A DOJ Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Cover-up Brady and Giglio Evidence in the Ware Cases: U.S. Atty (SDNY) Damian Williams, Deputy U.S. Atty Margaret M. Garnett and AUSA Maria E. Douvas.
DOJ Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Cover-up Brady and Giglio Evidence.
IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigative Media Group
Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., Esq., Int’l Investigative Reporter
London, UK
November 23, 2021
See complete article at: https://bit.ly/3HPYtqz
IRNewswires has obtained definitive proof and evidence of a broad-based criminal conspiracy currently being run from the United States Attorney’s Office and the federal courts in Manhattan. Damian Williams was recently appointed as the U.S. Attorney (SDNY) to run the SDNY’s prosecutor’s office and thus, he is ultimately responsible for what occurs in the prosecutor’s office. The evidence is overwhelming.
IRN’s lawyers and investigators have obtained and authenticated deliberately and willfully suppressed and concealed Brady and Giglio evidence that was subject to written Brady Court Orders; evidence the prosecutors and federal judges (Pauley, Sweet, Katzmann, Hall, McMahon, Preska, Dolinger, Peck, Parker, Pooler, Raggi, Sack, Kearse, Sand, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain) in the SDNY deliberately and intentionally buried, covered-up, suppressed and concealed from Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. in the Ware persecution cases.[1]
IRN’s investigators have uncovered numerous items of Brady and Giglio evidence that showed that current Deputy U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Margaret M. Garnett, the former chief of appeals in the USAO in 2017, in the appeal filed by Mr. Ware, U.S. v. Ware, 17–2214 (2d Cir.), Ms. Garnett deliberately, intentionally, and willfully as part of a criminal conspiracy to falsely and wrongfully convict and incarcerate Mr. Ware, egregiously violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the New York Bar Assn, and the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct for Prosecutors, her duty of complete candor to the courts, and deliberately, intentionally, willfully, and in bad faith failed to inform the Court of Appeals that the underlying case, Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., d/b/a GPMT, et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY), had been voluntarily dismissed by the “Civil Plaintiffs” attorney, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., on December 20, 2007, Dkt 90, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 complaint, i.e., ipso facto a final judgment on the merits in favor of GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, jointly (the “Prevailing Parties”) that completely vitiated and abrogated all aspects of the Government’s proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
However, rather than fulfilling her ethical duty of complete candor to the courts, her DOJ duties of professional responsibility, and complying with Rule 3.8 of the New York Bar Assn., Ms. Garnett, a seasoned prosecutor, deliberately and unethically decided to not inform the Court of Appeals regarding 09–0851cr and 17–2214cr that jurisdiction was lacking over the Government’s case in 04cr1224 given the “Civil Plaintiffs” December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal after the statute of limitations had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 complaint, i.e., a final judgment on the merits in favor of Mr. Ware, et al.
Obviously, for good reason, American law does not allow or permit two contradictory final judgments (GX-7 and the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment) in the same case. There can only be one prevailing party in a claim according to American final judgment law. Accordingly to the prevailing legal precedent in the Second Circuit which is binding on the District Court (Sweet, J.) in 04cr1224 (SDNY) and Sand, J. in 02cv2219 (SDNY), voluntary dismissal of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit by the plaintiffs, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims on December 20, 2007, was a binding judicial admission by the “Civil Plaintiffs” they had no lawful claim or remedy against the defendants, suffered no loss, and a conceded there was no live Article III case or controversy between the parties. Which created devastating and dire penal and pecuniary consequences for Ms. Garnett, AUSA Maria E. Douvas, the USAO, the federal courts, and others involved in the conspiracy against Mr. Ware.
The “Civil Plaintiffs” December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) judicial confession and admission that a live Article III case or controversy did not exist between the parties was fatal to the USAO’s 04cr1224 case, and absolutely personally, monetarily devastating to Ms. Garnett, Katherine Polk-Failla, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Preet Bharara, Judge Sweet, Judge Edgardo Ramos, Chief Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, the U.S. Probation Office, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Damian Williams, and many others that have personal, individual, joint, and several criminal and monetary liability ($2.225 billion) to Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management Corp, Elorian and Becky Landers, Silver Screen Studios, and others.
Ergo, on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” judicially admitted and confessed they lacked Article III standing in the United States federal courts, and consequently in 02cv2219 (SDNY) the United States Article III and in the United States Bankruptcy Court, e.g., In re Group Management Corp., 03–93031-mhm (BC NDGA) (GPMT’s Chapter 11 proceedings, i.e., government 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial exhibits GX-250, GX-251, GX-252, and GX-253 vitiated and abrogated).
Moreover, the indisputable evidence shows that Ms. Garnett, current District Judge (SDNY) Katherine Polk-Failla, former AUSAs Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Alexander J. Wilson, Preet Bharara, and others inside the USAO deliberately, intentionally, in bad faith, and willfully as willing participants in the criminal conspiracy to wrongfully and fraudulent convict and incarcerate Mr. Ware knowingly suppressed the indisputable dispositive Brady exculpatory evidence that each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in paragraph 8 of the USAO’s risible indictment in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), indisputably were and always had been unregistered broker-dealers operating in criminal violation of federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1); and as a matter of law were strictly legally ineligible for any exemption, Rule 144(k), or circumvention of the strict-liability registration requirements of Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act.
Furthermore, Ms. Garnett and the USAO’s prosecutors deliberately, intentionally, willfully, and in bad faith violated their duty of complete candor to the Court of Appeals and egregiously failed to inform the Court in the 09–0851cr and subsequent appeals filed by Mr. Ware, including the U.S. v. Ware, 17–2214 (2d Cir.) appeal that Ms. Garnett was involved in, that the “Civil Plaintiffs” December 20, 2007, Dkt 90, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal of the underlying 02cv2219 (SDNY) civil lawsuit annulled, vitiated, and voided the government’s U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 trial exhibits GX 1–4 (the Convertible Notes, illegal and unenforceable contracts), GX-5 (the so-called Subscription Agreement, an illegal and unenforceable contract), GX-7 (Count I), GX-11 (Count II), and GX-24 (Count III); moreover, as a matter of law terminated the Court of Appeals and the District Court’s Article III subject matter jurisdiction over the moot 02cv2219 (SDNY) orders (GX-11 and GX-24), judgments (GX-7), and proceedings. Consequently, given that GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24 were voluntary ipso facto legally annulled and vitiated on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90 (02cv2219), the 04cr1224 indictment’s charges went moot on December 20, 2007.[2]
Ms. Garnett and the USAO’s prosecutors certainly knew, or were recklessly ignorant and incompetent, that the underlying 02cv2219 (SDNY) civil lawsuit, the matter from which the Government’s entire case in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY,) 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt, was predicated, had been voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by the “Civil Plaintiffs” on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, by District Judge Leonard B. Sand (deceased) and their 04cr1224 trial witness Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. was indisputable favor Brady and Giglio evidence that legally and factually undermined, abrogated, and vitiated the purported criminal contempt charges in the 04cr1224 indictment; and was therefore required to have been immediately disclosed to the Court of Appeals, the District Court (Sweet, J.), and Mr. Ware in compliance with the written commands in District Judge Robert W. Sweet’s August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32, Brady Court Order.
According to Court of Appeals records[3] in U.S. v. Ware, 09–0851 (2d Cir.) and subsequent appeals filed by Mr. Ware, including 17–2214 (2d Cir.), at no time did the former purported “chief[s] of appeals” current District Judge (SDNY) Katherine Polk-Failla and current Deputy U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Margaret M. Garnett ever notify the Court of Appeals or for that matter any court at all that the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, its orders, its judgments, and its proceedings went moot on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90; and accordingly, the 04cr1224 indictment, conviction, and sentence were also moot, annulled, vitiated, and void ab initio.
The new U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams, an officer of the court, and subject to Local Rules District Court (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) and Rule 3.8 of the New York Bar Assn. is required to immediately come forth and inform the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Courts (SDNY), and the Supreme Court of the United States that newly uncovered dispositive Brady and Giglio evidence, evidence that was willfully and deliberately suppressed and concealed by the Government, has surfaced that vitiated and abrogated the Government’s trial position in both United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)[4] and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)[5]. Mr. Williams’ success or failure as a prosecutor will be determined by how he manages the Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 42 criminal contempt proceedings that await him and his office’s flagrant Brady and Giglio discovery prosecutorial misconduct.
IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigations Media Group believes that Mr. Damian Williams is ill-equipped to manage, be responsible, and be publicly accountable for the responsibility that he has been placed in. Nowhere in Mr. Williams’ background is there any evidence that he has the experience, the competence, the character, the fortitude to be the United States Attorney. But for a hand full of minor cases it appears from the public record that Mr. Williams lacks any significant trial experience or any other significant prosecutorial executive management experience. It is palpable that Mr. Williams is merely a political appointee, placed in office as a political kickback or pay-off, rather than actually having the requisite qualifications for the job.
Be that as it may all the political kickbacks and pay-offs cannot affect the dire and perilous legal consequences that are facing Mr. Williams and the USAO’s prosecutors regarding the indisputable absolute finality, preclusive effects, and res judicata against the United States and its privies attached to:
(i) the USAG’s November 7, 2008, Article II appellate political decision to dismiss with prejudice the U.S. v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, “cross-appeal,”
(ii) the United States Court of Appeals final judgment entered in Gov.-I (in favor of Ulysses T. Ware) on August 18, 2009, that ratified the USAG’s political decision to abandon 07–5670 and by necessary implication also abandoned 05cr1115 (SDNY) as moot, subject to the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause and res judicata; and
(ii) to the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, (Sand, J.), superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment’s inherent preclusive effects against the United States and its privies.
It appears from an unbiased and objective point of view that Mr. Damian Williams’ career as the U.S. Attorney (SDNY) hangs in the balance. “To be or not to be” the U.S. Attorney (SDNY) is an existential decision that Damian Williams, his political handlers, and the DOJ’s executive leadership shortly will be forced to concede. Either submit to the rule of law, or the rule of law will see Mr. Damian Williams as a defendant in an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt prosecution. Unless Mr. Damian Williams is above the law?
Copyright 2021 ©. All rights reserved
IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigative Media Group
[1] In what appears to be a Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime, pernicious civil rights violations, 18 USC 241 and 242, the USAO (SDNY) manufactured and fabricated not one, but two, bogus and completely frivolous indictments (04cr1224 and 05cr1115) against Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. The USAO acted retaliatory and in a racially vindictive manner sought to and did commit a fraud on the public and the courts by the indictment of Mr. Ware in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). An indictment that was risibly and fatally flawed. The 04cr1224 indictment failed as a matter of law and fact to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt offense. It is not an “offense” for Mr. Ware, GPMT’s securities lawyer to not criminally violate Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act and not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in paragraph 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, judicially admitted and confessed, see paragraphs 12 and 13 in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of GPMT’s restricted securities, GX 1–4 (04cr1224). The 04cr1224 indictment was and is null and void ab initio and moot.
[2] See Second Circuit Court of Appeals precedent A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501–02 (2d Cir. 1952)(Voluntary [Rule 41(a)(2)] dismissal by [the 02cv2219 “Civil Plaintiffs”] of their [02cv2219 (SDNY)] lawsuit, after the statute of limitation has run on all claims, annulled and vitiated all prior orders [GX-11 and GX-24], judgments [GX-7], and proceedings therein “as if the lawsuit had never been filed;” terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, and rendered the proceedings moot). (alterations and emphasis added).
[3] IRN’s lawyers contacted the office of the clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, NY concerning the 02cv2219 matter and were informed that “ … we were never notified by the Government the 02cv2219 lawsuit had been dismissed voluntarily on December 20, 2007, by the plaintiffs … had the Government notified the Court the case had been dismissed we would have immediately notified the trial court, District Judge Sweet and the panel that handled the appeals would have taken the appropriate steps to correct the matter. We don’t understand why the Government would not have notified the Court regarding this … this is a very serious matter, and we are sure once the Court is aware there will be a thorough investigation on how this could have happened … and the responsible parties held accountable … this cannot be allowed to happen again … this is just unacceptable ….” (paraphrased) (emphasis in original).
[4] (i) FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in paragraph 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment; (ii) SEC Release 33–7190 n. 17 (1995) (Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters required to register [i.e., legally ineligible for any Rule 144(k) exemption] with the SEC pursuant to Section 5 of the 1933 Securities Act all distribution of securities) (iii) former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris’ Giglio impeachment evidence; (iv) unregistered “investment advisor” status for government 04cr1224 trial witness Ari Rabinowitz; and (v) the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment (Sand, J.) that annulled, vitiated, and abrogated crucial and essential government trial exhibits GX-5, GX-7, GX-11, and GX-24.
[5] Government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones’ illegal and unethical perjury contract, USSG 5k cooperation agreement, letter, and Rule 11 perjury plea agreement; (ii) Paragraph 33 of the SEC’s 03–0831 (D. NV) unsigned complaint; (iii) District Judge William H. Pauley’s October 2007 Double Jeopardy Acquittal Verdicts in favor of Ulysses T. Ware, i.e., Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 31 L 18–25 (R-1); S. Tr 35–36 (R-2); and S. Tr. 73–76 (R-3); (iv) the USAG’s November 7, 2008, voluntary Article II appellate political decision to abort, abandon, terminate, forfeit, and dismiss with prejudice the United States and its privies “cross-appeal” filed in United States v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP), Gov-I, (2d Cir.): Gov-I, indisputable dispositive Brady exculpatory and exoneration evidence that completely annulled, vitiated, and abrogated the Government’s trial theory, witnesses’ testimony, risible arguments, and all admitted trial exhibits on the charges and allegations in the moot United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment.
