UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
United States of America, :
Respondent-Plaintiff, :
:
:
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (09.4))
v. :
:
:
Ulysses T. Ware, :
Appellant-Defendant. :
__________________________________________:
Filing Memorandum:
Re: Exhibits 11, 11-1, and 11-2
Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re:
Exhibits 11, 11-1, and 11-2--Part III Ongoing Judicial Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
and Commit Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos,
Pauley, Sweet, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, Dawson, McMahon, and
Cabranes) in Support of the Requested Reliefs Regarding the May 12, 2024, and
June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate,
and (2) The immediate access to all judicial court records used in or a part of U.S.
v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its decision in its
August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d
Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.) not later than Friday, May 31, 2024, time of the essence.
Respectfully Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]Date: Filed on Monday, July 1, 2024
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
Page 1 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Table of Contents
A Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
B Judicial Admissions: Definition and Binding Nature .......................................................................... 4
C Article II Affirmative Defenses: Description and Impact .................................................................... 5
D Application to 04-cr-1224 (SDNY): Specific Judicial Admissions and Affirmative Defenses. ............ 6
1 Judicial Admissions in the Indictment: ............................................................................................ 6
2 Content of Government Trial Exhibit GX 5, para. 10.1 (iv): ............................................................ 8
E Impact on Article III Constitutional and 18 USC 3231 Statutory Federal Jurisdiction ..................... 10
1 Removal of Legal Grounds: ............................................................................................................ 11
2 Jurisdictional Nullification:............................................................................................................. 12
F Double Jeopardy Clause Protection Was Triggered on Nov. 12, 2007, with respect to the USAO’s
(David N. Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, and Nicholas S. Goldin) Risible Article II Actual Innocent
Exculpatory Affirmative Defenses Pleaded on the Face of the Purported 04cr1224 (05cr1115)
Indictment. ................................................................................................................................................. 12
G Legal and Procedural Implications .................................................................................................... 14
H Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Jim Crow racially-motivated murder for-hire order, Dkt. 61, May 28, 2003, (02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.) 18
Exhibit A-1—May 28, 2003, Dkt. 61 (GX 34) Murder for hire order (Sand, J.) ......................................... 19
Exhibit A-2--May 28, 2003, Dkt. 61 (GX 34) Murder for hire order (Sand, J.) .......................................... 20
Exhibit A-3--Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA murder for hire, kidnapping, false arrest, and armed aggravated
assault and battery to collect an unlawful debt committed against Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware,
Esq. by four (4) racist, armed, dangerous, thuggish killers impersonating U.S. Marshals hired by Atlanta,
GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Kenneth A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, David N. Kelley,
Arie Rabinowitz, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., et al., to murder Mr. Ware in collection of the GX 1-4, GX 5
predatory criminal usury unlawful debts in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B). ........................................... 21
1 Exhibit GX-24: Jim Crow racially-motivated Ex parte murder for hire using deadly force against
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. Government trial exhibit (USA v. Ware, 04cr1224)(SDNY)) re August 13, 2003,
Code of Conduct for Federal Judges Canon 3(A)(4) violations: 02cv2219 (SDNY) District Court (SDNY)
(Sand, J.) (deceased) illegal ex parte communications with the unregistered broker-dealers, statutory
underwriters’ lawyer Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. regarding the 18 USC 1961(B)(6) racketeering collection of
the predatory unlawful, criminal usury debts (GX 1-4, and GX 5). .......................................................... 22
2 GX 24.1 ........................................................................................................................................... 23
3 GX 24.2 ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Page 2 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
4 Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA murder for hire, kidnapping, false arrest, and armed aggravated assault
and battery to collect an unlawful debt committed against Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by
four (4) racist, armed, dangerous, thuggish killers impersonating U.S. Marshals hired by Atlanta, GA law
firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Kenneth A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, David N. Kelley, Arie
Rabinowitz, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., et al., to murder Mr. Ware in collection of the GX 1-4, GX 5
predatory criminal usury unlawful debts in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B). ........................................... 25
5 FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each 02cv2219
(SDNY) plaintiff. Unregistered broker-dealers as a matter of law lacked Article III standing to have filed
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) manifestly fraudulent and frivolous 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, and (2) lacked
Article III standing to have appeared in GPMT’s 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 case—that is,
02cv2219 the unregistered broker-dealers lacked a lawful claim (or debt) in regard to GX 1, GX 2, GX 3,
and GX 4, criminal usury null and void ab initio, unenforceable contracts. ............................................ 26
End of document ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Page 3 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
A Introduction
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. In the case of USA v.
Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY), the principles established in Hoodho v. Holder,
558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009) (Cabranes, J.) regarding judicial admissions play a pivotal role in
understanding how the USAO's Article II actual innocent exculpatory affirmative defenses and
judicial admissions plead on the face of the charging documents (the moot purported
indictments) impacted the charges and the applicability of double jeopardy protections.
B Judicial Admissions: Definition and Binding Nature
In Hoodho v. Holder, Id., (Cabranes, J.)1 the Second Circuit emphasized that judicial
admissions are formal concessions by a party in the course of judicial proceedings, which are
binding and have the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention. The court stated, "Judicial
admissions are formal concessions in the pleadings, or stipulations by a party or its counsel, that
are binding upon the party making them. They may not be controverted at trial or on appeal"
1
Note that (1) the Hon. Circuit Judge (2d Cir.) Jose A. Cabranes has ruthlessly, insidiously, and, summarily
denied Mr. Ware’s In re Edgardo Ramos, 02-22-90049jm (2d Cir.) complaint for criminal judicial
misconduct without any engagement of the facts in the petition nor without having Ramos, J. deny the
facts in the petition; and (2) also note that Cabranes, J. without any review of the actual innocent newly
discovered actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence on Dec. 4, 2023, with a
depraved mind as an overt act in furtherance of the Jim Crow racially-motivated murder for hire hate
crime conspiracy ongoing against Mr. Ware summarily denied Mr. Ware’s 23-865/23-869 (2d Cir.)
petition for leave to file an appeal of Mr. Ware’s Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain,
22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY) (Ramos, J.) 28 USC 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus petition. Cabranes,
J. is actually biased, prejudiced, and has an actual conflict of interest regarding Mr. Ware’s cases.
Page 4 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
(emphasis added) Hoodho, 558 F.3d at 191. Such judicial admissions are conclusive and
generally cannot be retracted, serving to eliminate the need for further proof on the admitted
facts.
C Article II Affirmative Defenses: Description and Impact
Article II affirmative defenses (judicial admission, see Ex. 11-2) pleaded on the face of an
indictment or charging instrument are rooted in the exclusive prosecutorial executive powers
conferred by the Constitution, particularly in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. These
affirmative defenses, judicial admission can include assertions of facts or legal principles that
negate the criminal liability of the accused. When the prosecution (USAO-SDNY) itself presented
these affirmative defenses in the 04cr1224 (see Ex. 11-2) and 05cr1115 purported indictments,
they fundamentally undermined and vitiated the legal and factual basis of the fabricated charges
and terminated “concrete adverseness” between the parties, and therefore the USAO conceded
in writing a live Article III “case or controversy” did not exist with respect to each element of the
alleged offense which rendered the matters (02cv2219, 04cr1224 and 05cr1115) null and void
ab initio and moot.2
2
See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95 (a federal court is prohibited from reaching the merits of a claim until
such time as if by notice of the parties, or sua sponte the federal court “first as a threshold matter”
affirmative verifies its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims; if jurisdiction is found to be lacking
[where the plaintiff (the 02cv2219 plaintiffs with respect to 02cv2219) and (the USAO-SDNY) with respect
to 04cr1224 and 05cr1115) have the burden of production and proof], the federal court is prohibited from
proceeding any further; the court must notice the lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the cause).
(paraphrased) (emphasis added).
Page 5 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
D Application to 04-cr-1224 (SDNY): Specific Judicial Admissions and
Affirmative Defenses.
In the USA v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) case, the purported indictment, see Ex. 11-2,
included voluntary Article II judicial admissions and actual innocent exculpatory Article II
affirmative defenses pleaded by the USAO’s prosecutors (David N. Kelley and Alexander H.
Southwell) that were critical and fatal to the United States and its privies to the cases’ (04cr1224
and 05cr1115) outcome. Key elements from Document 9.4-2EX (Ex. 11-2) and Exhibit GX 5, para.
10.1 (iv) include:
1 Judicial Admissions in the Indictment:
o The USAO admitted on Nov. 17, 2004, that the defendant (Mr. Ware) was engaged
in activities, refusal to issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, which did not constitute criminal offenses under the
relevant statute, 18 USC 401(3). For example, the indictment acknowledged that
the 02cv2219 plaintiffs were illegally (see USA v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir.
1968) (aff’d conviction and sentence of statutory underwriter trading in
unregistered securities) acting as statutory underwriters under 15 USC 77b(a)(11)
and therefore Mr. Ware was not in violation of criminal contempt laws, 18 USC
401(3) (see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995); see Berckeley, 455 F.3d at 220; and
also see GX 5, para. 10.1(iv) pleaded in the purported indictment at pages 2-3, Ex.
11-2).
Page 6 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
o These admissions included exculpatory facts, effectively acknowledging that the
defendants were innocent of the charges, specifically stating that their actions
Figure 1
were legally permissible and did not constitute criminal activity (Document 9.4-
2EX, p. 4). 3
3
See Figure 1, supra, para. 21 taken from the Nov. 17, 2004, 04cr1224 purported indictment. Cf.
Figure 1 with Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 (GX 24.1 and GX 24.2), infra. Sand, J. on Aug. 13, 2003, via improper
ex parte communications with the 02cv2219 plaintiffs Sand learned via judicial admissions that
each plaintiff as of February 2002 was the “beneficial owner of more than 9.9% of [GPMT’s]
equity securities” and therefore the plaintiffs voluntarily judicially admitted that each was, in
fact, a 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insider, a fiduciary, of the issuer GPMT, and required to disgorge
back to GPMT all “short-swing profits” realized through trading in GPMT’s securities from date
of acquisition (Feb. 2, 2002), see Ex. 11-1 and also see Ex. 11-2) Packer v. Raging Capital
Management LLC, No. 23-367cv (June 24, 2024, 2d Cir.) (Cabranes, J.).
Page 7 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
2 Content of Government Trial Exhibit GX 5, para. 10.1 (iv):
o This exhibit contained actual innocent Article II affirmative defenses, judicial
admissions, that the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs were statutory underwriters of
GPMT’s convertible notes, the unlawful, null and void ab initio criminal usury
convertible promissory notes, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, under 15 USC
77b(a)(11), thereby Mr. Ware was protected from the alleged criminal conduct.
The indictment implicitly stated, see Ex. 11-2 at 2-4, that the transactions in
question, GX 1-4, GX 5, were unlawful under federal securities laws (GX 5, para.
10.1(iv)), see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995, USA v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d
Cir. 1968 (aff’d conviction and sentence of statutory underwriter’s involvement in
the sale of unregistered securities [cf., GX 1-4]), and Berkeley, 455 F.3d at 220,
infra.
o The USAO’s Article II judicial admissions, affirmative defenses to all charges
negated and voided the allegations of unlawful activities within the context of 18
USC 401(3), criminal contempt of the moot, null and void ab initio 02cv2219
(SDNY) proceedings orders; as the defendant’s (Mr. Ware’s) actions were within
the bounds of the law, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995). This effectively and
legally concluded that the prosecution acknowledged no criminal intent or
action on the part of Mr. Ware (see Ex. 11-2, p. 5).
Page 8 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
o SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) provides interpretive guidance on the definition
of statutory underwriters, reinforcing the 02cv2219 plaintiffs’ actions as unlawful
actors under the securities laws. This SEC release clarifies the scope and
limitations of underwriter activities, supporting the USAO’s Article II affirmative
defenses, judicial admissions made in the indictment.
o In SEC v. Berkeley, 455 F.3d 210, 220 (2d Cir. 2006), the court further elaborated
on the legal implications of underwriter activities, indicating that proper
classification as a statutory underwriter can shield individuals from certain
liability claims. This precedent supports the USAO's judicial admissions in GX 5,
para. 10.1(iv), highlighting the lawful nature of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs’ actions
admitted to in the 02cv2219 complaint and also admitted to by the Atlanta, GA
law firm KTS in the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter
11 case, see Ex. 11-1 (the KTS Memo).4
4
The Atlanta, GA law firm, KTS, according to the trial testimony of Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.,(see Ex. 11-1)
the plaintiffs’ legal counsel in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Zitter crumbled and under tremendous physical stress
admitted and testified under brutal cross-examination by Mr. Ware that KTS’ partner Dennis S. Meir, Esq.
designed and planned the “strategy” used by KTS in the Chapter 11 case to execute the plaintiffs’
conspiracy to bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 1951, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d), by
deliberately and knowingly concealing from the Bankruptcy Court vital and critical facts—that is, KTS and
its lawyers (Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV) committed a fraud on the court by
concealing from the estate and the Court the fact that each plaintiff was a 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insider
of GPMT and required to disgorge back to the Chapter 11 estate all profits (+$522 million) realized by each
plaintiff from trading in GPMT’s securities, cf., Ex. 11-1 (Packer v. Raging Capital Mgmt); (2) KTS
deliberately and recklessly hid and concealed from the Court and GPMT that each plaintiff was an
unregistered broker-dealer in violation of 15 USC 78o(a)(1) (see Ex. 5, infra, FINRA’s May 17, 2021,
unregistered broker-dealer certification) and hid and concealed form the Court that each plaintiff also
lacked a lawful claim—that is, lacked standing and lawful authority, see U.S. v. Grote, 921 F.3d 105, 115-
17 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and affirmed +$3.5 billion RICO forfeiture judgment for
Page 9 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
E Impact on Article III Constitutional and 18 USC 3231 Statutory
Federal Jurisdiction
The USAO’s Nov. 17, 2004, actual innocent, exculpatory, judicial admissions and Article II
affirmative defenses pleaded on the face of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) charging document, see Ex. Ex.
11-2, presented by the USAO on behalf of the United States, the real party interest, had a
significant and fatal impact on the Article III and 18 USC 3231 jurisdiction of the USA v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) and USA v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.) (Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased),
and Jones), 11-4181cv (2d Cir.), 17-2214 (2d Cir.), and 23-865 (2d Cir.) federal courts—that is,
jointly, (the “Moot Proceedings”).5
unlawful debt collection activities) to collect criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4,
to appear in and obstruct GPMT’s Chapter 11 case by filing bogus, manifestly frivolous and fraudulent
motions to dismiss the Chapter 11.
5
The Moot proceedings (04cr1224) as a matter of law went moot on Nov. 17, 2004, upon the USAO
pleading para. 9-25 in the 04cr1224 charging document, Article II actual innocent, affirmative defenses,
judicial admission; notwithstanding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ March 2002 pleading judicial
admission on the face of the risible 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, see para. 12-18, referencing the so-called
Subscription Agreement’s (GX -5’s) par. 10.1(iv)—that is, GX -5, para. 10.1(iv) are judicial admissions
(factual stipulations), that the plaintiffs admitted and agreed that each 02cv2219 plaintiff is, in fact, a 15
USC 7b(a)(11) statutory underwriter of GPMT’s securities, and therefore legally ineligible for any Rule
144(k) exemption to 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, see USA v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968) (aff’d
conviction and sentence of a statutory underwriter that engaged in the sale of unregistered securities);
also see SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) (“Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters [i.e., the 02cv2219
(SDNY plaintiffs, see GX 5, para. 10.1(iv)] required to register all distribution of securities.”). (emphasis
added).
Moreover, the admission into evidence GX 5, para. 10.1(iv) during the 04cr1224 trial by AUSA Nicholas S.
Goldin and Maria E. Douvas was the death kneel for the plaintiffs—that is, the USAO judicially admitted
and stipulated before the jury to Section 2(a)(11) Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriter and
unregistered broker-dealer status for each plaintiff, that on March 20, 2002, upon the filing of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) risible complaint in the district court (SDNY) an Article III case or controversy was
voluntarily permanently terminated by the plaintiffs’ counsel, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., by pleading the
statutory underwriter judicial admission in para. 12-13 of the 02cv2219 (SDNY), which on March 20, 2002,
Page 10 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
The USAO in regard to U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) on Nov. 17, 2004, allegedly before a
federal grand jury, by pleading, stipulating, and acknowledging in Article II actual innocent
affirmative defenses in a judicial pleading, see HoodHo, 558 F.3d at 191, the 04cr1224 charging
document (see Ex. 11-2), actual innocent exculpatory facts, see Ex. 11-2, para. 9-25, Article II
affirmative defenses, which negated and voided all 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt liability, the
USAO effectively removed and legally eliminated the legal and factual basis, and the district
court’s 18 USC 3231 jurisdiction over 04cr1224, for the Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime
murder for hire fabricated and bogus criminal contempt charges, resulting in several critical
outcomes:
1 Removal of Legal Grounds:
The USAO’s Nov. 17, 2004, actual innocent Article II judicial admissions—Article II affirmative
defenses, negated the necessary elements (resistance to the “lawful” order or judgment of the
02cv2219 district court, GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24, see Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, infra) to sustain the
indictment, thereby eliminating the foundation for federal jurisdiction. See 18 USC 3231. The
USAO’s actual innocent affirmative defenses, judicial admissions, stipulated and stated that Mr.
Ware’s lawful actions—that is, refusing to be bullied and coerced into the criminal violation of
the federal securities law, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, and issuing bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k)
legal opinions to the unregistered broker-dealers (see Ex. 5, infra), Section 2(a)(11) statutory
rendered the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings moot for lack of a dispute between the parties. See Hoodho,
558 F.3d at 191. Thus, as a matter of law once 02cv2219 went moot on March 20, 2002, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
also went moot on March 20, 2002.
Page 11 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
underwriters (see GX 5, para. 10.1(iv)), Section 16(b) statutory insiders (the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiffs), see GX 24 (Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, infra) did not meet the criteria for criminal conduct under
the relevant statutes 18 USC 401(3). See Document 9.4-2EX, Ex. 11-2, pp. 6-7.
2 Jurisdictional Nullification:
With the indictment's legal and factual basis nullified, the 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 09-0851cr
(2d Cir.) federal courts no longer had jurisdiction to prosecute (cf., 18 USC 3231)6 or review
the case, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 92-93, rendering the indictment void ab initio. The USAO’s
stipulation and acknowledgment of unlawful conduct by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs (see
U.S. v. Wolfson, 405 F.2d at 779 (2d Cir. 1968) (aff’d conviction and sentence for statutory
underwriters trading in unregistered securities) meant that there was no live Article III case
or controversy for the court to resolve (Document 9.4-2EX, Ex. 11-2, p. 8). Accordingly, the
04cr1224 cause was moot, and required to be dismissed with prejudice, Steel Co., Id.
F Double Jeopardy Clause Protection Was Triggered on Nov. 12, 2007,
with respect to the USAO’s (David N. Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, and
Nicholas S. Goldin) Risible Article II Actual Innocent Exculpatory
Affirmative Defenses Pleaded on the Face of the Purported 04cr1224
(05cr1115) Indictment.
6
Once 02cv2219 went moot on March 20, 2002, by the voluntary judicial admission of the plaintiffs, and
on Nov. 17, 2004, by the voluntary Article II affirmative defenses pleaded by the USAO in the purported
04cr1224 indictment, as a matter of law 18 USC 3231 jurisdiction terminated and rendered the 04cr1221
(09-0851cr (2d Cir.) matter moot and void ab initio, see Steel Co., Id.
Page 12 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Upon the swearing of the jury in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (Sweet, J.) (deceased) on Monday,
November 12, 2007, the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection was triggered by the USAO with
respect to the alleged facts, the USAO’s Article II actual innocent, exculpatory affirmative
defenses, judicial admissions, pleaded on the face of the 04cr1224 indictment (see Ex. 11-2)—
that is, (i) jeopardy attached to (a) Mr. Ware and (b) and attached to the USAO’s Article II actual
innocent exculpatory affirmative defenses and judicial admissions, and (ii) once jeopardy
attached to the USAO’s Article II actual innocent exculpatory affirmative defenses on Nov. 12,
2007, the district court’s 18 USC 3231 jurisdiction was ipso facto terminated and the USAO
acquitted Mr. Ware of all charges).7 This clause provides that no person shall "be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The triggering of double jeopardy
protections can be analyzed as follows:
1. Swearing of the Jury: The formal process of swearing in the jury marked the point—the
end of the 04cr1224 trial, at which time jeopardy attached to Mr. Ware and the USAO’s
Article II actual innocent, exculpatory affirmative defenses, judicial admissions, in the
criminal proceeding. According to standard legal practice, jeopardy attached On Nov. 12,
2007, the moment District Judge Sweet, (deceased) empaneled and swore the 04cr1224
7
“The protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause are activated once a jury is empaneled and sworn."
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978). (emphasis added). The alleged trial in 04cr1224 was completed on
Nov. 12, 2007, upon the swearing of the jury, Crist, 437 U.S. at 35, where Mr. Ware was acquitted by the
USAO, the Executive Branch, of all charges protected by the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s protection, and enforceable by Mr. Ware through the civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC
401(2), 401(3), processes.
Page 13 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
jury, ipso facto as a matter of law terminating the 04cr1224 trial in favor of Mr. Ware.
Hoodho, 558 F.3d at 190.
2. Effect of Judicial Admissions: The USAO's judicial admissions and Article II affirmative
defenses effectively acknowledged the defendant (Mr. Ware’s) innocence, which
precluded and strictly prohibited the need for a trial. The indictment itself admitted
exculpatory affirmative defenses and facts that nullified the criminal charges (Document
9.4-2EX, Ex. 11-2, p. 9).
3. Double Jeopardy Implications: Once the jury was sworn in on Nov. 12, 2007, jeopardy
attached. Given that the exculpatory judicial admissions and affirmative defenses
negated the criminal charges, any further attempt to prosecute Ware for the same
offenses would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The principles outlined in Hoodho v.
Holder, Id. confirm that once facts are judicially admitted, they are binding on the USAO
and the Courts and preclude re-litigation of those issues, Hoodho, 558 F.3d at 191
(Cabranes, J.).
G Legal and Procedural Implications
The broader legal and procedural implications of these admissions and defenses are
significant:
1. Precedent from Hoodho v. Holder: The binding nature of judicial admissions, as
established in Hoodho, underscores their impact in conclusively determining issues in a
case. The court stated, "Judicial admissions are formal concessions in the pleadings, or
Page 14 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
stipulations by a party or its counsel, which are binding upon the party making them. They
may not be controverted at trial or on appeal." Hoodho, Id.
2. Prosecutorial Accountability: The 04cr1224 (09-0851cr (2d Cir.)) case highlights the
importance of prosecutorial discretion and the need for accountability when admitting
Article II affirmative defenses, actual innocent exculpatory facts. The USAO’s palpable
exculpatory judicial admissions pleaded on the face of the purported 04cr1224 indictment
protected Mr. Ware from wrongful prosecution but required careful attention to their use
to maintain judicial integrity.
3. Judicial Integrity and Fairness: Ensuring that judicial admissions are properly recorded
and acknowledged upholds principles of fairness and due process, preventing undue
harm to defendants and preserving the legitimacy of the judicial process.
H Conclusion
In USA v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), the judicial admissions and Article II affirmative
defenses presented by the USAO, as detailed in Document 9.4-2EX (Ex. 11-2) and GX 5, para. 10.1
(iv), negated the legal basis for the indictment. Upon the swearing of the jury on Nov. 12, 2007,
by the trial judge Sweet, J. (deceased), the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection was triggered,
precluding any further prosecution for the same offenses. This case exemplifies the powerful role
of judicial admissions and affirmative defenses in shaping legal outcomes and maintaining the
balance of justice in federal court proceedings.
I Requested relief.
Page 15 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Mr. Ware respectfully requests the Court forthwith enter the requested reliefs given the
indisputable nature of the contents of the purported 04cr1224 (see Ex. 11-2) and 05cr1115
(SDNY) purported indictments8—both null and void ab initio by the USAO’s pleading Article II
actual innocent, exculpatory affirmative defenses, judicial admission on the face of the purported
indictments—both charging instruments (04cr1224 and 05cr1115) do not constitute lawful
indictments because neither charged an 18 USC 3231 “offense”, and accordingly, therefore the
Article III United States District Courts lacked Section 3231 jurisdiction to try 04cr1224 and
05cr1115 and enter a judgment of guilt or conviction. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94-95. The causes
are moot and required to be dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]Date: Filed on Monday, July 1, 2024
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
8
The alleged grand juried in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 (SDNY) did not return a lawful and valid indictment—
that is, neither charged an 18 USC 3231 “offenses” given (i) with respect to 05cr1115 the SEC-DOJ’s Article
II actual innocent affirmative defenses, judicial admission pleaded in the 2003 Las Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV)
Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings alleged complaint’s para. 33; and (ii) with respect to 04cr1224 the USAO’s
admission of GX 5 at trial and incorporating GX 24 in the purported indictment at para. 21, see Figure 1,
supra. Ergo, lacking a lawful and valid indictment that charged an 18 USC 3231 “offense” the District Court
lacked lawful subject matter to invoke its 18 USC 3231 jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 04cr1224 and
05cr1115 causes are moot and required to be reversed and dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction which can be raised “at any time” by any party (Mr. Ware), or the courts, sua sponte.
See Arbaugh v. Y&D Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) ("The objection that a federal court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the
litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment."). (emphasis added).
Page 16 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Exhibits
Page 17 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Jim Crow racially-motivated murder for-hire order, Dkt. 61, May 28, 2003,
(02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.)
Exhibit 9.2-1 Re: GX 34 (May 28, 2003, order, Sand, J. (deceased) authorized the use of
deadly force against Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., GPMT’s securities counsel, to
collect the criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1-4, GX 5, in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
Page 18 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Exhibit A-1—May 28, 2003, Dkt. 61 (GX 34) Murder for hire order (Sand, J.)
Page 19 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Exhibit A-2--May 28, 2003, Dkt. 61 (GX 34) Murder for hire order (Sand, J.)
Page 20 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
Exhibit A-3--Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA murder for hire, kidnapping, false arrest, and armed
aggravated assault and battery to collect an unlawful debt committed against Atlanta, GA
lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by four (4) racist, armed, dangerous, thuggish killers
impersonating U.S. Marshals hired by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, &
Stockton, LLP, Kenneth A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, David N. Kelley, Arie Rabinowitz, Thomas
W. Thrash, Jr., et al., to murder Mr. Ware in collection of the GX 1-4, GX 5 predatory
criminal usury unlawful debts in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
Page 21 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
1 Exhibit GX-24: Jim Crow racially-motivated Ex parte murder for hire using deadly
force against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. Government trial exhibit (USA v. Ware,
04cr1224)(SDNY)) re August 13, 2003, Code of Conduct for Federal Judges Canon 3(A)(4)
violations: 02cv2219 (SDNY) District Court (SDNY) (Sand, J.) (deceased) illegal ex parte
communications with the unregistered broker-dealers, statutory underwriters’ lawyer
Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. regarding the 18 USC 1961(B)(6) racketeering collection of the
predatory unlawful, criminal usury debts (GX 1-4, and GX 5).
Page 22 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
2 GX 24.1
Page 23 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
3 GX 24.2
Page 24 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
4 Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA murder for hire, kidnapping, false arrest, and armed
aggravated assault and battery to collect an unlawful debt committed against Atlanta, GA
lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. by four (4) racist, armed, dangerous, thuggish killers
impersonating U.S. Marshals hired by Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, &
Stockton, LLP, Kenneth A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, David N. Kelley, Arie Rabinowitz, Thomas
W. Thrash, Jr., et al., to murder Mr. Ware in collection of the GX 1-4, GX 5 predatory
criminal usury unlawful debts in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
Page 25 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
5 FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff. Unregistered broker-dealers as a matter of law lacked Article III
standing to have filed the 02cv2219 (SDNY) manifestly fraudulent and frivolous 02cv2219
(SDNY) complaint, and (2) lacked Article III standing to have appeared in GPMT’s 03-93031
(BC NDGA) Chapter 11 case—that is, 02cv2219 the unregistered broker-dealers lacked a
lawful claim (or debt) in regard to GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, criminal usury null and void
ab initio, unenforceable contracts.
Page 26 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
End of document
Page 27 of 27
Monday, July 1, 2024
(9.4) ( Ex. 11, 11-1, 11-2) Filing Memorandum re Section 16(b) disgorgement of +$522 million by
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealer, Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters, and
Section 16(b) statutory insiders, see GX 24 (Sand, J.) Aug. 13, 2003, order.
