UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_________________________________________
United States of America, :
Respondent-Plaintiff, :
:
: Case No. 11-2151cr
: Case No. 17-2214cv
: Case No. 07-5222cr (L)
v. : Case No. 24-1414cr (L) (10.1-2)
: Case No. 09-0851cr
: Case No. 23-865cv
Ulysses T. Ware, : Case No. 23-869cv
Appellant-Defendant. : Case No. 11-4181cv
__________________________________________:
Request for Immediate First Amendment
Disclosure and Production.1
For immediate delivery to the Chief Circuit Judge.
Ulysses T. Ware’s August 13, 2024, (1) Request for Chief Circuit Judge the Hon.
Debra Ann Livingston and the Circuit Clerk (Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf) U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit Immediate Disclosure and Production of all
Judicial Public Records Related to or Associated with the Extrajudicial Criminal
Proceedings Allegedly Conducted on August 8, 2024, in USA v. Ware, 24-1414cr
(L), Required by 28 USC § 46, 28 USC §§ 455(a), 455(b), 28 USC §§351-64, Rules
3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the First Amendment, Press Enterprise, the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges.2 See Ex. A, infra.
1
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1986)
(In Press-Enterprise I, we summarized the holdings of prior cases, noting that openness in criminal trials,
including the selection of jurors, enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal [process] and the
appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.). (internal quotes omitted)
(emphasis added).
2
See JC&D Rule 13(b): Criminal Conduct. If the special committee’s investigation concerns conduct that
may be a crime, the committee must consult with the appropriate prosecutorial authorities to the extent
Page 1 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
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 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.3
Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law (re: Jeremy
Jones’ Judicial Court Records--(10.1-2) 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,
permitted by the Act to avoid compromising any criminal investigation. The special committee has final
authority over the timing and extent of its investigation and the formulation of its recommendations.
3
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 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
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 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.4
Respectfully Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]Filed on Tuesday, August 13, 2024, via email and regular mail.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant-Defendant)
4
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 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd, Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
Via email and regular mail—time of the essence
To: Honorable Chief Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Circuit
Clerk, 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, and Director of the FBI.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States of America v. Ulysses T. Ware
Case Nos. 07-5222cr(L) and 24-1414cr(L)
Moot, void ab initio, August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) denial order, see Ex. A, infra.
Dear Chief Judge Livingston, the Judicial Council, the Circuit Clerk, the Special Committee, the
Director of the FBI, and the Court of Appeals:
On behalf of Mr. Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant-defendant in the above-styled case, Mr. Ware
inquires on the Court as the Appellant-Defendant, an interested party, in the matter of U.S. v. Ware,
24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.). Mr. Ware is writing to the Court under the authority of the First
Amendment and the Supreme Court’s precedent and reasoning in Press Enterprise, see n. 7, infra,
to formally and urgently request the disclosure and production of specific judicial court records
related to the alleged August 8, 2024, criminal extrajudicial proceeding, and subsequent ultra
Page 4 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
vires denial of the May 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the moot and void ab initio August
18, 2009, mandate entered in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (L) (2d Cir.), (the “Extrajudicial
Proceeding”), reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.).
This request is made pursuant to Mr. Ware’s rights under Press Enterprise, the First and
Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 46, 455(a), (b), 2071(a), (b),
JC&D Rule 3(c)(2), 11(f), and 13(b), the Due Process Clause, and the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges. Time is of the essence, and Mr. Ware requests that this information be provided no
later than Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
Legal and Factual Basis for the Request
The ultra vires, moot, and void ab initio August 8, 2024, denial order, see Ex. A, infra, (the
“Extrajudicial Order”), references the existence of an alleged “pattern of vexatious litigation”—
exactly what constituted the alleged “pattern” has never been explained by any federal judge in
any lawful proceeding, as the basis for denying the Rule 27-1 motions. However, this Extrajudicial
Order lacks transparency and specificity regarding the proceedings, evidence, and legal standards
that were allegedly employed in making such a legal and factual determination.5 Mr. Ware seeks
5
The August 8, 2024, denial order, Ex. A, infra, hereinafter referred to as the "Extrajudicial Order," is
fundamentally flawed and void ab initio due to its failure to satisfy the essential requirements of legal
transparency, specificity, and reasoned adjudication. The Order's invocation of an alleged "pattern of
vexatious litigation" as grounds for denying Mr. Ware’s Rule 27-1 motions is deeply problematic, as no
federal judge has provided a substantive legal or factual foundation for this barebone conclusion. This
omission is particularly grave given the context in which Mr. Ware’s motions were filed—namely, the
pursuit of Brady material that is both exculpatory and pivotal to his claim of actual innocence. The
material in question, which remains as of today August 13, 2024, unjustly suppressed and concealed—that
is, Jeremy Jones’ “the government’s principal witness” at trial in 05cr1115 (SDNY), the Perjury Contracts]
by the USAO (SDNY), and the actions of District Judge Edgardo Ramos in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),
as well as Circuit Judges Kearse, Sack, and Cabranes in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr/24-1414 (2d Cir.), demand
rigorous judicial scrutiny. The notion that seeking access to such critical actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence could be dismissed as vexatious litigation is patently untenable
under the law—the Brady doctrine. The absence of any judicial articulation or justification for such a
Page 5 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
the requested judicial public records to protect his constitutional right to due process of law, and
to ensure the integrity of the judicial process; thus, it is imperative that Mr. Ware is provided with
all relevant judicial public records to understand the basis of August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Order
and to assess any potential bias, prejudice, criminal culpability, liability, or conflicts of interest
that may have influenced the entry of the Extrajudicial Order and the outcome of the Extrajudicial
Proceeding.6
Request for Information
In light of the aforementioned concerns, Mr. Ware hereby, respectfully, requests the
immediate disclosure and production of the following judicial public information pursuant to the
28 USC §§351-64, Rule 3(c)(2), the Due Process Clause, and First Amendment right of access,
see Press Enterprise:7
mischaracterization constitutes a severe breach of due process. In a system where the government’s or
courts’ willful and bad faith actual innocent suppression of Brady material directly implicates the fairness
of the trial process, the court’s failure to provide a legally sound basis for its vexatiousness finding not only
undermines the legitimacy of the Extrajudicial Order but also strikes at the very heart of the justice system’s
commitment to fairness and impartiality. The profound deficiency in reasoned legal analysis within the
Order necessitates its invalidation as contrary to the principles of justice that must govern judicial decision-
making.
6
The August 8, 2024, denial order—referred to as the "Extrajudicial Order"—is a glaring example of
extreme judicial overreach, lacking any lawful foundation or transparency. This order purports to rest on
an alleged "pattern of vexatious litigation," yet neither the Court nor any federal judge has ever provided a
substantive explanation or evidence for what exactly constituted this so-called pattern. The Court's refusal
to clarify why Mr. Ware is not permitted to seek enforcement of District Judge Pauley’s 05cr1115 (SDNY)
May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17 (Tr. 5-11) Brady order further exacerbates the issue, raising serious concerns about
the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. The omission of any justification for barring Mr. Ware
from seeking redress or relief with respect to Brady disclosure and production matters undermines the very
principles of due process and judicial accountability as well as the Supreme Court’s well-settled Brady
doctrine. The lack of transparency and specificity in the Extrajudicial Order strongly suggests that it is ultra
vires, moot, punitive, retaliatory, vindictive, and void ab initio, calling into question the legitimacy of the
proceedings and the motivations behind the Court’s actions.
7
The Press-Enterprise decisions underscore the critical importance of public access to judicial proceedings
and records as protected by the First Amendment. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
Page 6 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
1. Identity of Participating Judges:
o Please disclose the actual identity of each Article III United States Circuit Judge
who directly or indirectly participated in the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial
Proceeding. Given the significant implications of the denial order, it is critical that
Mr. Ware be informed of the identities of the judges who were involved to ensure
that no conflicts of interest, prejudices, or biases influenced their ultra vires and
extrajudicial (personal) decision-making.
2. Transcripts, Notes, and Papers:
o Mr. Ware requests the production of all transcripts, notes, recordings, and any
other papers used during or related to the alleged August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial
Proceeding. This includes any recordings, stenographic records, or handwritten
notes that capture the deliberations and discussions among the participating judges.
Such records are essential for Mr. Ware to verify that the alleged August 8, 2024,
proceeding was actually conducted, and actually conducted in accordance with
established legal standards and that no extrajudicial factors influenced the outcome.
3. Judicial Public Records, Papers, and Documents:
California (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1986), the Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment guarantees the right of access to criminal proceedings, including pretrial hearings, appeals,
transcripts, pleadings, papers, recordings, etc., recognizing that transparency is essential to ensuring fairness
and public confidence in the judicial system. The Court emphasized that access to judicial records and
proceedings serves as a check on the judicial process, preventing potential abuses of power and ensuring
that justice is administered openly. In light of these principles, Mr. Ware’s request for the immediate
disclosure and production of all judicial public information aligns with the First Amendment's purpose of
facilitating informed public scrutiny of judicial actions. Denying this access not only contravenes
established legal precedent but also raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the [24-1414 and 07-
5222] proceedings in question and ipso facto, per se violates the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.
Page 7 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
o Please provide all judicial public records, papers, and documents that were used or
relied upon during the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Proceeding. This includes, but
is not limited to, briefs, exhibits, legal memoranda, and any external reports or
sources referenced by the judges. Mr. Ware needs access to these documents to
evaluate the factual and legal basis for the court’s ultra vires decision.
4. Factual and Legal Findings:
o Mr. Ware requests a detailed disclosure of all factual and legal findings made by
the judges during the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Proceeding that factually and
legally support the conclusion of a “pattern of vexatious litigation.” Specifically,
he seeks clarification on how this unsupported in the record determination was
reached and what specific actions or filings were factually and legally considered
vexatious given that Mr. Ware was the defendant in the sub judice criminal
proceeding (05cr1115), and raised actual innocent “substantial” liberty interest
Brady constitution claims in the Rule 27-1, cf., Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876
F.2d 307-08 (2d Cir. 1989) and Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 737 F.2d 1254, (2d Cir.
1984).8 Mr. Ware is entitled to know the precise legal reasoning that led to the
denial of the merits of the Rule 27-1 motion.
5. Legal Standards for Vexatiousness:
o Please disclose the legal standards and criteria that the judges used to make a factual
and legal finding of “vexatiousness” regarding the Brady disclosure claims made
8
Appellants who were defendants in the proceedings below [Mr. Ware was the defendant in U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY)] are not subject to any leave to file sanction order restrictions, and the court is required
to adjudicate the merits of all claims in the papers regardless of whether or not the claims appear to be
without merit)
Page 8 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
in the Rule 27-1 motion. Mr. Ware requests an explanation of how these standards
were applied in the context of Judge William H. Pauley’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17
(Tr. 5-11) Brady order entered in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), and how they
justified the blanket denial of the Rule 27-1 motion.
Justification for the Request
The disclosure and production of the requested records are mandatory under federal law
and constitutional principles for several reasons:
• First and Fifth Amendments: Mr. Ware’s has the constitutional right to petition the
government for redress and the absolute right to due process requires full access to all
judicial records that impacted the outcome of the Rule 27-1 “substantive motion.”
Withholding, suppressing, concealing, removal, or destruction of these judicial records
violates 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1951, and 2071(a), (b), and other federal laws, 42
USC 1983, 1995(2), and 1985(3), and deprives Mr. Ware of his constitutional protections.
• 28 U.S.C. §§ 46, 455(a), (b): These statutes mandate transparency and accountability in
the judiciary, particularly in matters where potential conflicts of interest, prejudices, or bias
could affect the impartiality of the judges involved. Full disclosure of identity is necessary
to ensure that the Rule 27-1 proceeding was handled with the full requirement of due
process of law, fairness, impartiality, free of any actual or the appearance of any conflict
of interest, and integrity required by law.
• JC&D Rule 3(c)(2) and Code of Conduct: The rules governing judicial conduct require
that judges maintain impartiality and avoid any appearance of impropriety. The requested
Page 9 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
records will allow me to assess whether these standards were upheld or whether judicial
misconduct occurred.
• Due Process Clause: Due process demands that Mr. Ware be provided with the
opportunity to understand and challenge the basis of judicial decisions that negatively
impact his legal rights. Access to the requested records is essential for Mr. Ware to exercise
this right effectively.
Conclusion
Given the serious implications of the August 8, 2024, Extrajudicial Order, Ex. A, infra, and
the extremely likely potential for criminal judicial misconduct, it is imperative that the requested
records be disclosed and produced without delay. I respectfully urge you to comply with this
request and provide the information no later than Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
Failure to produce these records may constitute a violation of my constitutional, legal, and
equitable rights and could necessitate further legal action to compel compliance. I trust that you
will act in accordance with your legal and ethical obligations and ensure that justice is served in
this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Ulysses T. Ware—Appellant-defendant
Signed under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts
pursuant to 28 USC §1746 on August 13, 2024, in Brooklyn, NY, in support of JC&D Rules 3(c)(2)
probable cause to appoint a Rule 11(f) Special Committee and Rule 13(b) criminal referral.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
August 13, 2024
Brooklyn, NY
Page 10 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
Exhibit
Page 11 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
Exhibit A—Ultra vires, Extrajudicial null and void ab initio alleged August 8, 2024, order of
denial entered in 24-1414 (L) (2d Cir.).
Page 12 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
End of document
Page 13 of 13
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
(10.1-2) Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for disclosure and production of judicial public records regarding
August 8, 2024, 24-1414cr (L) (2d Cir.) ultra vires Extrajudicial Proceeding.
