UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_________________________________________
United States of America, :
Respondent-Plaintiff, :
:
:
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L) (09.11-4)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L)
:
:
Ulysses T. Ware, :
Appellant-Defendant. :
__________________________________________:
Ulysses T. Ware’s August 6, 2024, Request that the Court enter a Writ
of Brady Evidence Production and Disclosure1 Compelling the
Production of all Brady Evidence related to: Supplement #2.0, Ex. A,
(9.11-2, 9.11-3, and 9.11-3A) to his July 31, 2024 (9.11-1), Renewed
Brady Disclosure and Production Demand in Support of Supplemental
Declaration (#2.0—9.11-3A) for Rule 3(c)(2) Clear and Convincing
Evidence for Probable Cause for the Chief Circuit Judge to Sua Sponte
Appoint the Rule 11(f) Special Committee.
________
Verified Rule 3(c)(2) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability
Proceedings Clear and Convincing Evidence: Criminal Judicial Misconduct of
Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack, et al.; (1) Criminal violations of the Code of Conduct
1
The Court of Appeals is authorized to issue the writ of production and disclosure pursuant to the All
Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) in pari materia
with McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), in fulfillment of its judicial duties under the
Constitution of the United States, and the Court’s Article III supervisory authority to enforce Brady court
orders, regulate lawyers that practice before the Courts under the Court of Appeals authority, and other
necessary actions in compliance with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, due process of law, and the
DOJ, NYS, and GA Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethics for Lawyers, Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, and 8.4; and
lawyers, officers of the court, duty of complete candor to the Court.
Page 1 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
for Federal Judges; (2) Violations of 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1); and (3) Numerous
violations of Title 18 USCA—a “pattern of racketeering activities.”
___________
Re: The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Sack, Hall (deceased), Cabranes), District Court
(SDNY) (Pauley, Sweet, Dolinger, Peck, Taylor-Swain, Ramos, McMahon, and
Dawson (D. NV)), Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court (Hagenau); and the State Bar of
Georgia, et al. Collusion, Racketeering to Obstruct Justice, Conspiracy, Crimes,
and Frauds with Respect to: (1) the Ongoing Suppression and Concealment of
Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts; and (2) Vindictive, Retaliatory, and Punitive
Sanctions Designed to Professionally Destroy Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. in Retaliation
for Mr. Ware’s Refusal to Issue Fraudulent and Bogus Rule 144(k) Legal Opinions
to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Plaintiffs, Unregistered Broker-Dealers, Section 2(a)(11)
Statutory Underwriters, and 15 USC 78p(b) Statutory Insiders of the Issuer,
GPMT.2
Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re: Jeremy
Jones’ Judicial Court Records--Part XVIII (9.10-4) 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;
and the State Bar of GA) in Support of the Requested Reliefs Regarding the May 12, 2024,
and June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the Moot August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr
mandate, and (2) The immediate access to all judicial court records used in and/or part of
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its decision in its Moot
2
Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP and its partners, Dennis S. Meir, John W.
Mills, III, and J. Henry Walker, IV knowingly aided, abetted, enabled, and facilitated a conspiracy to
commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(b), and 1962(a-
d), during the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 proceedings; and KTS and
its partners knowing, in bad faith, and recklessly lied and committed fraud on GPMT, Mr. Ware, and the
Bankruptcy Court by concealing the fact that its clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, before, during,
and after the time of the Chapter 11 case had never lawfully registered with the SEC or FINRA, or NYS as
15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealers, and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law and fact KTS and its client
lacked a lawful claim and thus, lacked Article III standing to have appeared in the Chapter 11 case and
obstructed GPMT’s right to reorganize and recoup +$522 million in illegal Section 16(b) short-swing profits
concealed by KTS’ clients--realized from illegal insider trading in the equity securities of GPMT—that is,
the collection of criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX4, in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
and Grote, 921 F.3d at 115-17.
Page 2 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
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. 3
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 Tuesday, August 6, 2024
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
3
The August 18, 2009, purported mandate entered in 07-5222(L) (2d Cir.) as a matter of law and fact went
moot on (i) July 14, 2003, upon the SEC-DOJ filing the unsigned complaint filed in the Las Vegas 03-0831
(D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s ¶33, which pleaded a binding Article II actual innocent affirmative
defense, judicial admission, which pleaded the United States out of the federal and state courts
(protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause absolute finality) subject to equitable and judicial estoppel—
binding on the United States, the real party in interest in 03-0831 (D. NV), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115
(SDNY), and its agents (The State Bar of Georgia, its agents and employees), proxies, surrogates, and
alter-egos; and (ii) not later than Nov. 7, 2008, went moot upon the Government’s voluntary termination,
abandonment, and dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.) cross-appeal of
the District Court (Pauley, J.) post-trial Rule 29(c) acquittal verdicts finding the Government’s trial proof
insufficient on “market efficiency” and scheduling a Fatico hearing on the issue after the trial jury was
discharged on April 30, 2007—see 05cr1115 Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18-25; S. Tr. 35-36; and S. Tr. 73-76.
Page 3 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Honorable Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D.
Sack, the Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals, the Chairperson, District Court Committee on
Lawyer Discipline, the Rule 11(f) Special Committee
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware
Case Nos. 07-5222cr(L) and 24-1414cr(L)
Dear Chief Judge Livingston and the Court of Appeals:
On behalf of Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-defendant in the above-styled case, I
write to the Court urgently requesting the intervention of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit pursuant to its supervisory authority under Article III of the United States
Constitution. Specifically, I request that the Court issue a Writ of Brady Evidence Production and
Disclosure under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, as authorized by United States v. New York
Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), compelling the United Staes Attorney’s Office (SDNY), the
District Court, Southern District of New York (SDNY) and each individual and entity named in the
Introduction section of document 9.11-1 to immediately not later than August 12, 2024, or
earlier, produce all Brady materials or certify under oath that all Brady materials have been
disclosed to Mr. Ulysses T. Ware.
Background and Basis for the Request:
Mr. Ulysses T. Ware has submitted to this Court numerous demands (+50) for Brady
evidence disclosure, as detailed in his filings dated July 31, 2024 (9.11-1), August 1, 2024 (9.11-
2), August 2, 2024 (9.11-3), and August 3, 2024 (9.11-3A). To date, the government and the
individuals named in these documents have not produced the requested Brady materials, nor
have they certified under oath that such materials have been disclosed. This resistance and
inaction to the written Brady orders entered in the sub judice criminal proceedings violates Mr.
Ware’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial as established by Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, as well as the Brady disclosure orders entered in the criminal
proceedings (04cr1224, Dkt. 32, and 05cr1115, Dkt. 17).
Legal Precedent and Supervisory Authority:
Page 4 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
The Supreme Court in Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either
to guilt or to punishment” (373 U.S. at 87). This doctrine was further reinforced in Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), where the Court extended the Brady rule to include evidence
affecting the credibility of government witnesses. The Court in Giglio emphasized that “when the
‘reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,’ nondisclosure of
evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule” (405 U.S. at 154, quoting Napue v.
Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)).
In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the Supreme Court elaborated on the materiality
standard set forth in Brady, stating that favorable evidence is material if there is a “reasonable
probability” that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been
different (514 U.S. at 433-34). The Court underscored the prosecution’s duty to learn of any
favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police (514
U.S. at 437).
Additionally, in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), the Supreme Court
asserted the supervisory authority of federal courts to ensure the proper administration of
justice, holding that the courts have the power to establish and enforce standards of conduct
for federal law enforcement officials. The Court stated, “The principles governing the
admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials have not been restricted . . . to those derived
solely from the Constitution. In the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration
of criminal justice in the federal courts, this Court has, from the very beginning of its history,
formulated rules of evidence to be applied in federal criminal prosecutions” (318 U.S. at 341).
(emphasis added).
Furthermore, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), empowers federal courts to "issue all
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law." In United States v. New York Telephone Co., the Supreme Court upheld
the use of the All Writs Act to compel a third party to provide assistance necessary to the
enforcement of the court’s orders (434 U.S. at 172). The Court recognized that the Act confers
broad authority to issue orders “necessary or appropriate” to aid the court’s jurisdiction (434
U.S. at 173).
Immediate Need for Judicial Intervention:
The failure to disclose Brady materials has severely prejudiced Mr. Ware’s defense, as
evidenced by the following:
1. Impeachment of Key Witnesses: Critical evidence such as Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11/USSG
5k1.1 perjury contracts, which would demonstrate his incentives to commit perjury, lie,
and testify falsely, remains undisclosed. This evidence is pivotal for impeaching the
Page 5 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
credibility of key prosecution witnesses whose testimonies were central to the
government's case.
2. Challenging the Government’s Narrative: Suppressed materials, including expert reports
and 05cr1115 (SDNY) government Exhibits GX 92 and GX 93, have been shown to be
fabricated by alleged “FBI analyst” Maria A. Font under the supervision and at the
direction of AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, and Michael J. Garcia with
the implied consent of former District Judge Williams H. Pauley, III (deceased). The
inability to access genuine reports has prevented Mr. Ware from effectively challenging
the government’s false and fabricated narrative of artificial inflation of stock prices.
3. Exposure of Misconduct and Bias: Brady statements and materials from law enforcement
officials, court employees, and others involved in the investigation and prosecution have
not been disclosed. These materials are crucial for exposing potential biases, misconduct,
and improper influences that could have significantly impacted the trial's fairness.
Requested Relief:
Given the ongoing and irreparable harm Mr. Ware has suffered, is currently suffering, and
will continue to suffer due to the "collateral consequences" directly and/or proximately caused
by the individuals and entities named in the Introduction section of document 9.11-1, including
Judges Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Edgardo Ramos, Jose A. Cabranes, Laura Taylor-Swain,
Wendy L. Hagenau, Colleen McMahon, and Kent J. Dawson, as well as AUSAs Alexander H.
Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, and Nicholas S. Goldin, I respectfully request the following
equitable remedies in addition to the immediate disclosure of Brady materials:
1. Issue a Writ of Brady Production and Disclosure compelling the United States Attorney’s
Office for the Southern District of New York, and the individuals named in the Introduction
section of document 9.11-1 to immediately produce all requested Brady materials or
certify under oath that all such materials have been disclosed to Mr. Ware, including a
certified chain of custody for all documents and records produced.
2. Schedule an Emergency Hearing to address the non-compliance with Brady obligations
and determine appropriate sanctions (civil and 18 USC 401(2), 401(3)) for the failure to
disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
3. Appoint a Special Master or a Rule 11(f) Special Committee to oversee the disclosure
process and ensure that all Brady materials are promptly and fully produced.
4. Grant a Stay of All Adverse Actions: Grant a stay of any and all adverse legal and
administrative actions against Mr. Ware, including but not limited to ongoing
prosecutions, professional disciplinary actions, and any actions impacting his civil
liberties, “collateral consequences,” until the Brady materials are fully disclosed, and a
comprehensive review is conducted.
5. Provide for a Comprehensive Review and Independent Investigation: Initiate a
comprehensive review and independent investigation into the conduct of the
Page 6 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judicial officers involved in Mr. Ware’s cases
to determine the extent of misconduct and recommend appropriate remedial actions.
6. Award Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Grant Mr. Ware reasonable attorney's fees and costs
incurred in pursuing this matter, recognizing the substantial efforts required to obtain
compliance with constitutional and legal obligations.
Conclusion:
The integrity of the judicial process and Mr. Ware’s constitutional rights are at stake.
Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to rectify the ongoing injustices and ensure a fair
and just resolution of this matter. I trust that the Court will give this urgent request the serious
consideration it merits.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Respectfully submitted,
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 Tuesday, August 6, 2024
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
End of document
Page 7 of 7
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
(9.11-4) Appellant-defendant Ulysses T. Ware request for the Court of Appeals to Compel the
Production and Disclosure of all actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
