewish media’s reporting on Soloman Obstfeld’s alleged murder for hire, the former
mob boss of loan sharking and money laundering criminal enterprise LH Financial Services. ............. 99
Exhibit 21-3—NY senator Charles Ellis Schumer re: the alleged “Godfather” of the NYC Jewish murder
for hire, loan sharking, and money laundering mafia continuing criminal enterprise, LH Financial
Services (LHFS). For a shares in the ill-gotten gains, Schumer appoints the judges and prosecutors who
then provide political protection for the profits, proceeds, and participants involved in the operations
of LHFS, including murder and kidnapping. See Ex. 1, Ex. 8, Ex. 9, Ex. 15, Ex. 17, Ex. 19, and Ex. 20,
supra. .................................................................................................................................................... 100
Exhibit 22—District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick’s fabricated and counterfeit U.S. v. Ware 05cr1115
(SDNY) dockets to suppress and conceal official proceedings from Appellant and the public regarding
gov’t witness Jeremy Jones’ government sponsored bribery and perjury. .......................................... 101
Exhibit 22-1—June 5, 2023, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) alleged docket, cf., Ex. 22 supra. ............. 102
Exhibit 23—McMahon, J., Hagenau, C.J., and the Prosecutors’ collusion, acted in concert, and
conspiracy to deny Appellant access to the courts using bogus and frivolous leave to file orders. ..... 103
Exhibit 24-1—Brady court order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.)—ordered the
Prosecutors “prior to start of trial” to disclose all Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act materials; the
Prosecutors have resisted and violated this command continuously since May 2006, cf., Ex. 2, Ex. 3,
and Ex. 7, supra, the EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, FOIA response. .............................................................. 104
Exhibit 24-2—Brady court order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007, Sweet, J.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 105
Exhibit 24-2 (con’t) ................................................................................................................................ 106
Exhibit 25—Ware v. United States, 10-6449 (S. Ct.) docket. ............................................................... 107
Exhibit 25-1—Supreme Court of the United States Docket, In re Ware, 13-8604 re Pet’n for writ of
habeas corpus....................................................................................................................................... 108
End of document....................................................................................................................................... 109

Page 7 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
I The Question Presented for Review.

(1) In light of the Petitioner-Appellant's demonstrated diligence, relentlessness, and

industriousness in uncovering significant actual innocent exculpatory evidence

previously concealed, embezzled, and suppressed by DOJ Prosecutors, as outlined in

Exhibits 2-24, infra, and further evidenced by the Respondent-Appellee's failure to

search or inventory 45,000 pages of materials (referenced in Exhibit 7, EOUSA’s Nov.

17, 2023, FOIA response), does the lower courts' mischaracterization of the Petitioner

as "vexatious"—acted in bad faith for relentlessly pursuing and obtaining such

evidence—and the subsequent denial of the Petitioner's 2241 actual innocent habeas

corpus claims on this basis (a “pattern of vexatious litigation”) constitute an error of

law, a fraud on the court, and the Orwellian deliberate and intentional misapplication

of the well-settled Brady doctrine as applied to actual innocent, miscarriage of justice

habeas corpus proceedings as interpreted by the McQuiggen v. Perkins and Schlup v.

Delo decisions issued by this Court, and

(2) constitutes an infringement of the Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights to

a fair trial, especially given the absence of any reasoned explanation or justification for

this ruling by the lower courts in the context of the well-settled precedents and

principles of Brady jurisprudence?

Page 8 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 (i) Petitioner’s Explanatory Context for the Question for Review.

The Petitioner-Appellant contends and admits (1) on the one hand, it is a fact that he has

been exceedingly relentless, “diligent,” and industrious and has with much expense, pain, and

suffering, and irreparable harm, discovered and obtained much of the previously embezzled,

suppressed, and concealed Brady, Jencks Act, and other embezzled court records, see Ex. 2-24,

infra, notwithstanding the 45,000 pages of materials currently in the possession of Respondent-

Appellee that have not been searched or inventoried, see Ex. 7 (EOUSA’ Nov. 17, 2023, In re

Ware, 000907/000390 FOIA response); on the other hand, (2) the courts contends that Petitioner

is and has been “vexatious”—acted in bad faith, by diligently and relentlessly pursuing,

discovering, and ultimately obtaining the suppressed, concealed, embezzled, and hidden actual

innocent Brady exculpatory evidence concealed and suppressed by the DOJ Prosecutors’ and

courts’ conspiracy,3 i.e., in contrary to the well-settled, hornbook law, and a plethora of this

Court’s Brady doctrine decisions the district court and the court of appeals pursuant to an

extremely risible and skewed interpretation of the Brady doctrine boldly assert and adamantly

contend Petitioner has no due process right to the undisclosed actual innocent Brady exculpatory

evidence which if present at trial Petitioner would not have been convicted, cf., Ex. 1, Dec. 4,

2023, Court of Appeals Mandate’s ruling was made without any explanation or other reasoning—

3
See 18 USC 2071(a), (b) violations by the Prosecutors, the federal judges, and others who aided, abetted,
and facilitated the embezzlement of judicial court records.

Page 9 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
an ad hoc merits-based ruling that Petitioner’s 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus claims and

proceedings were “denied” for engaging in a ”pattern of vexatious litigation.” (emphasis added).4

It cannot be questioned or denied, see Ex. 2-24, infra, that Petitioner’s diligence and

relentlessness paid off and he has uncovered and found some5 of the smoking gun, actual

innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, the only remaining question, for the purpose of

accountability, is whose fingerprints are on the smoking gun actual innocent Brady exculpatory

evidence—that is, who is directly and/or indirectly responsible for the embezzlement,

suppression, and concealment of the actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, Ex. Id., infra?

That is what this Petition is about. Identity and accountability—the identities of the criminals

whose fingerprints are on the smoking gun are revealed in this Petition. Only accountability

4
Note that no details or specifics of the vague and nebulous (dubious) alleged “pattern” were given by the
court of appeals in its mandate. Ex. 1, infra; nor the legal standard applied to the stipulated factual record
to make the “vexatious” ruling on the merits regarding the actual innocent claims presented to the court
of appeals and the district court. A merit-based “vexatious” ruling required the court of appeals to either
accept or reject Petitioner’s sworn statement of facts presented in the district court; however, the
Respondent-Appellee, the United States, did not appear in the district court and did not oppose
Petitioner’s statement of facts; therefore, the factual record is stipulated as true as presented to the court
of appeals, the district court—judicial and equitable estoppel, and throughout all subsequent
proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, given the Stipulated Factual Record before the court of
appeals, the court erred, ipso facto, as a matter of law—that is, the court of appeals lacked any rational
legal basis, support, or reasoning for an ad hoc “vexatious” merits ruling given the binding Stipulated
Factual Record of the parties.

5
See Ex. 7, infra, the DOJ’s Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) confirmed and admitted on Nov.
17, 2023, that +45,000 pages of materials in Respondent’s (USAO (SDNY) possession have never been
searched or inventoried, and demanded that Petitioner pay Respondent $520 to conduct the required
Brady court-ordered search for Brady materials as commanded in the Brady court orders, see Ex. 24, infra.
Cf., In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, Merrick B., J.) (rev’d the district court, ordered
the government to conduct a search of its files for Brady material, disclose to the defendant all material
found, and remanded to the district court to conduct a Brady materiality assessment regarding all Brady
materials found in the court-ordered search).

Page 10 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
remains to be investigated, clarified, and assigned by the appointment of the Special Master to

conduct fraud on the court6 and the associated evidentiary proceedings.

II The requested return date for the requested reliefs.

Petitioner is respectfully requesting the Hon. Circuit Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, grant and

return the writ not later than Friday, December 15, 2023, because Petitioner is currently and will

continue to suffer irreparable harm, and crimes are currently and will continue to be committed

by the respondent and its agents unless the requested reliefs are granted.

III Supreme Court Rule 29 Proof of service.

I Ulysses T. Ware, Petitioner-Appellant, certify under oath subject to the penalty of perjury

that I have this 10th day of December 2023, served the Office of the Solicitor General, the lower

courts, and interested parties via email with a copy of this Emergency Application for the

Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct, to wit:

1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pro se office as Appx. 62-1,

6
See A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 500-01 (2d Cir. 1952) the Court relied on its Universal Oil Products
decision and upon motion by the Solicitor General of the United States which alleged the possibility of
fraud on the court was committed by Dick (plaintiff) the Court of Appeals noted, “In response to the
Solicitor General's memorandum the Supreme Court on November 12, 1946, 329 U.S. 680, 67 S.Ct. 188,
91 L.Ed. 599, handed down a per curiam opinion granting the petition for writ of certiorari, vacating the
judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanding the cause to this court for consideration of the
question raised by the Solicitor General in his memorandum as amicus curiae, i.e., "whether respondent's
prosecution of the instant case may not constitute a fraud upon the courts." (emphasis added).

Page 11 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 2. The U.S. District Court (SDNY): Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain and District Judge

Edgardo Ramos,

3. The Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY): Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel Gitner,

Margaret M. Garnett, Jun Xiang, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Melissa Childs, Merrick

B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, and Vanita Gupta,

4. The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), Jeffrey R. Ragsdale,

5. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Wendy L. Hagenau,

6. The Office of the General Counsel, the State Bar of Georgia, Paula Fredrick,

7. The Atlanta, GA law firms of Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C.; Manibur S. Arora; Kilpatrick,

Townsend, & Stockton, LLP; and J. Henry Walker, IV, (CEO),

8. Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.,

9. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was served on December 10, 2023, via the OSG’s

email account: [email protected], and

10. The Office of the DOJ’s Inspector General Was served via email.

Signed under oath on December 10, 2023, in Brooklyn, NY

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Petitioner-Appellant) (pro se)

Page 12 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
Sunday, December 10, 2023
TO:
Via U.S. mail:
Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Circuit Justice
The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor
Lawyers Disciplinary Committee

Via email: [email protected]

U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Chief Circuit Judge,
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Thurgood Marshal U.S. Courthouse
Ste 3266 40 Foley Sq.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 NY, NY 10007

Office of the Inspector General United States District Court (SDNY)

Asst. Insp. General For Investigations Office of the Chief District Judge
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Lawyers Disciplinary Committee
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 500 Pearl St., NY, NY 10007

Via email: Andre Damian Williams, Jr.: [email protected]

Office of the United States Attorney
For the Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007

7
AUSAs Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Daniel Gitner, Jun Xiang, Melissa Childs, and Margaret M.
Garnett were served with a copy of this Rule 22.1 Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special
Master and Complaint for Criminal Prosecutorial Misconducts via their DOJ email accounts.

Page 13 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Re: (1) Emergency Rule 22.1 Application pursuant to (1) the Court’s Article III supervisory
authority over the federal courts, and/or (2) the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651(a), for the
appointment of a Special Master to investigate the Prosecutors, officers of the court, for fraud on
the court; and (2) Complaint for Criminal Prosecutorial Misconducts—the violations of the
Court’s and the DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete
candor to the tribunals regarding: (1) Urgent Compliance with Brady Obligations and Addressing
Potential Contempt Concerns in Ware v United States, et al., Nos. 23-865 and 23-869; (2)
proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (3) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY); (4) Alpha
Capital, AG, et al. Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY); (5) SEC v. Small Cap
Research, et al., 03-0831 (D. NV); (6) In re Ware, (State Bar of Georgia) (2008); and (7) In re Group
Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA).

Sincerely,

Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant) (pro se)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
December 10, 2023
Brooklyn, NY

Page 14 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
1 Opening Statement—Identity and Accountability.

This Court is confronted with a significant and profound legal challenge of substantial and

important constitutional significance—the overwhelming, clear and convincing evidentiary

supported claims of: suppression, concealment, destruction of judicial court records, bribery of

federal judges, fabrication of criminal indictments, testimony, and evidence by federal

prosecutors of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), officers of the court, (the “Prosecutors”),

revolving around Petitioner-Appellant Ulysses T. Ware's criminal proceedings. Grounded in the

fundamental principles of fairness and due process, this Petition-Memorandum supports

Petitioner’s (Mr. Ware's) habeas corpus petition, underpinned by newly and recently discovered

critical actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence (see Ex. 2-24, infra), deliberately, intentionally,

and wrongfully concealed by the Prosecutors aided and abetted by federal judges during his 2007

trials. The revelation of this newly discovered actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, post

Petitioner’s (Mr. Ware's) May 24, 2019, release from federal custody, not only critically questions

and challenges the integrity and veracity of his convictions but also strikes at the heart of the

judicial system's commitment to justice.

The present Petition seeking appointment of a special master is predicated on a glaring

fundamental miscarriage of justice — the DOJ’s deliberate and intentional non-disclosure,

suppression, and concealment of actual innocence Brady exculpatory evidence pivotal and

material to Petitioner’s (Mr. Ware's) trial defense and the resultant infringement of his

constitutional rights. By addressing this oversight, the Petition seeks not only to correct an

Page 15 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
egregious individual wrong but to uphold the sanctity of legal processes that define our system

of justice. It stands as a testament to the belief that justice, once derailed, must be resolutely

pursued and restored.

In this context, the Petition-Application aims to demonstrate how the recent (2020-23)

discovery of the undisclosed, suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory

evidence (see Ex. 2-24, infra), uncovered through extraordinary diligence, relentlessness, and

industriousness by Petitioner, despite the unconstitutional and illegal impediments erected by

the Prosecutors and the lower courts (via entry of numerous leave to file orders), necessitates a

thorough and comprehensive re-examination of Petitioner’s (Mr. Ware's) convictions; notably, the

Respondent, the United States, appeared in the district court below however, it forfeited any

affirmative defenses and did not raise or file any opposition to the requested actual innocent

habeas corpus reliefs. It underscores the Petition's urgency as a means to rectify the profound

injustice and fundamental miscarriage of justice inflicted upon Petitioner-Appellant and to

reaffirm the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional rights and liberties.

A Procedural posture.

Having the unopposed, binding, Stipulated Factual Record of the parties before it on

December 4, 2023,8 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an unlawful

8
See Ex. 1, infra, on December 4, 2023, and Ex. 1-1, infra, on December 12, 2022, see Dkt. 126 (Ramos, J.)
(22cv3409) (SDNY) (unlawful order converting Appellant’s 2241 petition to a moot 2255 motion) the
Courts knew that Appellant was then on Dec. 4, 2023, and Dec. 12, 2022, not a federal “prisoner” in federal
custody under a federal extant sentence of the 04cr1224 or 05cr1115 courts; and therefore, as a matter
of law not within the scope of the AEDPA requirement that Appellant be a federal “prisoner.” Therefore,

Page 16 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
and moot purported order, (the “Moot Order”), see Ex. 1, infra. The Moot Order did not list the

required circuit judges’ names, cf., 28 USC 46, who allegedly reviewed the merits of the moot

AEDPA 28 USC 2253 “prisoner”9 proceedings in their personal and individual capacities,10 a

violation of 28 USC 46(c).11

The Moot Order was entered in the clear absence of all Article III, appellate, AEDPA, and

28 USC 2253/2255 subject matter jurisdiction12 over the district court’s (Ramos, J.), manifestly

as a matter of law Dkt. 126 (order) and the Dec. 4, 2023, Mandate entered in 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) are
null and void ab initio for the lack of appellate and subject matter jurisdiction.
9
“The AEDPA also created formidable barriers for prisoners seeking relief, nearly all of whom do so without
a lawyer. Habeas corpus often comes down to getting around numerous procedural bars and rarely do the
courts address prisoners’ claims on the merits, as scholars have pointed out. The procedural obstacles are
an easy way for prosecutors to make quick work of a habeas petition, no matter the importance of the
constitutional problem raised.”
10
The circuit judges who allegedly reviewed the merits of the moot 2253 proceeding, acted in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction—that is, the Court of Appeals is not lawfully authorized, have appellate
jurisdiction over the 23-865/23-869 appeals, to conduct AEDPA 2255/2253 proceedings unless the
Appellant is a “prisoner,” which he is not.
11
28 USC 46(c): [Only] [c]ases and controversies shall be heard and determined by a court or panel of not
more than three judges (except that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may sit in
panels of more than three judges if its rules so provide), unless a hearing or rehearing before the court in
banc is ordered by a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in regular active service. A court
in banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service, or such number of judges as may be
prescribed in accordance with section 6 of Public Law 95–486 (92 Stat. 1633), except that any senior circuit
judge of the circuit shall be eligible (1) to participate, at his election and upon designation and assignment
pursuant to section 294(c) of this title and the rules of the circuit, as a member of an in banc court
reviewing a decision of a panel of which such judge was a member, or (2) to continue to participate in the
decision of a case or controversy that was heard or reheard by the court in banc at a time when such judge
was in regular active service.
12
Appellant is not and was not a “prisoner” in “custody” under an extant “federal sentence” on Dec. 12,
2022, the date the district court (Ramos, J.) entered Dkt. 126 (22cv3409) purporting to convert Appellant’s
actual innocent 2241 habeas corpus petition to the moot 2255 motion; and Appellant was not a federal
prisoner on Dec. 4, 2023, the entry date of the Court of Appeals moot mandate entered in 23-865 and 23-
869 within the lawful scope and jurisdiction of the AEDPA.

Page 17 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
frivolous and moot purported 2255 proceedings (22cv3409 and 22cv10566), cf., Ex. 1-1, infra, the

court from which the record came to the Court of Appeals13 on review.14 The Moot Order

purported to deny (a merits determination requiring appellate and subject matter jurisdiction

over the cause) Appellant’s AEDPA moot 2253 “prisoner’s” leave to file a moot certificate of

appealability.15 An Article III “case or controversy” was not presented to the Court (1) given

13
See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95 (the federal appeals courts before reaching the merits on review are
required to confirm their jurisdiction, and then the jurisdiction ”of the court [22cv3409 and 22cv10566
(SDNY)] from which the record comes to the court on appeal [23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.)]. If jurisdiction is
lacking in either court the reviewing court of appeals is not authorized, can proceed no further, announce
that jurisdiction is lacking, and must dismiss [not deny the merits of the claims, cf., Dec. 4, 2023, Mandate,
Ex. 1, infra] the cause”). (emphasis added).
14
On Dec. 12, 2022, Dkt. 126, 22cv3409 (SDNY) the district court (Ramos, J.) in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction, acted in his personal capacity, as an overt act in furtherance of LH Financial Services RICO 18
USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection Hobbs Act loan sharking, money laundering, armed robbery,
extortion, and corruption criminal enterprise (see 02cv2219 and 04cr1224), purported to convert
Appellant’s actual innocent 28 USC 2241 habeas corpus petition to the moot 2255 motion: Ramos and the
Prosecutors all knew on Dec. 12, 2022, Appellant was not (i) a federal prisoner, (ii) then in federal custody,
(iii) under a federal sentence imposed by the 04cr1224 or 05cr1115 federal courts, and (iv) seeking to have
the expired by operation of law moot sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected. See 28 USC 2255(a)(1).

Judge Ramos aided, abetted, and enabled by the Prosecutors knew and know, (i) the district court (SDNY)
lacked 2255 subject matter jurisdiction, and (ii) the Prosecutors to date have knowingly, willfully, and
intentionally in reckless disregard for the law, 28 USC 2255 and 2253, and clear unambiguous legal
standards failed to inform the tribunals the proceedings (22cv3409/22-cv10566 and 23-865/23-869) are
objectively moot.
15
Palpably, a court of appeals is not lawfully authorized—has no appellate or subject matter jurisdiction,
to adjudicate the merits of the moot AEDPA 2253(c)(1)(B) leave to file a moot certificate of appealability
given the government, the United States Attorney (SDNY), under a Brady disclosure order, appeared but
did not file an opposition to Appellant’s declaration of material facts which supported the 2253 petition;
nor did the government, the plaintiff below, (i) file any alleged certified copy of any extant federal
sentence Appellant was in custody under on Dec. 12, 2022 nor (ii) file a declaration asserting the district
court (SDNY), Ramos, J., AEDPA 28 USC 2255 jurisdiction over the moot sub judice 2255 Criminal
Proceedings—that is, the Court of Appeals is not authorized to reject jurisdictional factual issues which
can only be adjudicated in an adversarial evidentiary hearing proceeding in the district court, in the first
instance, between the Article III real parties in interest, adverse on all elements of the government’s trial
burden of proof. The Prosecutors objectively know, given the undisputed record, the government is not a

Page 18 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Appellant was not a federal prisoner in custody under a federal sentence on December 12, 2022,

(2) given no extant federal sentence existed on December 12, 2022, in the district court, and (3)

given no extant federal sentence existed on December 4, 2023, Appellant is currently not a federal

prisoner as of May 23, 2019, as required by AEDPA, 28 USC 2255(a), and 28 USC 2253(c)(1)(B).16

B Reliefs and Remedies sought.

1. Appellant respectfully contends and asserts that given the stipulated factual record

presented to the district court (SDNY) and the Court of Appeals, (the ”Stipulated Factual

Record”), the Stipulated Factual Record factually confirmed that Appellant is actually and

factually innocent of all charges in the null and void ab initio indictments.17 Accordingly,

Petitioner-Appellant is respectfully petitioning and requesting that the Honorable

viable Article III adverse real party in interest with respect to the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 moot proceedings.

16
Per the AEDPA jurisdictional requirements an absolute jurisdictional requirement for a lawful 28 USC
2255(a) proceeding requires the existence of a lawful, extant federal sentence (prisoner status) at the time
the 2255 proceedings are initiated or commenced—that is, the petitioner must be a “prisoner” then in
“custody under sentence” of a federal court. The appeal of the lawful 2255 proceeding, 2253, is a
“prisoner’s” appeal of his current custody imposed under a federal sentence. The lack of an extant federal
sentence in the 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY) and 23-865/23-869 proceedings rendered the 2255/2253
proceedings unlawful and moot as a matter of law.

17
See (1) Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY), and (2) In re Ware, 13-8604
(S. Ct), original petition for writ of 28 USC 2241 habeas corpus petition’s actual innocent claims based on
the Prosecutors’ and the Unindicted Coconspirators’ previously suppressed and concealed newly
discovered actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence diligently rather than
“vexatious[ly]” discovered by Appellant after release from federal prison in 2019; and it likely that
additional Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence will be uncovered once the USAO the 45,000
page of unsearched records in its possession are competently and thoroughly searched as required by the
DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP), see Ex. 3, infra, and pursuant to court order, but have not been
properly searched and inventoried, see Ex. 7, infra (EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, FOIA response).

Page 19 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Supreme Court of the United States (i) exercise its Article III supervisory authority over the

federal courts, and/or (ii) pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651(a),18 and (iii) to

remedy and prevent another fundamental miscarriage of justice caused by a fraud on this

Court, and the courts below,19 in the interest in justice, public accountability, to maintain

public credibility in the courts, and to remedy and prevent a fraud from being committed

on the Courts by Department of Justice Prosecutors, financially compromised Article III

federal judges, and unindicted coconspirators undertake the following justice

administrative actions, respectfully:

18
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. The
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ware v. United States, 10-6449 (2010) (petition for writ of certiorari)
(denied). Without the Prosecutors’ Brady exculpatory evidence fraud on the court, it is highly likely the
Court would have granted the petition for the writ of certiorari, reversed the court of appeals judgment,
and remanded with a mandate to conduct evidentiary hearings regarding the claims of prosecutorial and
judicial misconduct—that is, the bribery of federal judges (see Ex. 5, infra) William H. Pauley, III, Robert
W. Sweet, Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J.
Dawson, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Andrew J. Peck, Coleman Ray Mullins, Wendy L. Hagenau,
Colleen McMahon, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, LeShan DeArcy-Hall, Orinda D. Evans, Debra Ann
Livingston, and Michael H. Dolinger.

19
The Court, in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1944) created the legal
standard necessary to establish a fraud on the court claim. The Court held that, “only the most egregious
misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in
which an attorney [the DOJ’s Prosecutors named herein] is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the
court.” (emphasis added).

In order to adequately plead a fraud on the court claim, a plaintiff must allege “a scheme [i.e., a
conspiracy arranged, facilitated, coordinated, and orchestrated by the DOJ’s Prosecutors named herein,
and others, to conceal, suppress, and remove judicial court records involving the government’s
“principal witness” Jeremy Jones from access by Petitioner and the court, and violate and resist Brady
court orders requiring the disclosure of the Jeremy Jones’ court records] by which the integrity of the
judicial process had been fraudulently subverted” and must involve far more than an injury to a single
litigant.

Page 20 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 2. Not later than Friday, December 15, 2023, recall the mandates issued in (1) Ware v. United

States, 10-6449 (2010) (see Ex. 25, infra); and (2) In re Ulysses T. Ware, No. 13-8604,

Petition for writ of habeas corpus, (rehrg. denied May 5, 2014 (see Ex. 25-1, infra));20

3. Enter a preliminary injunction, restraining order, that prohibits and restrains the lower

courts, the Prosecutors, the Unindicted Coconspirators, their agents, and all those in

active concert therewith,21 from undertaking any activities which could be characterized

as RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity vis-a-vis Respondent’s U.S. v.

Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial exhibits GX 1-4, and GX 5—that criminal usury convertible

promissory notes which violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a

class E felony;

4. Grant and issue the writ to appoint the Special Master;

5. appoint an independent special master, (the “Special Master”),22 having all Article III

investigative processes and authorized to subpoena and compel witness testimony,

20
But for the Prosecutors’ and the lower courts’ fraud on the court and criminal prosecutorial and judicial
misconduct regarding the suppressed and concealed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence, this Court likely would have granted the writ for habeas corpus given the materiality and
exculpatory character of the newly discovered actual innocent Brady evidence, Ex. 2-24, infra.
21
Cf., Ex. 4, Ex. 8, Ex. 10, Ex. 14, Ex. 15, Ex. 19, Ex. 21-1, Ex. 21-2, Ex. 21-3, and Ex. 23 for RICO 18 USC
1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection crimes committed by the Prosecutors, the lower courts, and the
Unindicted Coconspirators.
22
The Court in the past has authorized the appointment of a Special Master where credible allegations of
fraud on the court had been committed by officers of the court on the Court, see Universal Oil Products
Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 578-79 (1946) (“A master was appointed, and he conducted an
extensive investigation. He examined records in the possession of the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, the records of proceedings before a Philadelphia grand jury, bank records,
and various statements of interested parties. From this mass of material, he selected those documents
which he deemed appropriate for submission to the inspection of the amici and of counsel for Universal.

Page 21 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 compel document production, and any other discovery process required to complete the

Master’s mandate—that is, to conduct a thorough, comprehensive, and complete

adversarial investigation in the proceedings in the district courts (SDNY, NDGA), D. NV)),

courts of appeals (2d Cir., 9th Cir., and 11th Cir.), the Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court (03-

93031, Chapter 11), the State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia (in re Ulysses

T. Ware, Esq., 2008 disbarment proceedings), and other matters relevant and pertaining

to the Prosecutors’ misconducts;23

6. remand the 10-6449 (S. Ct.) proceedings to the Court of Appeals with a mandate for the

Court of Appeals to remand U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) to the District Court (SDNY);

7. direct the Special Master to forthwith not later than December 19, 2023, enter an order,

serve all interested parties, and convene a status conference of the interested parties in

the District Court (SDNY) not later than December 27, 2023, and set and enter a

preliminary scheduling order for the conduct of the fraud on the court investigation into

(i) the identity, (ii) responsibility, (iii) culpability, and (iv) accountability of all persons,

entities, or those in active concert, collusion, or who conspired with the Prosecutors who

directly and/or indirectly aided, abetted, assisted, facilitated, or enabled any person or

entity to suppress, conceal, remove, destroy, hide, or delay the search, disclosure, or

Witnesses were also heard, and petitioner was given the right to cross-examine ….”), (emphasis added);
also see A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 500-01 (2d Cir. 1952) (per curiam order entered by the Court,
cited Universal Oil Prod. Decision and remanded to the Court of Appeals for investigation of fraud on the
court allegations raised by the Solicitor General of the United States).

23
In particular, the matter regarding the alleged Sept. 2006 Jeremy Jones’ purported Rule 11 proceedings,
and all associated missing and unaccounted for judicial court records.

Page 22 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 production of actual innocent Brady exculpatory or impeachment materials, Jencks Act

materials, Rule 16, and/or Giglio materials; or assisted and/or enabled the Prosecutors to

violate Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals.

8. Pursuant to the ABA’s, DOJ’s, the District Court (SDNY), and the Court of Appeals Rules of

Professional Conduct for Lawyers, (the “Ethic Rules”), Appellant files this Complaint of

Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct, (the “Criminal Complaint”), regarding the

Prosecutors’ professional misconduct and violations of Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of

candor to the tribunals with respect to the proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)

and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and respectfully request (A) that the DOJ’s Office of

Professional Responsibility (OPR) and (B) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

immediately open investigations of the Prosecutors’ crimes and numerous instances of

egregious and criminal prosecutorial misconduct regarding the claims and allegations

presented herein for the knowing, willful, reckless and callous violation of Rules 3.3, 3.4,

3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals, (the “Rules”).

C Statement of the case.

This case, embodying a dire fundamental miscarriage of justice, is presented to this

Honorable Court with grave constitutional urgency. Petitioner-Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, in his

pursuit of justice, confronts a flagrant violation of his constitutional rights stemming from the

prosecutorial suppression and deliberate concealment of actual innocent Brady exculpatory

evidence during his 2007 trials.

Page 23 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 On March 21, 2022, Mr. Ware filed a 28 USC 2241 habeas corpus petition in the Eastern

District of New York (EDNY), docketed as No. 22cv1531, supported by newly discovered actual

innocent Brady exculpatory evidence indicating actual innocence, unearthed post his 2019

release from prison. The District Court (EDNY) transferred the petition to the Southern District of

New York (SDNY), where it was assigned docket No. 22cv3409 and came under the purview of

District Judge Edgardo Ramos.24

The legal implications of this case are profound. Ware's federal custodian sentence under

U.S. v. Ware (04cr1224 SDNY and 05cr1115 SDNY) concluded in May 2019. By the time of filing

the Habeas Petition, Ware was not considered a federal prisoner under any existing sentence,

falling within the scope of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Despite the

conclusion of his sentence, Ware's liberty remained unjustly restrained by special conditions

imposed by the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY), barring him from entering the U.S. Courthouse

(SDNY), an ongoing collateral consequence of his prior convictions.

At the heart of this petition is the revelation of "newly discovered actual innocent Brady

exculpatory evidence." This evidence, constitutionally mandated to be disclosed to the defense,

24
District Judge Ramos was named in the sworn statement of facts attached to the habeas petition and
knew he was an interested party to the proceedings named in his individual capacity as an unindicted
coconspirator, and as a hostile, adverse, material fact witness who would be subpoenaed and compelled
to give testimony and present documents at an evidentiary hearing; and he was therefore required to have
recused himself. He did not, and on Dec. 12, 2022, Dkt. 126, (22cv3409), while suffering under an actual
conflict of interest, and in violation of 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1-5) Judge Ramos violated due process of law,
egregiously erred as a matter of law, and converted the 2241 habeas corpus petition to a moot 28 USC
2255 motion, and declared the 2255 motion to be “untimely,” and denied all relief. Judge Ramos should
be compelled to explain his judicial conduct through the lens of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges,
Canons 1, 2, and 3.

Page 24 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
was intentionally concealed during Ware's 2007 trial, suggesting a deliberate fraud on the court

by the prosecution and a severe breach of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This suppression directly infringed upon Ware's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, raising

serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process.

Ware's habeas corpus petition is not merely a procedural formality but represents a

necessary and urgent legal response to prosecutorial misconduct and the profound injustice

inflicted upon him. It challenges the deliberate and wrongful actions of the prosecution, seeking

to restore the balance of fairness and justice that Ware was denied.

D Reasons why the Court should appoint a special master to conduct a plenary fraud
on the court investigation and grant other reliefs (referral of this matter to the Director of
the FBI with a judicial request to open a criminal investigation of the Prosecutors and
Unindicted Coconspirators).

Discussion on Public Policy for Each Reason.

1. Integrity of the Judicial Process: Public policy demands an unassailable judicial system.

The appointment of a special master in cases of suspected judicial wrongdoing, like

Petitioner's, is not just a remedial measure but a reaffirmation of the judiciary's

commitment to self-regulation. This action serves as a public declaration that the judiciary

holds itself to the highest standards of integrity and is prepared to act decisively to rectify

any breach.

Page 25 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 2. Due Process Violation: The constitutional implications of due process violations are

profound. The special master’s role in uncovering the extent of such violations directly

affects public perception of fairness in the justice system. An unchecked due process

violation could set a precedent that undermines the fundamental principles of justice and

equality before the law.

3. Preservation of Public Trust: The judiciary's legitimacy in the eyes of the public hinges on

its ability to address internal failures. A refusal to thoroughly investigate allegations of

prosecutorial misconduct could be perceived as institutional complacency, eroding public

trust in the legal system.

4. Complexity of Alleged Misconduct: The intricate nature of prosecutorial misconduct

requires a nuanced approach that a special master is uniquely positioned to provide. Their

expertise ensures a thorough and informed investigation, reinforcing the judiciary's

commitment to addressing complex legal challenges.

5. Accountability of Prosecutorial Actions: Public policy and judicial reasoning both dictate

that prosecutorial misconduct must be met with stringent scrutiny. The judiciary's role in

maintaining ethical standards in legal proceedings is paramount, and the appointment of

a special master serves to uphold these standards.

6. Fair Trial Right: The right to a fair trial is a constitutional cornerstone. The special master's

investigation is critical in safeguarding this right, ensuring that any infringement is

Page 26 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 thoroughly examined and addressed. Failure to do so could undermine one of the most

fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

7. Discovery of Truth: The quest for truth is a fundamental judicial responsibility. The special

master plays a vital role in this quest, especially in complex cases where the truth is

obscured by procedural or ethical missteps. Their investigation is key to uncovering facts

necessary for delivering justice.

8. Precedent Setting: The judiciary's response to allegations of misconduct sets a precedent

for future cases. The appointment of a special master reaffirms the Court's commitment

to thorough and impartial adjudication, essential for maintaining the rule of law.

9. Restoration of Ware’s Rights: From a public policy perspective, the restoration of an

individual's rights following judicial error is essential for maintaining confidence in the

justice system. The special master's investigation could lead to the restoration of Ware's

rights, demonstrating the judiciary's commitment to rectifying wrongs.

10. FBI Referral: Referring the matter to the FBI for investigation sends a strong message that

the legal system is not immune to scrutiny and that legal professionals are held

accountable for their actions. This is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that

justice is administered fairly and without bias.

E Summary of the argument.

Page 27 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 This case, transcending mere procedural formalities, confronts this Honorable Court with

an urgent and substantial constitutional dilemma. Petitioner-Appellant Ulysses T. Ware, wronged

by the criminal justice system, endures ongoing, irreparable harm due to a grave miscarriage of

justice. His convictions in 2007, now called into question by newly unearthed Brady exculpatory

evidence, see Ex. 1-24, infra, represent a stark infringement of his fundamental rights.

Post his 2019 release, Mr. Ware’s (Petitioner’s) diligent discovery of evidence previously

deliberately and intentionally embezzled, suppressed, and concealed by the DOJ’s prosecutors

that was crucial to his defense, illuminates a clear violation of the Brady doctrine and his

constitutional right to a fair trial. This oversight not only undermines the integrity of Petitioner's

conviction but also signifies a distressing breach of the judiciary's duty to uphold justice and due

process.

With each passing day, Petitioner suffers continued irreparable harm, underscoring the

urgency for this Court’s intervention. The essence of this petition is not solely the rectification of

an individual legal wrong, “tampering with the judicial machinery,” but an emphatic call to

reinforce the pillars of justice upon which our legal system is founded.

This Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of justice, is implored to rectify this egregious

fundamental miscarriage of justice and to restore Petitioner’s and the public’s faith in the judicial

system. The case demands a swift and thorough examination of the newly disclosed evidence, a

necessary step to affirm the principles of fairness and justice that are the bedrock of our

constitutional order.

Page 28 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
F Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts.

I Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant, hereby this 10th day of December 2023, in Brooklyn, NY, under
oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28
USC 1746, hereby make this Declaration in support of the Rule 22.1 Emergency Application and
charges of Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct—that is, the criminal violation of (1) the District
Court (SDNY) Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers, and (2) the DOJ Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals, joint (the “Rules of
Ethics” or “Rules”) against the DOJ Prosecutors, and state the following facts.25

Fact 1

Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant in 23-865 and 23-869, on December 4, 2023, and December

12, 2022, is not and was not, respectively, a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of

Prisons, or under an extant federal sentence imposed by the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) or

U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) sub judice criminal proceedings, (the “Criminal Proceedings”).26

Fact 1.1

The United States, Respondent-Appellee, was served with the habeas petition and

appeared in the Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus

25
Incorporated by reference all pleadings and Appx 1 thru 61-9 filed in 23-865/23-869.

26
As a matter of law because Appellant is not and was not a federal prisoner, or in the physical custody of
the BOP on Dec. 12, 2022, and on Dec. 4, 2023, in custody under an extant federal sentence, the AEDPA’s
28 USC 2255 and 2253 are not applicable and the proceedings in the lower courts are moot.

Page 29 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
proceedings in the District Court (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) via U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian

Williams, Jr. and AUSA Jun Xiang, see Dkt. 31, United States entry of appearance (05/02/22): (A)

Respondent rather than filing an opposition to Petitioner’s facts and actual innocent claims,

Respondent knowingly and voluntarily as its litigation strategy (i) defaulted, forfeited, and

abandoned any affirmative defense, (ii) refused to file any counter facts, (iii) refused to deny the

claims, and (iv) refused to file any opposition to the requested reliefs—that is, Respondent

accepted Petitioner’s facts as its own facts, conceded the issues, and did nothing to oppose the

actual innocent claims, i.e., the stipulated factual record, (the “Stipulated Factual Record”); and

(B) The Stipulated Factual Record is judicial and equitable estoppel against the Respondent—

which cannot be opposed or challenged by Respondents, and is binding on all courts and

Respondent in all subsequent proceedings between the parties including this Rule 22.1

emergency application.

Fact 2

The Courts, and the Prosecutors on December 12, 2022, (the entry of Dkt. 126, order

(Ramos, J.), 22cv3409 district court (SDNY) and on December 4, 2023, Ex. 1, court of appeals

mandate, in reckless disregard for the law, the facts, and the Constitution all know Appellant is

not a federal prisoner, and all know Appellant was not in federal custody, under a federal

sentence, and was not a federal prisoner on December 12, 2022, or December 4, 2023 for the

purpose of the AEDPA. The Prosecutors recklessly and intentionally failed to inform and advise

Page 30 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
the court of the lack of AEDPA jurisdiction and therefore they egregiously violated Rules 3.3, 3.4,

8.4, and their duty of complete candor to the tribunals a fraud on the court.27

Fact 3

28 USC 46(b), (c) requires a quorum (at least two) of Article III federal circuit judges to

conduct the business of the Court and adjudicate the merits of “cases and controversies”

presented to the Court. Section 46(b) limits and restricts the lawful jurisdiction of the Court to

“cases or controversies.” The Moot Order was not signed and no indication at least two Article III

circuit judges, a quorum, was presented and reviewed the merits of the moot 2253 proceedings.

Accordingly, the Moot Order is null and void ab initio and without legal effect or validity.

Fact 4

The Court has not and did not make any factual finding that Appellant is currently, as of

December 4, 2023, or was on December 12, 2022, during the alleged district court’s moot 2255

proceedings (22cv3409/22cv10566) a federal prisoner in custody under an extant federal

sentence imposed by the 04cr1224 or 05cr1115 district courts. Appellant’s custodial federal

sentence terminated and expired by operation of law on May 23, 2019, upon release from the

27
AUSAs Hagan Scotten and Danielle Sassoon are currently assigned to the 23-865/23-869 appeals, and
both are in willful civil and criminal contempt, willful resistance, of the Brady Court Orders entered in the
sub judice Criminal Proceedings. Both have personally, willfully, and intentionally failed to notify and
inform the Court and the client (the United States) the 2255 and 2253 proceedings are moot.

Page 31 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Bureau of Prisons (BOP); and with that, the AEDPA’s 28 USC 2255/2253 subject matter jurisdiction

was terminated in the federal courts.

Fact 5

During the 22cv3409/22cv10566 alleged district court’s (SDNY) moot 2255 proceedings,

a continuation of the underlying criminal proceedings—that is, the district court’s 2255 subject

matter jurisdiction is dependent on the jurisdiction of the original criminal proceeding, the

government, Appellee, appeared via AUSA Jun Xiang, however, AUSA Xiang, a federal prosecutor

subject to the Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunals, as an overt act, a

deliberate and intentional omission, (i) did not file into the record the required certified copy of

any extant federal sentence then in effect under which Appellant was then required to be in

federal custody and (ii) did not affirmatively confirm the district court’s 2255 subject matter

jurisdiction which AUSA Jun Xiang was either (i) ignorant of the law, or (ii) deliberately and

intentionally deceived the tribunals and falsely and fraudulently made it appear the government

had standing to appear in the moot 2255 proceedings, and the district court had jurisdiction over

the moot 2255 proceedings.

Fact 6

As of December 4, 2023, see Ex. 1, infra, the Appellee, the plaintiff in the district court’s

04cr1224 and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings, having the burden of production and persuasion

to affirmatively establish (i) its Article III and 28 USC 547(1) standing, and (ii) the district court’s

Page 32 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction had yet to affirmatively establish the client’s (the United

States, the real party in interest) Article III and Section 547(1) standing to have procured the

indictment in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)—that is, it is not a 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt

“offense” for Appellant, a securities lawyer, to not criminally violate 15 USC 77d, 77e, 77x, 78ff,

and Rule 144 and not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

plaintiffs, (1) 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters (see 04cr1224 indictment’s ¶¶8-12, actual

innocent Article II affirmative defenses pleaded on the face of the indictment); (2) Id., 78p(b)

statutory insiders/affiliates, see GX 24, Ex. 8, infra, (August 13, 2003, order, Sand, J., 02cv2219),

and (3) unregistered broker-dealers (see Ex. 4, infra) to collect a RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal

usury, unlawful debt, see GX 1-4, and GX 5 (04cr1224),28 and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the

criminal usury law, a class E felony, and aid, abet, facilitate, and enable the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

plaintiffs to criminally circumvent 15 USC 77e strict-liability registration requirements, and

conduct a criminal unregistered public offering of the securities of Group Management Corp.,

(GPMT), a publicly-traded company.29

28
On March 15, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d
379 (2d Cir. 2022), binding circuit precedent on the Prosecutors and the lower courts, which held that
convertible promissory notes which contained the criminal floating price conversion option (FPCO), which
charged more than 2x the lawful rate of interest (i) violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal
usury law, a class E felony; (ii) were null and void ab initio; (iii) unenforceable; and (iv) constituted a RICO
18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt, cf., with government 04cr1224 trial exhibits GX 1-4, and GX 5—
convertible promissory notes which contained the criminal FPCO which charged GPMT “200%” interest on
the $1.1M criminal usury, unlawful debt loan—that is, ipso facto a criminal usury, null and void Hobbs Act,
RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) extortion, unlawful debt.

29
Cf., SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) (“Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters [the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
lawsuit’s plaintiffs, conceded by the government in his 04cr1224 indictment, see para. 8-12] required to
register all distribution of securities [with the SEC prior to offer or sale].”). (emphasis added).

Page 33 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Fact 7

Beginning in or about November 2002, continuing to the present, December 4, 2023,

without interruption, and beyond, in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), and elsewhere,

the Prosecutors, their predecessors, and others known and unknown,30 (the “Unindicted

Coconspirators”), having an insatiable avariciousness and deadly lust for power and position

knowingly, willfully, deliberately, recklessly, and intentionally agreed, confederated, colluded,

conspired, racketeered, and organized themselves into an illegal association in fact as defined in

18 USC 1961(4), a continuing criminal enterprise, (the “CCE”); and by and through the means and

methods of interstate commerce, and the mails and wires of the United States, the CCE having

violent and notorious criminal objectives did commit two or more violations of 18 USC 1961(1),

RICO predicate offenses; and the Prosecutors knowingly and willfully agreed, colluded, and

conspired and did personally participant in or aided, abetted, or facilitated the commission of two

or more RICO predicate offenses described in Section 1961(1); and the Prosecutors and the

Unindicted Coconspirators colluded, conspired, agreed and did commit numerous and multiple

RICO predicate acts, or overt acts in furtherance of the RICO predicate acts, and/or provide

30
Including but limited to, jointly and severally: Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Edgardo Ramos, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Jose A. Cabranes, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau, Kent J. Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris,
Marlon G. Kirton, Edward T.M. Garland, Donald F. Samuel, Manibur S. Arora, David B. Levitt, Gary G. Becker,
Michael F. Bachner, Jeremy Jones, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, Kelley Quinn, Maria
A. Font, David Makol, Spencer C. Barasch, Steven R. Peikin, Joan E. McKown, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce
Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Patricia Sinback, M. Regina Thomas, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry
Walker, IV, John A. Horn, David Mulcahy, Michael Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. McCarthy, Colleen Tyler, Leonard
A. Churn, Vanessa G. Beckett, Bridgett Hallman, Andrea R. Johnson, M.D., Stephen Webster, John C. Martin,
William Smith-Grieg, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, Joseph Hammer, William H.
Pauley, III, Leonard B. Sand, Robert W. Sweet, Robert A. Katzmann, Peter W. Hall, Rosemary S. Pooler, the
State Bar of Georgia’s employees, and others known and unknown.

Page 34 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
protection to the participants, or knowingly participated in the business and operations of the

CCE; and the Prosecutors and the Unindicted Coconspirators knowingly agreed and have aided,

abetted, assisted, and/or facilitated and have committed Hobbs Act murder for hire; or have

knowingly committed two or more RICO overt acts in furtherance of the Section 1961(1) predicate

offenses, mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, Hobbs Act murder for hire,

extortion, hate crimes, obstruction of justice, kidnapping, armed robbery, perjury, payment of

kickbacks, illegal gratuities, loan shaking, bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud,

bankruptcy fraud conspiracy (see In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), GPMT’s

Chapter 11), bribery of federal judges and trial witnesses, conspiracy to commit securities fraud,

conspiracy to commit unlawful debt collection activities, racketeering, civil rights violations, and

other crimes of violence and terroristic crimes using the offices of the United States Attorney

(SDNY) and the federal and state courts and agencies.

Fact 8
The Prosecutors and the Unindicted Coconspirator aided, abetted, directly and/or

indirectly participated in, or conspired with others who committed the crimes or overt act and

violated and breached the requirements of Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor

to the tribunals regarding:

A. Knowingly and willfully obstructed justice, committed perjury, fabricated and

falsified judicial court records, stole, removed, altered, modified, and destroyed

judicial court records in violation of 18 USC 2071(a), (b);

Page 35 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 B. knowingly and willfully aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated LH Financial

Services, mob boss Ari Rabinowitz, master forger Konrad Ackermann, convicted

felon Edward M. Grushko, criminal Kenneth A. Zitter, and other vicious and violent

criminals to steal and extort GPMT and “a good few hundred” (quoting Rabinowitz,

Tr. 202-06, Nov. 2007, 04cr1224 trial, under cross-examination by Appellant)31

small publicly-traded companies through the use of the RICO criminal usury,

unlawful debt instrument, the floating price conversion option (FPCO) convertible

promissory notes, (the “Loan Sharking Notes”), be extort by Ari Rabinowitz, Alpha

Capital, AG (Anstalt), Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind

Capital Management LLP;

C. knowingly and willfully aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated the execution and

cover-up of the vicious mafia-style execution and murder of Soloman Obstfeld,

Jeffrey Epstein, and others; aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated murder for

hire Hobbs Act RICO loan sharking, money laundering, extortion, armed robbery,

kidnapping, and criminal usury criminal enterprise’s operations to assist [Charles

Ellis Schumer, LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Loeb & Loeb, LLP;

Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP; Grushko & Mittman, P.C.; Ladenberg &

Thalmann, LLC] steal billions of dollars in ill-gotten criminal profits and proceedings

derived from loan sharking money laundering conspiracy, bribery, extortion, RICO

31
A preponderance of clear and convincing factual evidence which the Prosecutors have never denied in
any sworn court filing.

Page 36 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activities, and other Hobbs Act crimes

of violence.

Fact 9

The current ring leaders, organizers, and overseers of the CCE’s operations and continuing

RICO crimes are DOJ prosecutors Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Hagan Scotten, and Danielle

Sassoon, all alleged former Supreme Court clerks.

Fact 10

The Prosecutors have continuously violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete

candor to the tribunals by their individual and collective cover-up of the indisputable fact

Appellant was authorized by law, 28 USC 2241, to file an actual innocent habeas corpus petition,

Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY), and challenge his convictions based on newly discovered

actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence knowingly suppressed and

concealed by the Prosecutors and the Unindicted Coconspirator;32 evidence within the “15 boxes”

32
See Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, infra. Ex. 4, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence deliberately and intentionally
concealed and suppressed by the Prosecutors confirmed each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff was an
unregistered broker-dealer and therefore lacked Article III standing to attempt to collect and enforce the
null and void ab initio government’s 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial exhibits GX 1-4, and GX 5—that is, the RICO 18
USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debts, see the binding circuit precedent in the 2022 Adar Bays
decision, 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) and U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020).

Page 37 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
of not inventoried and unsearched materials currently in the actual possession of Damian

Williams, Hagan Scotten, and Danielle Sassoon, and others.33

Fact 11

It is an indisputable fact, supported by the preponderance of the evidence, see Ex. 2, Ex.

3, and Ex. 7, infra, clear and convincing evidence, in 2022 Appellant filed a FOIA request, In re

Ware, 000907, that sought access to suppressed and concealed Brady materials in the possession

of the USAO (SDNY) Prosecutors and their agents, the Unindicted Coconspirators, regarding the

U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings. Brady materials required to have

been produced and disclosed “prior to trial” pursuant to the Brady Court Orders’ written

commands—that is, (1) a known ethical duty and constitutional requirement of the Prosecutors;

(2) egregious and intentional violations of Rules 3.3., 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor

the tribunals; and (3) civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), of the Brady Court

Orders.

Fact 12

It is a fact, see Ex. 2, the DOJ’s EOUSA filed a response to Appellant’s FOIA request, In re

Ware, 000907, on March 20, 2023, which admitted and conceded the USAO (SDNY) Prosecutors

33
See Ex. 2, and Ex. 7, infra, the March 20, 2023, EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 FOIA, and Nov. 17, 2023,
EOUSA’s FOIA, respectively, continued refusal to conduct the OIP’s remanded ordered Brady search which
explicitly by necessary implication admitted and conceded Damian Williams did in fact have potential
Brady materials in his personal possession, and implicitly admitted to and conceded the Prosecutors’
deliberate and intentional violations of Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the
tribunals.

Page 38 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
led by Damian Williams, et al., an officer of the court, having a duty of complete candor to the

tribunals, did in fact have in his personal possession more than “15 boxes” of materials which had

never been properly searched and inventoried which might contain Brady exculpatory and

impeachment evidence relevant to the 04cr1224 and/or 05cr1115 criminal proceedings.

Fact 13

The USAO (SDNY) and the EOUSA refused to complete the required Brady search see Ex.

2, without first payment of $520 from Appellant, cf., In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir.

1999) (Garland, J.) (rev’d the district court, remanded, and ordered the government to conduct a

search, without costs to the defendant, for all Brady materials, disclose to the defendant the Brady

materials, and for the district court to conduct a Brady materiality assessment of the found Brady

materials).

Fact 14

It is a fact supported by the preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence,

that Appellant appealed the EOUSA’s and the USAO (SDNY)’s unconstitutional extortion ($520

prepayment) request for payment to the government to conduct a court-ordered Brady search;

and on November 9, 2023, see Ex. 3, infra, the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) agreed

with Appellant, reversed the EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, unconstitutional and illegal demand for

payment to conduct a court-ordered constitutional Brady search, and remanded the matter back

to the EOUSA/USAO (SDNY) to conduct the court-ordered Brady search.

Page 39 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Fact 15
It is a fact supported by the preponderance of clear and convincing evidence, see Ex. 3

and Ex. 7, infra,

(1) the USAO (SDNY), Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon, and Hagan Scotten, being the

ringleaders, and the Prosecutors currently have in their actual possession more than 45,000 pages

of materials that might be actual innocent Brady exculpatory or impeachment evidence relevant

to the sub judice Criminal Proceedings;

(2) and the USAO, under court order since 2007 to search for, disclose, and produce “all”

Brady materials “prior to trial” has yet again adamantly refused to conduct a complete court-

ordered Brady search, see Ex. 7, and yet again, a pattern, had demanded (extortion), illegal and

unconstitutional, that Appellant pay the government $520 to conduct the court-ordered Brady

search for exculpatory and impeachment materials—that is, egregious, reckless, deliberate,

intentional, callous, and criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders; and violations of Rules 3.3,

3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the tribunal. See Ex. 7, infra. It is not a mistake, that

Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon, and Hagan Scotten, former Supreme Court clerks, have

criminally violated and willfully resisted the written command of the Brady Court Orders.34

34
Damian Williams has a history, and is a repeat and serial offender, regarding compliance with the Brady
doctrine’s requirements, and he (Damian Williams) has been called out by several district judges (SDNY)
regarding his unconstitutional and unethical practices.

Page 40 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Fact 16—Criminal fabrication, counterfeiting, and trafficking in fraudulent
court records.35

It is a fact supported by the law (cf., Haller and Alcantara, infra) and clear and convincing

evidence, see Ex. 3, Ex. 6, Ex. 7, and Ex. 22, infra, the Prosecutors deliberately, intentionally, and

recklessly violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and their duty of complete candor to the tribunals,

criminally enabled and facilitated by former District Judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased),

District Judges Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, and Circuit Judges Jose A. Cabranes, Robert

D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Barbara S. Jones (retired), and Peter W. Hall (deceased), and knowingly

fabricated and produced counterfeit, fake dockets, see Ex. 22, infra, and the Prosecutors have

refused (callously and recklessly omitted) to inform and advise the tribunals of the facts—that is,

the Prosecutors’ criminal prosecutorial misconduct fraudulently suppressed, concealed, and

removed from public inspection and scrutiny all official records, if there are any, of the alleged

Sept 2006 manufactured Rule 11 proceedings of the government’s “principal witness” (quoting

Kearse, J. in the 2009 moot, void ab initio 07-5222 (2d Cir.) opinion in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115

35
As an analogy, imagine a huge NYC skyscraper built on top of the foundation comprised of the below
facts and circumstances—the building is on the verge of total collapse and devastating consequences and
destruction to all those who aided, abetted, assisted, and facilitated the design, construction, inspection,
zoning, security, and signed off on the building’s fraudulent foundation and construction techniques—the
fabricated court proceedings and court records, and authorized the building’s construction while knowing
the foundation and construction techniques were flawed and used defective building materials.

Page 41 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
(SDNY)) a person without any official or credible proof36 was and is claimed to be “Jeremy

Jones”37 by the Prosecutors.38

36
If “Jeremy Jones,” a co-defendant in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment, rather than a paid
government imposter, actually entered a Rule 11 plea in Sept. 2006, in open court regarding the 05cr1115
superseding indictment, the Rule 11 proceedings would be included on the 05cr1115 docket, see Ex. 22,
infra. No Rule 11 plea proceeding appears on the 2009 docket, and has never appeared on the 05cr1115
docket. Therefore, ipso facto, (i) on the one hand either Jeremy Jones did not actually appear in the federal
court and enter a Rule 11 plea in Sept. 2006 as claimed by the Prosecutors and the courts, or (ii) on the
other hand the Prosecutors and the Unindicted Coconspirators bribed someone other than “Jeremy
Jones” had that government informant appear to be “Jeremy Jones” and fraudulently appeared in the
federal court, lied, and committed perjury as an overt act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to
fraudulently convict Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., as a Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime to appear in a United
States federal court lie, commit perjury, and fabricate official court records to have it appear that “Jeremy
Jones” pleaded guilty to a fake, fabricated, and manufactured conspiracy to enable the Prosecutors (AUSAs
Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, et al.) to
during trial in 05cr1115 invoke the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule, FRE Rule 801(d)(2)(E);
and have Jeremy Jones knowingly commit perjury during the 05cr1115 trial, testify to a false and perjured
narrative prepared in advance by the Prosecutors; and knowingly give perjured, and fabricated testimony
regarding the nonexistent, fake, and fabricated alleged conspiracy, cf., Ex. 5 (A suppressed and concealed
actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment internal SEC email forwarded to Jeremy Jones
explaining why Jones was not added to the SEC-DOJ’s Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) illegal and
unconstitutional Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings: the SEC’s lawyers in 2003 did not believe Jones or any
of the gov’t 05cr1115 trial witnesses were knowingly involved in a conspiracy with Appellant, Ulysses T.
Ware, Esq.).
37
As of today, December 7, 2023, there are no publicly available official court records in any court in the
SDNY or U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) that officially confirmed that a person actually identified to be
“Jeremy Jones” did, in fact, entered into (1) a binding and lawful Rule 11 perjury plea and (2) a USSG 5k1.1
perjury cooperation contract with the Prosecutors in Sept. 2006—that is, District Judge William H. Pauley,
III (deceased), the Prosecutors, Ruby Krajick, and Circuit Judges Sack, Kearse, and Hall (deceased)
knowingly, deliberately, and recklessly manufactured, altered, modified, and fabricated a counterfeit trial
record, a counterfeit appeal record, and court transcripts, (the “Court Records”), in violation of 18 USC 2,
201(b), 241, 242, 371, 1346, 1512, 1519, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b), and 42
USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3), to fraudulently have it appear that a person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones”
entered into a fabricated Rule 11 plea to a fake and manufactured conspiracy to enable the Prosecutors
to knowingly use at trial and on appeal perjured, fabricated, and manufactured hearsay evidence during
the 05cr1115 trial as the perjured, fabricated, and counterfeit basis to convict Appellant of a faked and
manufactured conspiracy. See Ex. 6, infra, there is no record in any court file of the alleged government’s
“5k letter” received by Jones for his known perjured testimony referenced by Jones’ CJA lawyer, Marlon
G. Kirton, Esq. No such official court record exists. Obviously, if the court records existed there would be
copies in the court’s record department, the Prosecutors would have copies, the district court (Ramos, J.),
and the Court of Appeals (Kearse, Sack, and Hall) would also have copies subject to the subpoena power

Page 42 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
A The DOJ has committed numerous instances of fraud, and criminal prosecutorial
misconduct.

Does one think for one second that if the Prosecutors, the USAG Merrick B. Garland, and

the Courts actually possessed an authentic certified copy of the actual alleged Sept. 2006 alleged

Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 lawful and binding perjury contracts actually entered into by the real

“Jeremy Jones”(cf., Ex. 22-1, infra)—whose identity can be certified and authenticated, knowingly,

willingly, entered into with the effective assistance of competent, singularly focused, and

and subject to the public’s First Amendment right of access, see U.S. v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 86 (2d Cir.
1988) (Rule 11 plea and cooperation documents are subject to the public’s First Amendment’s right of
access to judicial court records); also see U.S. v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 194-96 (2d Cir. 2005) (The Court
of Appeals reversed the district court and held that there is a qualified First Amendment right of access
to [Jeremy Jones’] Rule 11 plea and sentencing proceedings, and that the district court violated this right
by conducting important criminal proceedings in the robing room rather than in the open courtroom. The
court also held that the district court abused its discretion by sealing the transcript of the robing room
proceedings without making specific findings on the record to justify the closure). (emphasis added).
38
Palpably, if in fact the person the courts (Edgardo Ramos, J.) and the Prosecutors (Merrick B. Garland, et
al.) claimed to be “Jeremy Jones” is in fact actually the person named Jeremy Jones, then the courts
(Edgardo Ramos, J.) and Prosecutors (Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, et al.) will have
official records of the verified identity of the alleged person available for public inspection for authenticity
and veracity contained in the “more than 15 boxes” (45,000 pages), cf., Ex. 2, Ex. 3, and Ex. 7, infra—
perhaps this is why the District Judge Edgardo Ramos, the USAO, and Damian Williams have adamantly
refused to conduct the court-ordered search of the “more than [45,000 pages]”--which the OIP ordered
the USAO (SDNY) to search in the reversal and remand order, see Ex. 3, and Ex. 7, infra. Obviously, without
certified proof of official identity of an alleged government grand jury or trial witness all testimony of
the alleged person is not admissible or credible and is required to be stricken from the record.

The identity of the person(s) who allegedly appeared in a United States federal court (SDNY) in Sept. 2006
and purportedly entered into an official Rule 11 plea and USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contracts with the
United States, a public official judicial proceeding, and the identities of the persons involved in, or who
aided, abetted, assisted, enabled, facilitated, or obstructed the discovery of the scam regarding the
alleged Sept. 2006 scams are required to be immediately disclosed, and each is required to be
investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment. See 18 USC 2, 157, 241,
242, 371, 1512, 1519, 1951, 1958, and 2071(a), (b).

Page 43 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
unconflicted Sixth Amendment counsel, that Jones actually voluntarily entered into a fake,

fabricated, and bogus Rule 11 plea of guilty to a conspiracy which Jones had previously testified

under oath before the SEC, see Ex 5, infra, he “was not aware of any conspiracy” and ”would not

have participated in had he been aware,”—Jones’ alleged CJA counsel, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.,

was bribed (paid unearned CJA fees) by District Judge William H. Pauley, III who enticed Kirton to

pressure, bully, and coerced Jones to participant in the DOJ conspiracy, they (the Prosecutors and

the courts) would not have come forth since 2006 and produce the certified copy just to shut

Ware’s mouth and make him look stupid? Yes. The Prosecutors would have already come forth

with the proof if they had it.

The only documents the courts have produced have been frivolous leave to file orders,

see Nov. 5, 2010 order (Kearse, Sack, Hall) (2d Cir.); also see Oct. 24, 2022, In re Group

Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, Dkt. 256 (Hagenau, C.J.) (leave to file

order); also see three days later in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Oct. 27, 2022, Dkt. 137, show cause leave

to file order (McMahon, J.). See Ex. 23, infra.

B There is no certified copy of a person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones” Rule 11 or USSG 5k1.1
perjury contracts in the possession of the District Court (SDNY) custodian of records, David Ng.

You can be sure that if the Prosecutors and the Courts had possession of the certified

copy of the Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006 purported Rule 11 proceeding and could with

certainty authenticate and certify Jones’ identity we would not be having this current proceeding

concerning the present episode of Volume 50 of the ongoing Orwellian dystopian judicial

Page 44 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
mythology:39 The Saga of the Vexatious Litigant—Chapter 100, cf., with Orwell’s 1984 newspeak

doctrine— in Oceania diligent means “vexatious”40,cf., Appellant’s newly discovered, previously

concealed and suppressed material exculpatory evidence, diligently [or “vexatiously”] secured

and uncovered by Appellant despite the Courts’ and the Prosecutors’ 28 USC 2255(f)(2)

impediments, see Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4, Ex. 5, Ex. 7, Ex. 8, Ex. 10 (in Oceania the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

lawsuit was not dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 20, 2007, Dt. 90; Judges Sand, Sweet, Pauley,

Hall, Katzmann, and Pooler are not deceased, they’re just asleep), Ex. 13, Ex. 17, (the 07-5670

cross-appeal was not voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on Nov. 7, 2008, it was just suspended

for 100 years), etc., I think you get the point. Orwellian Oceania newspeak—tomorrow is

yesterday: December 4, 2023, (the entry date of the Court of Appeals Mandate) was in Oceania

time, July 4, 1492!

C The ongoing dispute and controversy between Appellant and the federal courts turn on the
legal definition and difference between on the one hand Appellant’s “diligence,” and on the other
hand the Courts’ insistence that Appellant is “vexatious.”

Thus, the pertinent inquiry which must be resolved is: Is a litigant, Appellant, (i) “diligent”

or (ii) “vexatious” if he presses his 28 USC 2241 actual innocent legal rights and claims based on

39
In this depiction, courts and prosecutors actively conspired to obstruct justice, betrayed their traditional
roles and corrupted the foundational principles of the legal system.
40
The thesaurus provides the following meanings for “vexatious”: afflicting, aggravating, annoying,
burdensome, irksome, irritating, mean, nagging, pesky, provoking, teasing, tormenting, troublesome,
troublous, trying, ugly, unpleasant, upsetting, wicked, worrisome, and worrying;
cf, to the meanings of “diligent”: assiduous, sedulous, marked by care and persistent effort,
hardworking, industrious, tireless, untiring: characterized by hard work and perseverance.

Page 45 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
the habeas corpus law (actual and factual innocent—miscarriage of justice standard) and clear

and convincing newly discovered factual predicate evidence (see Ex. 1-23, infra) which was

deliberately and intentionally suppressed and concealed by the Courts and the Prosecutors, i.e.,

illegal and unconstitutional impediments? Cf., 28 USC 2255(f)(2). The law says Appellant shall

prevail as a diligent litigant in pursuing this legal rights pursuant to the Supreme Court’s the

miscarriage of justice jurisprudence., see McQuiggen v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) and Schlup

v. Delo, 513 U.S. 398 (1995) which overcomes all procedural bars41 and authorizes the district

court to reach the merits of the actual innocent claims.

At bottom, the test of whether or not Ware, Appellant, was “diligent” or “vexatious” turns

on whether or not Petitioner’s (Ware’s) diligence (relentlessness) yielded Brady exculpatory and

impeachment fruit? Yes. A bountiful harvest was produced as a direct result of the extraordinary

diligence shown by Appellant to such an extent, see Ex. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 18, 22, and 23 (the

“Diligence Brady Exculpatory Evidence”), that the Prosecutors are prohibited from appearing in

any court and challenging the Diligence Brady Exculpatory Evidence, and moreover, the Courts

lack Article III, AEDPA, and appellate jurisdiction over the moot proceedings.42

41
The Court of Appeals on Nov. 5, 2010, imposed an unconstitutional procedural bar, a frivolous leave to
file order, designed to intentionally and deliberately inhibit, delay, obstruct, and in general prevent
Appellant access to the court to review erroneous decisions of the district courts (SDNY).

42
Given the adverse final judgment, see Ex. 12, (the Gov-I final judgment) and orders, (see Ex. 8, GX 24)
entered against the client, the United States, the United States is no longer a viable Article III adverse, real
party in interest apropos the sub judice Criminal Proceedings; and therefore, lacks standing to appear and
oppose any requested relief.

Page 46 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 It appears that the Courts are vindictive, angry, furious, and upset that Ware, Appellant,

found the Diligence Evidence which the Prosecutors in concert with the courts attempted so

relentlessly (diligently) to conceal and suppress by their 28 USC 2255(f)(2) illegal and

unconstitutional impediments, in particular the criminally illegal Nov. 5, 2010, leave to file order

(Kearse, Sack, Hall) entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.)—that is, deliberately, intentionally,

and recklessly entered with a depraved and evil mind to conceal and suppress their and the

Prosecutors’ crimes committed in the Criminal Proceedings in furtherance of the RICO loan

sharking, money laundering, attempted armed robbery (see Ex. 15, infra), bribery, perjury,

unlawful debt collection, murder for hire (see Ex. 21, infra), extortion, conspiracy, racketeering,

obstruction of justice, and other Hobbs Act 18 USC 1961(1) predicate offenses. That is the jest of

the matter. To be “diligent, or to be “vexatious” is the question. Violent and dangerous criminals

are running the federal courts and prosecutor’s office in New York!

Fact 17--Deliberate and intentional frauds, frauds on the court by officers

of the court, deliberate misleading statements, and intentional material
omissions by the Prosecutors, aided, abetted, and enabled by the
Unindicted Coconspirators with respect to the absolute finality of the
Double Jeopardy Clause’s effects on the client (the United States), and
other legal authorities.

The deliberate and intentional criminal prosecutorial misconduct detailed above satisfies

and meets the legal standard, “essential elements,” for the OPR to find the Prosecutors willfully,

Page 47 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
deliberately, and intentionally violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and their duty of complete candor

to the tribunal;

The OPR is authorized by the preponderance of the clear and convincing evidence in the

herein record, and within the 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) records to find that the Prosecutors all have

intentionally and deliberately failed to inform the client (the United States) and the federal and

state courts and agencies the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal

proceedings:

1. are null and void ab initio,

2. the proceedings have been abrogated and vitiated by subsequent binding circuit

authority in Adar Bays, Grote, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), FINRA’s May 17,

2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219 plaintiff;43

3. the district court (Ramos, J.) lacked lawful 2255 subject matter jurisdiction on Dec.

12, 2022, to have converted Appellant’s 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus

petition to the moot 225 proceedings (22cv3409 and 22cv10566);

4. the Court of Appeals on December 4, 2023, when it entered its purported mandate

in 23-865/23-869 lacked an extant federal sentence—that is, lacked any record

evidence provided by the Prosecutors, or any finding by the district court that

Appellant (i) is currently a federal prisoner; (ii) that Appellant was a federal

43
See Ex. 4, infra—ipso facto unregistered broker-dealers, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs lack Article III
standing to appear in a federal court to seek the enforcement of null and void ab initio criminal usury
convertible promissory note contracts, GX 1-4, and GX 5 (04cr1224).

Page 48 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 prisoner and in federal custody under an extant federal sentence on December

12, 2022, when the district court entered Dkt. 126, (Ramos, J.) (22cv3409), and on

December 4, 2023, when the alleged 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.) mandate was

entered as required by federal law, 28 USC 2253(c)(1)(B), and Supreme Court

binding precedents;

5. the Prosecutors have failed to inform the tribunals that David N. Kelley and

Alexander H. Southwell on Nov. 17, 2004, knowingly, and deliberately committed

a criminal fraud on the federal grand jury, lied, committed perjury, and conspired

to obstruct justice, and had the grand jury return a null and void ab initio U.S. v.

Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment which as a matter of law and fact risibly failed

to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense with respect to GX 1-4, and

GX 5, the null and void ab initio, and unenforceable RICO criminal usury, unlawful

debt instruments;

6. the Prosecutors have deliberately and intentionally failed to notify and inform the

tribunals that Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, and others (Jun

Xiang, Margaret M. Garnett, Daniel Gitner, et al.) are currently deliberately and

intentionally suppressing and concealing actual innocent Brady exculpatory and

impeachment evidence in the “15 boxes” more than 45,000 pages of unsearched,

and uncatalogued materials currently in the actual possession of the USAO (SDNY);

7. that the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings went moot on Nov. 7, 2008,

upon the USAO notifying the Court of Appeals regarding the government’s cross-

Page 49 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 appeal the USAG had decided to terminate, abandon, and dismiss with prejudice

U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I, pursuant to Article II, Fed. R. App. P. 42(b),

and 18 USC 3742(b) for insufficient evidence;

8. deliberately and intentionally failed to inform the tribunals that on December 20,

2007, the government’s 04cr1224 trial witness, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., voluntarily,

after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2,) dismissed the 02cv2219 lawsuit with

prejudice—that is, Zitter on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, voluntarily annulled and

vitiated the government’s trial evidence and all trial exhibits (GX 1-4, GX 5, Gx 7,

GX 11, GX 24, ad GX 34) admitted in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and therefore

rendered the 02cv2219, 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY),

09-0851cr (2d Cir.), 11-4181cv (2d Cir.), 11-2151 (2d Cir.), 22cv3409, 22cv10566

(SDNY), and 23-865, and 23-869 (2d Cir.) proceedings abrogated and void ab initio;

9. deliberately and intentionally failed to notify and inform the State Bar of Georgia’s

Office of the General Counsel that the final judgments entered in 04cr1224 and

05cr1115 have been abrogated, vitiated, and ipso facto, implicitly vacated, and set

aside as a matter of law and fact;

10. deliberately and intentionally failed to notify and inform the tribunals that Edgardo

Ramos and William H. Pauley, III stole, removed, suppressed, and concealed in

criminal violation of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1519,

1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and

Page 50 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 1985(3), the government’s “principal witness” for the 05cr1115 trial, Jeremy

Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006 (i) Rule 11 perjury contract, (ii) USSG 5k1.1 perjury

cooperation contract; (iii) Rule 11 perjury allocution; (iv) perjury Jencks Act

statements;

11. deliberately and intentionally refuse to inform and notify the tribunals that former

AUSAs Katherine Polk-Failla, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, and Preet Bharara

knowingly and willfully drafted, signed, and filed a known false and fabricated

appeal brief in the Court of Appeal in U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010)—that

is, Polk-Failla, Douvas, Paul, and Bharara knew that government witness Zitter had

on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, dismissed 02cv2219 (SDNY) with prejudice, voluntarily,

which terminated the Court of Appeals and the district courts’ Article III case or

controversy with respect to GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34;

12. deliberately and intentionally failed to inform and notify the tribunals that former

AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Nicholas S. Goldin,

Steven D. Feldman, and others colluded, conspired, and enabled the SEC and

District Judge (D. NV) Kent J. Dawson to effectively function within the bogus 03-

0831 (D. NV) proceedings as a de facto, unconstitutional, and illegal bootleg grand

jury proceedings, used by the Prosecutors to violate Appellant’s constitutional

rights, and used by the Prosecutors to illegally collect inadmissible evidence and

criminally circumvent the Fed. R. Crim P. restrictions on government activity;

Page 51 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 13. the Prosecutors have adamantly refused to inform the tribunals, and have actively

withheld dispositive jurisdictional evidence from the tribunals—a fraud on the

court, that the plaintiff in the sub judice Criminal Proceedings, the USAO (SDNY)’s

client, the United States, is no longer a viable Article III adverse, real party in

interest with respect to the U.S. v. Ware 04cr1224 proceedings given the actual

innocent, affirmative defenses, judicial admission pleaded in the indictment’s ¶¶8-

12—that is, David N. Kelley and Alexander H. Southwell pleaded the United States

out of court on Nov. 17, 2004;

14. the Prosecutors have adamantly refused to inform and be completely candid with

the tribunals in regard to the legal effects of the admission of GX-24 into evidence

in the government’s case in chief, see Ex. 8, infra. GX-24 conferred 15 USC 78p(b)

statutory insider/affiliate status on each of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs—a judicial

admission made by the Prosecutors during the grand jury, and jury trial, that the

plaintiffs were legally ineligible for Rule 144, and therefore, an affirmative

defense pleaded by the government on the face of the 04cr1224 indictment which

pleaded the government out of the courts and acquitted Appellant of all charges

as a matter of law.

15. The Prosecutors all have maliciously, deliberately, intentionally, and with a reckless

and depraved mental state have violated the Rules (3.3, 3.4, 3.8, and 8.4) and their

duty of candor to the tribunals and deliberately and intentionally failed to inform

and willfully misled the tribunals and the client, (i) the client is no longer a viable

Page 52 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Article III adverse real party in interest with respect to each element of the

client’s (the government, the plaintiff sub judice) trial burden of proof regarding

the sub judice Criminal Proceedings (04cr1224 and 05cr1115);44 (ii) the client

(United States) is strictly prohibited from all appearances in the Criminal

Proceedings (04cr1224 and 05cr1115) by the Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute

finality, (see Ex. 18, infra), and (iii) the client lacked all lawful legal “interest”

(lacked 28 USC 547(1), (2) standing) with respect to the Criminal Proceedings,45

44
Upon the Prosecutors filing the risible null and void ab initio David N. Kelley and Alexander H.
Southwell’s risible Nov. 17, 2004, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment (see Ex. 9, infra) in the District
Court (SDNY), and upon the swearing of the jury at trial (04cr1224) in November 2007 (jeopardy attached)
the government and the Prosecutors were absolutely bound for the purpose of the Double Jeopardy
Clause and 28 USC 547(1) by the actual innocent judicial admissions, Article II prosecutorial affirmative
defenses, pleaded on the face of the risible indictment—that is, see ¶¶8-12, the Prosecutors judicially
admitted, pleaded the client out of court, that each 02cv2219 plaintiff was, in fact, a 15 USC 77b(a)(11)
statutory underwriter, and (ii) moreover, the Prosecutors judicially admitted and pleaded itself out of
court again by admitting and conceding each plaintiff was also a 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insider/affiliate
of the issuer (GPMT); and therefore, ipso facto each plaintiff was legally ineligible for Rule 144 as an
exemption to the strict-liability registration requirements of 15 USC 77e (Section 5). See SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995) (“Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter [the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, cf., ¶10.1(iv) in GX 5,
see Ex. 19, infra] required to register [with the SEC] all distribution [public offering, sales] of securities.”)
(emphasis added); and U.S. v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968) (aff’d conviction and sentence of
unregistered broker, statutory underwriter’s sale of unregistered securities).
45
The Double Jeopardy Clause’s absolute finality terminated all legal interest and 28 USC 547(1) standing
of the client (the United States) regarding all issues, facts, and claims resolved, actually or necessarily,
against the United States and its privies by: (1) the Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment,
see Ex. 10, infra, and (2) the August 18, 2009, Gov-I final judgment entered by the Court of Appeals, see
Ex. 12, infra—that is, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is subject to res judicata and the absolute
finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Ergo, ipso facto the Court lacked all Article III and appellate
jurisdiction to have entered the moot and void ab initio purported December 4, 2023, mandate in 23-
865/23-869. See Federated Dept. Stores v. Moite, 452 U.S. 394, 398-401, 402 (1981) (a final judgment is
res judicata and is binding absolutely on all courts, the parties (the United States), and their privies (the
USAO/DOJ) regarding all issues, facts, and claims actually or necessarily resolved by the final judgment).
The U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670, Gov-I final judgment, Ex. 12, infra, (i) triggered the Double Jeopardy Clause, res
judicata, and actually resolved in favor of Appellant, the prevailing party, that the government presented
insufficient evidence at trial “regarding, among other things the efficiency of the market” (quoting Pauley,

Page 53 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 given the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment (Ex. 10, infra) and the Gov-I final judgment

(Ex. 12, infra), cf., Ex. 14, AUSA Melissa Childs’ fraudulent and bogus entry of

appearance in 05cr1115 and 04cr1224 allegedly on behalf of the client, the United

States, a clear fraud on the court46 by clear and convincing evidence.47

J. in Oct. 2007, Dkt. 99, Tr. 31 L 18-25, in post-trial Rule 29 proceedings, see Ex. 18, infra) for INZS and
SVSY’s securities, and (ii) necessarily resolved, annulled, vitiated, and abrogated the government’s “fraud
on the market” trial theory which depends on and is predicated on market efficiency. (emphasis added).
Cf., October 27, 2007, Dkt. 99, Tr. 73-76 (the district court, Pauley, J. ruled the government’s trial proof
insufficient regarding market efficiency); also see U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I (the government
filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s insufficient evidence ruling concerning market efficiency;
however, on Nov. 7, 2008, the government via the USAG’s authority under Article II and 28 USC 519 notified
the Court of Appeals the DOJ had exercised an appellate prosecutorial political decision and voluntarily
dismissed the Gov-I cross-appeal with prejudice and was no longer pursuing the insufficient evidence
matter, see Ex. 16, infra). Which had devastating and dire consequences for the DOJ, for the client (the
United States), for the 05cr1115 district court (Pauley, J.) and the Court of Appeals; and all others who
relied in whole or in part on the now mooted and voided 05cr1115 proceedings and prior abrogated,
mooted, and voided by operation of law 05cr1115 final judgment.

The Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, see Ex. 10, infra, actually resolved against the United States and its
privies, and conferred prevailing party status on GPMT, the Landers, and Ulysses T. Ware (the “Prevailing
Parties”); and further resolved against the United States and its privies all 04cr1224 trial evidence derived
from 02cv2219 (SDNY) was annulled and voided (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34, and all
related testimony) (the “Voided Trial Evidence”), see United States v. L-3 Comm’cs EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d
11, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2019) (“It is hornbook law” that voluntary dismissal of lawsuit by [the 02cv2219]
plaintiff[s] wiped the slate clean and terminated all jurisdiction over the proceedings) (emphasis added),
and A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (same).

46
A violation of Rules 3.8 and 8.4 by both Childs and Audrey Strauss to commit a fraud on a federal court
in the clear of all standing to appear in a moot judicial proceeding.
47
The District Court (Ramos, J.), AUSA Melissa Childs and U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Audrey Strauss all knew, or
should have known, the client (United States) was absolutely prohibited by the Gov-I final judgment, see
Ex. 12, infra, and the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, see Ex. 10, infra, from any appearance in the Criminal
Proceedings to seek to collect any fines, or other money in furtherance of 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO unlawful
debt collection activities apropos the criminal usury convertible promissory notes (GX 1-4).

Page 54 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 16. The Prosecutors have refused and omitted to inform the tribunals and the client

that they have no verifiable and credible discovery logs that they can produce to a

court of law which will confirm and verify the actual disclosures and productions

of Brady materials made to Appellant as required by the 2007 Brady Court Orders’

written commands, cf., Ex. 7, infra, the DOJ’s EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, FOIA response

stating that the USAO (SDNY) has yet to search and properly inventory more than

45,000 page of documents and records in the actual possession of Damian

Williams of the USAO (SDNY).48

17. See Ex. 20 and Ex. 21, infra, the Prosecutors as an overt criminal act in furtherance

of the CCE’s criminal objective on November 20, 2007, colluded, agreed, acted in

concert, and conspired with former District Judge Robert W. Sweet (deceased),

and former circuit judges Robert A. Katzmann (deceased), Peter W. Hall

(deceased),49 and Barbara S. Jones, (the “Judges”), and knowingly and willfully

violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8. 8.4, and their duty of complete candor to the tribunals

and requested that Sweet, J., which he complied, deliberately and intentionally

violated the Due Process Clause and Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial

and conviction by jury; and the Prosecutors knowingly and maliciously conspired

48
See In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, J.) (rev’d district court, remanded, and
ordered the U.S. Attorney to conduct a search for all Brady material at no cost to the defendant, disclose
and produce all Brady materials to the defendant, and ordered the district court to conduct a Brady
materiality assessment of any Brady material discovered in the ordered search). Note that current U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr. actually clerked for now USAG Merrick B. Garland.

49
See murder for hire of former LH Financial Services mob boss Soloman Obstfeld, Ex. 21, infra; and alleged suicide
of Charles Ellis Schumer’s close associate the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Page 55 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 with Ari Rabinowitz, CCE LH Financial Services and other violent and dangerous

criminals,50 known and unknown, and had Sweet on November 20, 2007, during

the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) purported jury trial, had Sweet act as the judge

and jury and illegally and unconstitutionally convict Appellant on the

government’s “lawful” element of proof in criminal violation of the Due Process

Clause and Appellant’s Sixth Amendment’s right to a trial by “jury” not judge.

18. See Ex. 6, infra, the Prosecutors have deliberately and intentionally directly and/or

indirectly, or omitted to act which enabled others to violate the law and the

Constitution, and thus the Prosecutors violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and other

criminal statutes, 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1519,

1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071 (a), (b);51 and 42 USC 1983,

1985(2), and 1985(3); which the Prosecutors have knowing, willingly, and

intentionally enabled District Judge (SDNY) Edgardo Ramos to violate 18 USC

2071(a), (b) by hiding, concealing, suppressing, removing, and destroying the

alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 perjury plea contract, USSG 5k1.1 perjury cooperation

50
See Ex. 21, infra. It is credibly alleged supported by interviews with persons having detailed knowledge
of the facts that LH Financial Services mob boss Soloman Obstfeld was actually “murdered” by individuals
desiring to control the billion-dollar NYC Jewish loan sharking and money laundering mafia which has
federal court and DOJ (Merrick B. Garland) prosecutorial protection.

51
On June 5, 2023, Appellant visited the District Court (SDNY) records department and sought access to
the 05cr1115 trial record. Appellant was granted access by supervisor David Ng to the alleged “complete
file.” Appellant was personally informed by Mr. Ng regarding Jeremy Jones’ Sept 2006 Rule 11 judicial
public records: “ … this is everything that we have … if it’s not in the file we don’t have it … we don’t have
any Rule 11 or USSG 5k1.1 cooperation agreements regarding Jeremy Jones, if we had it I would give it to
you, we don’t have it … you will have to get it elsewhere ….”

Page 56 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 contract, perjury allocution transcript, the government’s 5k1.1 letter, Jencks Act

perjury statements, other judicial public records related to the government’s

“principal witness” Jeremy Jones; judicial public records required to be maintained

and possessed by Judge Ramos regarding the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and

U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) criminal proceedings.

19. The Prosecutors have aided, abetted, enabled, and participated with Judge Ramos

to violate the Brady Court Orders by suppressing and concealing judicial public

records associated with Jeremy Jones and other government grand jury and trial

witnesses—that is, if Jones in Sept. 2006 entered the alleged Rule 11 plea and

USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contract, a written plea contract and cooperation contract

must exist, the docket must show the entry of the Rule 11 [perjury] plea, a

transcript of the proceeding was required to have been made, and the Prosecutors

and the District Court (Ramos, J.) are required to maintain copies of all judicial

records associated with Jeremy Jones.

20. However, all documents related to Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 and USSG

5k1.1 [perjury] cooperation contract are missing and have been removed, if they

ever actually existed, from the court’s records, missing from the 05cr1115 docket,

and currently being concealed and suppressed by the Prosecutors in collusion and

while conspiring with District Judge Edgardo Ramos and Chief District Judge (SDNY)

Laura Taylor-Swain to criminally resist and violate court orders, the Constitution,

Page 57 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 federal law, and the Fed. Rules of Crim. P.—overt criminal acts in furtherance of

the CCE’s criminal objectives.

Signed this 10th day of December 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

December 10, 2023

Brooklyn, NY

End of Declaration

Page 58 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
2 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Legal Standards—Fraud on
the Court, and Civil and Criminal Contempt of the Brady Court Orders
Committed by DOJ’s Prosecutors.

OPR’s Standard of Review

A professional misconduct finding is appropriate when a preponderance of the evidence

establishes that the attorney [Prosecutors] intentionally violated, or recklessly disregarded, a clear
and unambiguous legal obligation or professional standard.52
In some cases, OPR may determine that the attorney did not commit professional misconduct,
but the circumstances warrant another finding. In those cases, OPR may consider whether the
attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately. OPR also
may determine that the subject attorney acted appropriately under the circumstances.

The Essential Elements for a Professional Misconduct Finding

OPR will find that a Department attorney [the Prosecutors] committed professional misconduct
when a preponderance of the evidence establishes the following essential elements:

52
The Prosecutors all objectively knew and know the government was required to disclose and produce
to Appellant “prior to trial” all Brady, Rule 16, Jencks Act, and Giglio materials regarding its trial witnesses
or other materials which would impeach and/or undermine its trial theory or impeach its trial witnesses’
credibility.

Page 59 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
(1) A violation of a clear and unambiguous legal obligation53 or professional standard;54 and
(2) The violation was intentional or resulted from the attorney’s reckless disregard of the clear
and unambiguous legal obligation or standard.55

Violation of an Obligation or Standard

Department attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the
performance of their duties.
For example, attorneys [Prosecutors] are required to comply with legal obligations imposed by
the Constitution, statute, evidentiary or procedural rules, controlling case law56, and local rules.

53
The Prosecutors all know they are legal[ly] obligat[ed] to follow binding circuit precedents, the
precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Constitution, and DOJ rules and regulations
regarding the disclosure and production of the government’s 05cr1115 “principal witness,” Jeremy Jones’
alleged, no written records existed in the District Court (SDNY) records department according to David Ng,
the supervisor of the records department on June 5, 2023, Rule 11 plea [perjury] contracts, USSG 5k1.1
perjury cooperation contracts, perjured Jencks Act statements of its trial witnesses [Jeremy Jones, Kenneth
A. Zitter, Ari Rabinowitz, Carlton Epps, Myron Williams, Elrico Sadler, Kelley Quinn, Jeffrey B. Norris, and
other trial witnesses], the grand jury testimony of its trial witnesses, the misconduct of FBI agents working
as an investigator (David Makol), FBI analyst (Maria A. Font) fabrication of trial exhibits, GX 92, GX 93, in
05cr1115, fabricated and perjured under the personal direction of AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven
D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, and Michael J. Garcia, and the Prosecutors have yet to inform the tribunals
regarding Makol’s and Font’s fraud, perjury, and professional misconduct.
54
The Brady disclosures and productions “prior to trial” as required by the written commands of the Brady
Court Orders—that is, Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts, Jones’ Jencks Act
statements, incentives and motives for testifying for the government, Rule 11 allocution, Queen for a Day
debriefing, expected benefits, favors, gifts, promises, Jones’ counsel’s (Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s) favors,
gifts, kickbacks, bribes, illegal gratuities, etc.

55
The Prosecutors all knew of their ethical obligations or should have known, as officers of the court, and
all objectively knew DOJ ethical requirements required each to be completely candid with the tribunals and
inform and bring to the courts’ attention relevant legal authorities directly contrary to the rulings entered
by the courts. The Prosecutors knew or should have objectively known, if they are competent in the law,
15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, pursuant to SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17
(1995), were strictly prohibited from any Rule 144 exemption to 15 USC 77e, Rule 5, strict-liability
registration requirements which rendered the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment’s criminal
contempt charges null and void ab initio.

56
See Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) (rendered 04cr1224 government trial
exhibits GX 1-4, and GX 5 null and void ab initio, moot, and unenforceable, and rendered the 04cr1224
indictment void ab initio and moot); U.S. v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968) (aff’d conviction and

Page 60 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
In addition, attorneys must comply with standards of conduct imposed by the attorney’s licensing
authority, the jurisdiction in which the attorney is practicing, and Department regulations and
policies.
In its investigations, OPR will determine whether the subject attorney has violated a clear and
unambiguous legal obligation or standard. In so doing, OPR will consider the attorney’s
affirmative actions, as well as actions that the attorney failed to take.57

Intentional Conduct

An attorney’s violation is intentional when the attorney engages in conduct that is either
purposeful or knowing. Conduct is purposeful when the attorney takes or fails to take an action
in order to obtain a result that is unambiguously prohibited by the applicable obligation or
standard.58
By contrast, conduct is knowing when the attorney takes or fails to take an action with knowledge
of the natural or probable consequences of the conduct, and those consequences are
unambiguously prohibited by the applicable obligation or standard.

Conduct in Reckless Disregard of an Obligation59 or Standard

sentence of unregistered broker’s sale of unregistered [cf., GX 1-4, unregistered, RICO unlawful debt,
criminal usury, convertible promissory notes] securities); (SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), 15 USC
77b(a)(11), 78o(a)(1), 78cc(b), 78ff, and 18 USC 1961(6)(B); and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal
usury law, a class E felony.

57
The Prosecutors all knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, and recklessly failed to comply with the written
commands of the Brady Court Orders; all failed to be completely candid with the tribunals regarding the
Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts; all since March 20, 2023, given the EOUSA’s FOIA
response, have failed to inform, be completely candid with the tribunals regarding the existence of “15
boxes” of materials in the actual possession of Damian Williams of the USAO (SDNY) which “might be”
Brady exculpatory or impeachment materials subject to the Brady Court Orders’ disclosure commands.

58
The Prosecutors all knew, objectively, they had a Brady duty to disclose Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11
and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts, allocution transcripts, Jencks Act debriefing; Rabinowitz’s debriefing
and admissions regarding his extensive violations of 15 USC 78o(a)(1) and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) “a good few
hundred times” according to Rabinowitz’s 04cr1224 trial testimony, Tr. 202-04.

59
The Prosecutors are obligated to follow binding circuit precedents and SEC regulatory rulings, i.e., SEC
Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) which rendered the 04cr1224 indictment null and void ab initio—that is, the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, see the Prosecutors’ own pleadings,
¶¶ 8-12 in the 04cr1224 indictment’s actual innocent, affirmative defenses, judicial admissions, and GX 1-

Page 61 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Alternatively, OPR may conclude that a violation resulted from the attorney’s reckless disregard
of the applicable [Brady, Jencks Act, Rule 16, and Giglio] obligation or standard. This
determination is based on three factors.
First, OPR considers whether the [Prosecutors] knew, or should have known, of the [Brady,
Jencks, Giglio, and Rule 16] obligation or standard based on the attorney’s experience60 and the
unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard.61
Second, OPR considers whether the [Prosecutors] knew, or should have known, that the
attorney’s conduct was substantially likely to violate or cause a violation of an obligation 62 or
standard based on the attorney’s experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation
or standard.63

4, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 are rendered void ab initio by the application of SEC Release 33-7190 n.
17 (1995) and the binding circuit precedent in the Adar Bays’ decision.
60
Three of the Prosecutors claim to be former Supreme Court Clerks (Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon,
and Hagan Scotten), all claim to have received their juris doctorates from Yale, Harvard, and other high-
ranking law schools, all claim to be members of the “best and brightest,” and all allege to be competent in
the law.
61
The Prosecutors all knew of their required Brady duties and obligations as officers of the court pursuant
to the Brady Court Orders’ unambiguous written commands, and the application of the unambiguous
salutary Brady doctrine, the Jencks Act, Rule 16, and the Giglio doctrine.

62
The Brady doctrine is perhaps the most fundamental and axiomatic ethical obligation of the federal
prosecutor in a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, either the USAO fails to adequately or properly train the
Prosecutors, or the USAO encourages or condones violation of Brady Court Orders and other fraudulent
practices and procedures employed by the Prosecutors in the sub judice Criminal Proceedings—that is, a
pattern of fraudulent and unconstitutional prosecutorial misconduct.
63
In each case regarding the Brady Orders the Prosecutors, or their predecessors, acknowledged and
consented to the entry of the Brady Court Orders; yet all knowingly and recklessly resisted the search,
disclosure, and production of (i) the government’s principal witness” Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006
Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts; Jones’ pretrial debriefing statements, Jencks Act material; all
ex parte communications with the district courts; all allocution transcripts; all payments, cash, gifts, favors,
travel arrangements, promises, etc.; the government’s 5k1.1 letter to the district court; the alleged factual
basis for the 5k1.1 letter, etc.; Rabinowitz’s and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ FINRA’s required broker-
dealer registration requirements; failed to learn and know the law, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), 15
USC 77b(a)(11), 15 USC 78o(a)(1), 78cc(b), Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022), 18
USC 1961(6)(B), U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and RICO forfeiture
judgment, +$3.5 billion for unlawful debt collection activities).

Page 62 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Third, OPR considers whether the [Prosecutors] nonetheless engaged in the conduct, which was
objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances.64
Ultimately, after considering the nature and circumstances of the attorney’s conduct and the facts
known to the attorney, OPR will find that an attorney’s disregard of an obligation or standard is
reckless if the conduct amounted to a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an
objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation.

Conclusions Other than Professional Misconduct

In some cases, OPR may conclude that a subject attorney’s conduct does not satisfy the elements
necessary for a professional misconduct finding, but the circumstances warrant another
finding. In those cases, OPR may consider whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, made
a mistake, or otherwise acted inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR also may determine
that the subject attorney’s conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.

Poor Judgment

To determine whether an attorney exercised poor judgment, OPR considers whether the attorney
had appropriate alternatives available, but the attorney chose an action or course of action that
was in marked contrast to that which the Department would reasonably expect of an attorney
exercising good judgment. For example, an attorney exercises poor judgment when the attorney
takes an action in a situation involving obviously problematic circumstances without first seeking
supervisory advice or guidance, because the Department would reasonably expect that an
attorney exercising good judgment would consult with a supervisor before proceeding in such
circumstances.

64
See In re Sealed Case, 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Garland, Merrick B., J.) (rev’d the district court and
ordered the government to “search for” Brady materials, and disclose to the defendant all Brady materials
found pursuant to the search, cf., EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, In re Ware, 000907 FOIA response); see also
U.S. v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 1988) (a First Amendment right of access exist regarding Rule 11 plea
[perjury] contracts); cf., Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 288 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 plea and
proceedings are subject to the First Amendment right of access).

The Prosecutors’ criminal prosecutorial misconduct, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt of the Brady
Court Orders, as officers of the court, was objectively unreasonable regarding Jeremy Jones, the
government’s “principal witness” for the 05cr1115 trial. Any competent prosecutor knows and
understands a government’s witness credibility, the motive for testifying, and incentives for testifying are
proper subjects every criminal defendant is permitted to explore under the Sixth Amendment—that is,
the defendant’s right to confront and impeach a government witness is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Page 63 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Mistake65

A mistake finding is based on OPR’s determination that the attorney’s conduct resulted from
excusable human error despite the attorney’s exercise of reasonable care under the
circumstances. OPR considers various factors when examining whether an attorney’s error was
excusable. Those factors include, for example, the attorney’s opportunity to plan and reflect on
the possible and foreseeable consequences of the conduct; the significance of the conduct
compared with the breadth and magnitude of the attorney’s overall responsibilities and actions;
and the extent to which the error was consistent with the attorney’s usual conduct.

65
The criminal prosecutorial misconduct detailed in Facts 1-15 was deliberately planned, and executed by the
Prosecutors, with deliberation, planning, coordination, and active collusion and active participation of the
Prosecutor and their Unindicted Coconspirators. There was no mistake.

Page 64 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
3 DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct.

4 Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

Advocate

(a) A lawyer [the Prosecutors] shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law66 to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material
fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer [the Prosecutors];

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to
be directly adverse to the position of the client [the United States] and not disclosed by opposing
counsel;67 or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer [the Prosecutors] knows to be false.68

66
The Prosecutors by omission to correct material facts known to be false, misleading, and fabricated by
the government have misled the tribunals (23-865/23-869; 04cr1224, 05cr1115, and 02cv2219) regarding
Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006 unenforceable, null and void ab initio Rule 11 perjury and USSG 5k1.1
perjury contracts—the record shows according to the District Court (SDNY) records department
supervisor, David Ng, on June 5, 2023, “ … no records currently exist in this office …” (quoting David Ng on
June 5, 2023) in the District Court (SDNY) regarding a person claimed to be “Jeremy Jones” regarding the
alleged Sept. 2006 Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 [perjury] contracts.
67
See 2022 binding circuit precedent in Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., (2d Cir. 2022) (held convertible
promissory notes having the floating price conversion option (FPCO), see GX 1-4 (04cr1224) violated NYS
Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony; therefore, ipso facto GX 1-4 were null
and void ab initio, unenforceable, and constituted RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debts;
which voided the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, and (iii) rendered the 04cr1224 indictment’s charges void ab
initio, moot, and ipso facto not an 18 USC 3231 prosecutable offense.
68
In 2007 the government’s Prosecutors deliberately and intentionally offered into evidence GX 1-4, and
GX 5 in 04cr1224, while knowing that the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs were at all times unregistered broker-
dealers illegally operating an unlawful RICO criminal usury debt collection criminal enterprise [mob boss
Ari Rabinowitz, master forger Konrad Ackermann, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, criminal Kenneth
A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, Charles Ellis Schumer, Peter W. Hall, William H. Pauley, III, Robert D. Sack,
Amalya L. Kearse, Robert A. Katzmann, LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt)] in the United
States and NY state in violation of federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the
criminal usury law, a class E felony regarding government trial exhibits GX 1-4, and GX 5. The Prosecutors
have deliberately and recklessly failed to inform the tribunals of the criminal nature and character of GX
1-4, and GX 5, and also recklessly, irresponsibly, intentionally, and deliberately failed to inform the tribunals
of the mootness and unenforceability of GX 1-4, and GX 5, RICO criminal usury unlawful debt contracts,
null and void ab initio according to binding circuit precedent in Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379
(2d Cir. 2022), and SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) (“Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters [the
02cv2219 plaintiffs, cf., GX 5, ¶10.1(iv), and 04cr1224 indictment’s ¶¶8-12, pleaded the government out

Page 65 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the
lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if
necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.69

A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that
the lawyer reasonably believes is false.70

of court] are required to register [with the SEC] all distributions [public offering] of securities [GX 1-4
conversion securities].” (emphasis added).
69
To this date, Dec. 4, 2023, the Prosecutors have deliberately, intentionally, recklessly, and as a fraud on
the court have concealed from the tribunals indisputable evidence that Rabinowitz, Zitter, former SEC
lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, and Kelley Quinn all lied, committed perjury, gave false and misleading testimony,
lied regarding government trial exhibits, generally, with the consent of the government committed a fraud
on the court during the 2007 04cr1224 trial.
70
The U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) trial testimony of the government’s “principal witness” a person
alleged to be “Jeremy Jones” complete trial testimony the government’s prosecutors knew was false, lies,
misleading, and fabricated by the government as an overt in a Jim Crow racially-motivate hate crime, and
acts in furtherance of RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity. In the U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY), the Prosecutors put up violent and dangerous criminals Ari Rabinowitz and Kenneth A.
Zitter, Esq., as fact witnesses while knowing that Rabinowitz and Zitter were material players and
participants in an ongoing RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) loan sharking, money laundering extortion, conspiracy,
kidnapping, Hobbs Act armed robbery criminal enterprise; and the government knew that Rabinowitz and
Zitter both committed perjury, lied under oath, and committed a fraud on the court regarding the legality
of GX 1-4, and GX 5, trial exhibits.

Page 66 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
5 Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel.

A lawyer [Prosecutor] shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’ s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a
document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist
another person to do any such act;71

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that
is prohibited by law;72

I knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an
assertion that no valid obligation exists;73

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to
comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

71
The Prosecutors have recklessly, knowingly, willfully, knowingly, and intentionally aided, abetted,
assisted, enabled, and facilitated the current and ongoing resistance and violation of the commands of
the Brady court orders entered in the sub judice criminal proceedings, (i) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY),
August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32 (Sweet, J.), and (ii) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Dkt. 17, Tr. 5-10 (Pauley, J.),
(the “Brady Court Orders”).

See EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response in In re Ware, 000907 (2023) (The EOUSA admitted and
conceded the USAO (SDNY) had more than “15 boxes” of materials which had never been inventoried
and cataloged which might contain Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials). Yet the Prosecutors
have continuously violated and recklessly refused to comply with their duty as officers of the court, refused
to comply with their duty of complete candor to the tribunal, and have refused to inform the (tribunals)
courts of the existence of Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials in the actual possession of the
USAO (SDNY) (Andre Damian Williams, Jr.) which has never been disclosed or produced to Appellant in
violation of the Brady Court Orders.
72
The Prosecutors deliberately, intentionally, and recklessly counseled and coerced the government’s
05cr1115 “principal witness” Jeremy Jones to knowingly lie, commit perjury, give false and misleading
testimony, and lie and fabricate a nonexistent conspiracy while the Prosecutors knew Jones and its
05cr1115 trial witnesses were not involved in any conspiracy with anyone. The Prosecutors knowingly
purchased Jones’ perjured testimony and induced Jones and his CJA counsel Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. to
facilitate a conspiracy to commit perjury in violation of 18 USC 2, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1519, and
1346.

73
The Prosecutors have since 2007, and continuously to the present, Dec. 4, 2023, recklessly, intentionally,
willfully, and criminally, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), disobeyed and resisted the Brady Court Orders’ written
commands to produce to Appellant “all” Brady materials “before the start of trial” in 2007. CF., EOUSA’s
March 20, 2023, FOIA response in 000907, see supra.

Page 67 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
I in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be
supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as
a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the
culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another
party unless:

(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and

(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by refraining
from giving such information.

Page 68 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
6 Rule 3.8—Special duty of the prosecutor

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;74

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the
procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the
right to a preliminary hearing;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that
tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing,
disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the
prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the
tribunal;75

(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past
or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or
prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the
prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making
extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the
accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees

74
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) David N. Kelley and AUSA Alexander H. Southwell in Nov. 2004 both knew it was
not an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense, given SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), and both knew
that probable cause was lacking given each 02cv2219 plaintiff was an unregistered broker-dealer, see Ex.
5, infra, yet Southwell and Kelly in violation of Rule 3.8 deliberately and intentionally sought the null and
void ab initio U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment as an overt act to enable the continued RICO 18
USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection of the criminal usury convertible promissory notes, GX 1-4.

75
See Ex. 2, Ex. 3, and Ex. 7, infra, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence, to the present
day the Prosecutors have refused all requests to disclose “all” Brady materials as mandated by the written
commands of the Brady Court Orders entered in the sub judice Criminal Proceedings in violation of 18 USC
401(3) criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders.

Page 69 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an
extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood
that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the
prosecutor shall:76

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine
whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.77

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the
prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor
shall seek to remedy the conviction.78

76
To the present date, Dec. 4, 2023, the Prosecutors despite having clear and convincing evidence which
they have been aware of since 2007, have never done anything, or notify or informed any court, or acted
independently to reverse the null and void convictions falsely and fraudulently obtained in U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).

77
See Ex. 2, Ex. 5, and Ex. 7, infra, for the Prosecutors’ deliberate and intentional continued suppression
and concealment of actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in their actual possession in “15 boxes”
(more than 45,000 pages) in the current possession of Damian Williams and the USAO (SDNY).
78
See Id.

Page 70 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
7 Rule 8.4: Misconduct

Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer [the Prosecutors] to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to
do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects;79

I engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;80

I state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by
means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial
conduct or other law;81 or

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination
on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph
does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance
with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these
Rules.

79
The Prosecutors all have knowingly and willfully violated 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3),
1512, 1346, 1519, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and
1985(3).

80
See Facts 1 – 15, supra, for detailed clear and convincing preponderance of the evidence of the
Prosecutors’ criminal prosecutorial misconducts.

81
The Prosecutors, in particular Damian Williams, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Daniel Gitner, and
others have knowingly aided, abetted, and assisted District Judge Edgardo Ramos to continue to hide,
suppress, conceal, and steal Jeremy Jones’ judicial court records regarding Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury
contracts.

Page 71 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
8 Duty of Complete Candor to the Tribunal—(i) Fed. R. Crim P. 5(f), (ii)
USAO’s civil and criminal contempt of the Brady court orders entered in
the sub judice criminal proceedings; and (iii) Nov. 17, 2023, OIP FOIA
Order (rev’d EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, response in In re Ware, 000907,
and remanded for USAO (SDNY) to search (45,000 records/pages) and
disclose Brady materials).

Page 72 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
9 Diligence Evidence (Uncovered by Appellant and Private
Investigators hired by Appellant post 2019) Preponderance of the
Evidence—Clear and convincing evidence of the Prosecutors, Federal
Judges, and Unindicted Coconspirators’ crimes and frauds.

Page 73 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 1—The Court of Appeals Mandate (2d Cir.): December 4, 2023, the RICO 18 USC
1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity Moot Order entered in 23-865/23-869 (2d
Cir.)82 to deny Petitioner-Appellant access to the embezzled actual innocent Brady
exculpatory evidence, Ex. 2-24, infra.

The Court of Appeals erred as a matter

of law by its incomprehensible
mischaracterization of Petitioner’s
determined, diligent, and relentless
litigation and pursuit which gained
access to hundred of pages of
embezzled, suppressed, and concealed
actual innocent Brady exculpatory
evidence as a “pattern of vexatious
litigation.”

82
Note that the alleged moot Mandate does not list the name of each circuit judge (why?) who sat on the
alleged panel which rendered the decision to “deny” Appellant’s moot 2253 leave to file motion for a moot
2253 certificate of appealability—moot as a matter of law. Why? The 23-865/23-869 proceedings are moot
as a matter of law and fact because the AEDPA statutes are applicable only to “prisoners” and the Court
of Appeals, the District Court (Ramos, J.), and the USAO (SDNY) Prosecutors all know that Appellant,
Ulysses T. Ware, is not a prisoner, and therefore, not within the scope of the AEDPA rules and
requirements. However, 28 USC 46 requires all Court of Appeals substantive business be composed of a
quorum before the action is lawful. Therefore, the names of the circuit judges are required to be disclosed
as a judicial public record pursuant to the First Amendment right of access, and for the purpose of 28 USC
455(a), 455(b)(1-5) analysis.

Page 74 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 1-2—The District Court’s Order: Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain,
22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY), April 3, 2023, order (Ramos, J.) denying actual innocent
habeas corpus relief—a RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activity.

See attached Appx. 62-1: District Court (SDNY) April 3, 2023, order (Ramos, J.) denying habeas

corpus relief.

Page 75 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 2—EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, FOIA response in In re Ware, 000907, admitting the
violation of the Brady Court Orders, and Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete
candor to the tribunals.

Page 76 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 3—November 9, 2023, Office of Information Policy notice of reversal of the EOUSA’s
March 20, 2023, refusal to search for Brady records, and remanding to the EOUSA/USAO
(SDNY) for the USAO (SDNY) to process the required search for Brady materials.83

83
The OIP’s reversal and remand of the EOUSA’s March 20, 2023, refusal to search the “15 boxes”
containing more than “45,000” pages of materials is a DOJ admission the Prosecutors violated and resisted
the Brdy Court Orders, and willfully and deliberately violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete
candor to the tribunals, cf., Ex. 7, infra, the EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, continued refusal to conduct the Brady
search in violation of the OIP remand order.

Page 77 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 4—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence certification
of unregistered broker-dealers for each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, and violation of
federal law 15 USC 78o(a)(1) which annulled and rendered void ab initio the Prosecutors’
04cr1224 indictment’s charges.

Page 78 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 5—SEC Brady exculpatory email concealed and suppressed by the Prosecutors as a
conspiracy to obstruct justice, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1519, criminal contempt of
the Brady Court Order, Dkt. 17, 05cr1115, Pauley, J.84

84
The SEC’s lawyers involved in the SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) 2003 Bootleg Grand Jury proceedings did not
believe Jones or the government’s 05cr1115 trial witnesses were involved in any conspiracy with
Appellant—that is, Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence deliberately suppressed and concealed
by the Prosecutors and the Unindicted Coconspirators which violated Rule 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of
complete candor to the tribunals.

Page 79 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 6—Government witness Jeremy Jones’ CJA lawyer, Marlin G. Kirton, Esq., letter to
the district court (Pauley, J.) confirming that Jones did receive a USSG 5k1.1 letter from the
Prosecutors for his known perjured trial testimony in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).85

85
The District Court (SDNY) records department’s supervisor personally confirmed to Appellant on June 5, 2023, “ …
we don’t have Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11 plea contracts or 5k1.1 cooperation agreements in the file … we don’t have it, I
would give it to you if we had it, we don’t have it here ….” (emphasis added). A criminal violation of 18 USC 2,241,
242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), and 2071(a), (b), the theft of a judicial court record by the Prosecutors.

Page 80 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 7—EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, continued refusal to conduct the OPI’s ordered Brady
search of the USAO (SDNY) records—a deliberate and intentional resistance to the Brady
Court Orders, and violations of Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor to the
tribunals.

The Prosecutors and the USAO are currently and have been since 2003, deliberately and intentionally criminally suppressed and concealed
more than 45,000 pages of unsearched and un-inventoried records, obviously inclusive of Jeremy Jones’ alleged Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury
contracts, Rule 11 perjury allocution, Jencks Act perjury statements; and the Prosecutors have lied to every court regarding the existence of
Brady materials contained in the “over 15 boxes.” Exactly how many boxes “over 15” was not stated. Why?

Page 81 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 8—GX-24, U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) the government’s trial exhibit, which is a
binding judicial admission and affirmative defense, that each 02cv2219 plaintiffs was a 15
USC 78p(b) statutory insider/affiliate of the issuer, GPMT, and therefore legally ineligible for
Rule 144 exemption to Section 5 registration requirements.

Page 82 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 8—GX 24 (con’t).

Page 83 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 9—Former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell’s suppressed, concealed, and hidden
emails with the SEC which proved the USAO, and the SEC were in collusion and conspired
to fabricate trial evidence used in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115. Why were Norris and Southwell
talking at all during 2004 other than for collusion and conspiracy purposes. Cf., Ex. 15, infra.

The USAO (SDNY) concealed and suppressed this

Brady impeachment and exculpatory email until the
05cr1115 trial was completed; and continued to lie to
the court and Appellant regarding the existence of
the communications between the SEC and USAO.

The evidence is clear and convincing that AUSA

Southwell and disgraced former SEC lawyer
Jeffrey B. Norris did, in fact, communicate--
contrary to what Southwell stated in open
court on May 17, 2006, and stated again in
open court on January 3, 2007, (Southwell
deliberately lied and committed perjury)
during the pendency of the Las Vegas 03-0831
bootleg grand jury proceedings and 04cr1224.

The USAO arranged and coordinated Appellant’s Sept. 1, 2004,

Hobbs Act attempted armed robbery and kidnapping to collect
the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debts, GX
1-4, see Ex. 15, infra, for details of the Hobbs Act crimes of
violence committed against Appellant.

Page 84 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 10—Zitter’s Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the
02cv2219 lawsuit—annulled and vitiated the government’s trial evidence entered in
04cr1224 (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34).

Page 85 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 11—July 14, 2023, unsigned SEC-DOJ 03-0831 (D. NV) bootleg grand jury complaint
which pleaded the United States out of the federal court in ¶33: the SEC’s litigation position
on behalf of the United States was the INZS and SVSY press releases had no effect on the
stocks’ prices.

Page 86 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 12—Gov-I, U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670 (XAP), cross-appeal final judgment entered in the
USAO’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Gov-I—terminated the Court of Appeals
appellate jurisdiction over 05cr1115, and terminated the United States as an adverse real
party in interest in 05cr1115 which rendered 05cr1115 moot.

Page 87 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 13—Brady Exculpatory SEC internal email suppressed and concealed by
Prosecutors. The SEC’s lawyers agreed that the USAO’s Prosecutors, the SEC’s lawyers, and
the District Judge (Kent J. Dawson) all were in collusion and were conspiring in the 2003
Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury proceeding to illegal gather inadmissible
evidence for use in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).

Page 88 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 14—AUSA Melissa Childs’ entry of appearance in 05cr1115 and 04cr1224.86

86
On May 12, 2021, AUSA Melissa Childs, (1) fraudulently entered a bogus and moot appearance for the
government despite knowing (i) the government was no longer an adverse real party in interest, and/or
(ii) Childs should have known both 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 were moot; and knew and maliciously, and
deliberately suppressed and concealed the facts from the court that the government’s trial evidence
entered in 04cr1224 (GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34) had been voluntarily annulled and
vitiated on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, (02cv2219), see Ex. 10, supra, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); and (2) Childs
deliberately and maliciously concealed from the court the government on Nov. 7, 2008, voluntarily
dismissed its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (2d Cir.) cross-appeal, which the Court on Aug. 18, 2009, entered
final judgment against the United States, and declared Ulysses T. Ware, the prevailing party in the
05cr1115 matter, see Ex. 12, supra, which triggered the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause
against the United States and Childs.

Page 89 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 14-1—AUSA Melissa Child’s 2021 bogus, fraudulent, and manifestly frivolous
motion to collect the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) null and void ab initio criminal usury debt,
GX 1-4, a deliberate and intentional violation of Rule 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete
candor to the tribunals.

AUSA Childs and her supervisors deliberately and intentionally

misled the court, and concealed the fact the client, the United
States, was no longer a viable Article III adverse, real party in
interest apropos 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 moot proceedings; and
that she lacked standing to raise any matter in any court resolved
by final judgment against the client. A fraud on the court.

A RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury,

unlawful debt collection proceedings initiated
by the USAO, Childs, Strauss, and aided and
abetted by Ramos, J., who is bound absolute
by res judicata and the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s finality. See Federated, Id.

Page 90 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 15—Sept. 1, 2004, Hobbs Act attempted armed robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and
RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debt collection crimes committed by the
SEC, the USAO, the Prosecutors, Leonard B. Sand, and the District Courts (SDNY and NDGA)
in furtherance of loan sharking and money laundering. See Ex. 9, supra.

On Sept. 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA, the U.S. Marshals, with guns drawn—a Hobbs Act crime of violence, raided
Appellant’s law office, without a search warrant, arrest warrant, or lawful court order—an attempted Hobbs Act
armed robbery, as an overt 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal act to collect the RICO unlawful debts, GX 1-4, pursuant
to Leonard B. Sand, mob lawyer Kenneth A. Zitter, and mob boss Ari Rabinowitz hiring the Marshall as an
unlawful debt collection agency … the Marshals threaten to “murder” Appellant unless Appellant issued
+10,000,000 free-trading shares of stock in Group Management Corp. then valued at +$225,000,000; else
Appellant was informed “ … you will never get out of jail if you don’t give us that stock ….”

Page 91 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 16—USAG’s Nov. 7, 2008, Article II appellate prosecutorial political decision that
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the government’s Gov-I cross-appeal, U.S. v. Ware, 07-
5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.) and triggered res judicata and the absolute finality of the Double
Jeopardy Clause with respect to the government’s “fraud on the market” trial theory.

Page 92 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 17—U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr moot appeal: the underlying 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit
was voluntarily dismissed on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by
government witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., see Ex. 10, supra, which annulled and voided
all trial evidence and testimony related to GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34
which rendered the 2010 09-0851 appeal moot for lack of Article III and appellate
jurisdiction.

Page 93 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 18—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115, Tr. 31 L 18-25, Oct. 2007, post-trial Rule 29 proceedings
Pauley, J., market inefficiency ruling—accepted Appellant’s arguments and ruled against
the government, ruled the government’s trial proof was insufficient on “efficiency of the
market” and ordered a “Fatico [evidentiary] hearing.”
On the gov’t Nov. 7, 2008, see Ex. 16, supra, voluntarily dismissed of the Gov-I cross-appeal
of the Oct. 2007 Fatico hearing ruling, the Court of Appeals, the district court, and all courts
and agencies jurisdiction and authority terminated over the 05cr1115 proceedings.

Ipso facto as a matter of law the district court’s ruling acquitted Appellant of all charges—market efficiency is a jury issue.
Accordingly, once the district court ordered the Fatico hearing for insufficient evidence Double Jeopardy was triggered on the issue.

Page 94 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 19—GX 5, ¶10.1(iv) taken from the 02cv2219 complaint pleaded by the Prosecutors
in the 04cr1224 indictment at ¶¶8-12—an actual innocent Article II affirmative defense
which David N. Kelley and Alexander H. Southwell (see Ex. 9, supra) risibly pleaded the
United States out of court. GX 5 is a RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debt
collection conspiracy contract, see Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022)
and U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and +$3.5B RICO
forfeiture judgment for unlawful debt collection activities).

Page 95 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 Exhibit 20—U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) fraudulent jury charge Tr. 889 L 2-11: re
Deliberate and intentional fraudulent and criminal jury charge by District Judge Robert W.
Sweet with the Consent of the Prosecutors to criminally violate Appellant’s Due Process
Clause and Sixth Amendment rights to be convicted by a jury in a jury trial on all elements
of the government’s burden of proof.87

Article III federal judges Robert W. Sweet, (deceased), Robert A. Katzmann (deceased), Leonard B. Sand (deceased), and Peter W.
Hall (deceased) all were material participants in the ongoing ultra-violent and dangerous loan sharking and money laundering
criminal conspiracy run by mob boss Ari Rabinowitz, RICO Hobbs Act criminal enterprises LH Financial Service, and Alpha Capital,
AG (Anstalt), under the supervision and operation of Charles Ellis Schumer, Merrick B. Garland, Damian Williams, Edgardo Ramos,
Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, and the U.S. DOJ’s executive leadership—a continuing
criminal enterprise.

87
District Judge Robert W. Sweet, the trial judge, at the request of and with the consent of the Prosecutors
actually convicted Appellant, rather than the trial jury, of the government’s burden of proof to prove that
GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24 were “lawful” orders as required by the charging statute, 18 USC 401(3). Sweet
and the Prosecutors, AUSAs Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, and Michael J. Garica knew the orders
were unlawful criminal usury, RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection orders—that is, the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs (see Ex. 19, supra), Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, are legally
ineligible for Rule 144, see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995); Sweet, Douvas, Goldin, Garcia, Sarah E. Paul,
Katheirne Polk-Failla, and Circuit Judges Katzmann, Hall, and Jones knowingly and willfully conspired to
and violated 18 USC 2, 241, 242, and 371, and the Prosecutors had Sweet, J., the trial judge, deliberately
convict Appellant on the “lawful” element of the statute, which the circuit judges fraudulently upheld in
the 09-0851cr moot appeal (see Ex. 17, supra). A complete sham, a fraud, and a conspiracy to falsely
imprison Appellant as a Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime.

Page 96 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 21—Soloman Obstfeld former mob boss of LH Financial Services, NYC loan sharking,
and money laundering criminal enterprise.

Page 97 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 21-1—con’t Ari Rabinowitz (gov’t witness/informant) re Alleged coconspirator in
the murder for hire of former LH Financial Services mob boss Soloman Obstfeld, the boss
of the Hobbs Act RICO loan sharking CCE. The Prosecutors knowingly called Rabinowitz as
a gov’t witness in 04cr1224, and permitted Rabinowitz to knowingly commit perjury and
give false and misleading testimony regarding the Alpha Capital, AG’s criminal usury loan
sharking promissory notes GX 1-4, GX 5, and other matters.

Page 98 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 21-2—Jewish media’s reporting on Soloman Obstfeld’s alleged murder for hire, the
former mob boss of loan sharking and money laundering criminal enterprise LH Financial
Services.

Page 99 of 109
Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 21-3—NY senator Charles Ellis Schumer re: the alleged “Godfather” of the NYC
Jewish murder for hire, loan sharking, and money laundering mafia continuing criminal
enterprise, LH Financial Services (LHFS). For a shares in the ill-gotten gains, Schumer
appoints the judges and prosecutors who then provide political protection for the profits,
proceeds, and participants involved in the operations of LHFS, including murder and
kidnapping. See Ex. 1, Ex. 8, Ex. 9, Ex. 15, Ex. 17, Ex. 19, and Ex. 20, supra.

Page 100 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 22—District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick’s fabricated and counterfeit U.S. v. Ware
05cr1115 (SDNY) dockets to suppress and conceal official proceedings from Appellant and
the public regarding gov’t witness Jeremy Jones’ government sponsored bribery and
perjury.88

88
Note that gov’t witness Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 2006 purported Rule 11 proceedings do not appear on the
2009 05cr1115 docket, and were removed, suppressed, and concealed by the Prosecutors, District Judge Pauley,
and Ruby Krajick during the trial and appeal as a fraud on the public and Appellant. Dkt. items 20, 23, and 24 were
deliberately removed and suppressed in violation of 18 USC 2071(a), (b) are missing from the docket.

Page 101 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 22-1—June 5, 2023, U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) alleged docket, cf., Ex. 22
supra.

Page 102 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 23—McMahon, J., Hagenau, C.J., and the Prosecutors’ collusion, acted in concert,
and conspiracy to deny Appellant access to the courts using bogus and frivolous leave to
file orders.89

89
Judge McMahon entered the show cause order, Dkt. 137, in 02cv2219 (SDNY) despite the Dec. 20, 2007,
Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit, see Ex. 10, supra, which
terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the proceedings, see L-3 Comm’cs, 921 F.3d at 18-19; and see A.B.
Dick, 197 F.2d at 501-02;

Page 103 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 24-1—Brady court order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.)—
ordered the Prosecutors “prior to start of trial” to disclose all Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act
materials; the Prosecutors have resisted and violated this command continuously since
May 2006, cf., Ex. 2, Ex. 3, and Ex. 7, supra, the EOUSA’s Nov. 17, 2023, FOIA response.

Page 104 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 24-2—Brady court order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), August 10, 2007,
Sweet, J.

Page 105 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 24-2 (con’t)

Page 106 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 25—Ware v. United States, 10-6449 (S. Ct.) docket.

Page 107 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Exhibit 25-1—Supreme Court of the United States Docket, In re Ware, 13-8604 re Pet’n
for writ of habeas corpus.

Page 108 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.
 End of document

Page 109 of 109

Sunday, December 10, 2023
(50) re Emergency Application for Appointment of a Special Master, and Complaint for Criminal
Prosecutorial Misconduct.