Criminal judicial misconduct committed by Chief District Judge (SDNY), Laura Taylor-Swain in Ware v. United States, 22cv3409 (SDNY) as a criminal fraud on the court.
See the link, https://utware007.medium.com/the-downfall-of-ausa-alexander-h-1ade8d42fe95, for criminal prosecutorial misconduct by DOJ lawyer Alexander H. Southwell. Judge Taylor-Swain attempted to cover up and conceal the crimes committed by the DOJ’s lawyers during the Ware cases, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
CHIEF JUDGE LAURA TAYLOR-SWAIN HAS BEEN IMPLICATED IN AN ONGOING CRIMINAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT FRAUD RING WITHIN THE MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURTS.
See the official court filing at: https://bit.ly/3O09kAK
Filed on 6/17/2022 5:56:19 AM
Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (34)
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Ware v. United States, et al.
Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844–1260
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Thursday, June 17, 2022
____________________
June 17, 2022, Request for urgent[1] clarification of 06.16.2022, Order, Dkt. 60, Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, and the Third Request for Emergency Local Rule District Court (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) Disciplinary Relief: In re Damian Williams and Merrick B. Garland, 22 misc. ____ (SDNY) for (a) Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and (b) the Jim Crow Racially-Motivated Hate Crimes perpetrated against Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., violations of the Rules of Conduct for Lawyers of the District Court (SDNY).
_________
Certificate of Service
The government was served with this pleading on 06.17.22 via Damian Williams at damian.williams@usdoj.gov, Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov, and Merrick B. Garland, via Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, at Jeffrey.ragsdale@usdoj.gov.
Table of Contents
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware. 3
A. Introduction and background. 3
Request for clarification of the June 16, 2022, Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60. 11
Ultra Vires Order (Dkt. 60) (22cv3409 (SDNY)) (Taylor-Swain, C.J.) 17
Comes now the Petitioner and requests that the Office of the Chief Judge, Laura Taylor-Swain, (SDNY), (the “Chief Judge”), provide (i) clarification and (ii) guidance to the parties in 22cv3409, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115, (the “Parties”), with respect to the following pertinent legal issues.
Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware
I Ulysses T. Ware, under oath and pursuant to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, hereby this 17th day of June 2022, in the city of Brooklyn, NY, Kings County, set my hand and seal, and pursuant to 28 USC 1746, make this Declaration of Material Facts, (the “Facts”), and state the following.
I.
A. Introduction and background.
Fact 1.
On June 13, 2022, Dkt. 56, Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Petitioner” or “Complainant”) filed his first request for L.R. District Court (SDNY), 1.5(b)(5), application for Emergency Supervisory Disciplinary Relief, (the “First Application”) addressed to the Office of the Chief District Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, as required by L.R. 1.5(b)(5)[2] and L.R. 1.5(d)(3).
Fact 2.
Having received no response from the Chief Judge to the June 13, 2022, First Application, Dkt. 56, Mr. Ware on June 16, 2022, at 12.11.38 pm, filed his second application for Emergency Supervisory Disciplinary Relief pursuant to L.R. 1.5(b)(5), (the “Second Application”), Dkt. 59.[3]
Fact 3.
In the Applications, Mr. Ware specifically requested emergency supervisory disciplinary relief pursuant to Local Rule, (“L.R.”), 1.5(b)(5), District Court (SDNY), (the “Local Rules”), and addressed the written Application to the Office of the Chief Judge (Laura Taylor-Swain) as required by the L. R. 1.5(d)(3).[4]
Fact 4
L.R. 1.5(d)(3) required the Chief Judge to immediately “refer” the Applications to the Committee on Grievances, (i.e., “Complaints in writing alleging any ground for discipline or other relief set forth in paragraph (b) above shall be directed to the Chief Judge, who shall refer such complaints to the Committee on Grievances”). (emphasis added).
Fact 5
The Chief Judge, Laura Taylor-Swain, is not lawfully authorized by the Local Rules to sua sponte deny the relief requested in the Applications. Only the Committee on Grievance, (the “Committee”) is authorized to “investigate” the violations of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers of the District Court (SDNY) allegations made in the Applications against Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Merrick B. Garland, and other lawyers, (i.e., “The Committee on Grievances, by its chair, may designate an attorney, who may be selected from the panel of attorneys established pursuant to paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, if it deems investigation necessary or warranted, and to prepare a statement of charges, if the Committee deems that necessary or warranted.”). (emphasis added).[5]
Fact 6
Pursuant to the Local Rules, L.R. 1.5(d)(3), the Chief Judge has no authorized role in the “investigation” of the written prosecutorial misconduct allegations in the Applications, other than to “refer” the matter to the Committee, and the Chief Judge is not lawfully authorized to sua sponte deny Mr. Ware’s requested supervisory disciplinary relief as was purportedly done in the illegal and obstruction of justice, null and void ab initio, ultra vires Order, Dkt. 60, (06.16.22) (Taylor-Swain, C.J.), (the “Ultra Vires Order”).[6]
Fact 7
The Chief Judge (Laura Taylor-Swain) was named on the face of the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus petition, see Dkt. 1–2 (22cv3409); furthermore, the Chief Judge has been designated as (i) an adverse party-opponent, (ii) a material fact witness, and (iii) an unindicted co-conspirator with respect to the Petitioner’s actual innocent claims pending adjudication on the merits in the District Court.
Fact 8
The Chief Judge pursuant to 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b)(5) is per se, objectively, statutorily disqualified — that is, per se actual biased, has an actual overt conflict of interest; and also pursuant to binding Supreme Court’s authority In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), the Chief Judge is constitutionally disqualified[7] from any and all judicial involvement in the adjudication or investigation of the allegations in the Applications.[8] The Chief Judge was fully aware of her actual per se bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest regarding the Applications “to the extent” the Applications involved any facts or issues with respect to the 22cv3409 actual innocent claims currently before the District Court.
Fact 9
The Chief Judge omitted, deliberately and intentionally, to state in the Ultra Vires Order whether or not she had followed and complied with the requirements of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) and referred the Applications to the Committee for investigation of the Petitioner’s allegation of prosecutorial misconduct involved in the 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal proceedings.
Fact 10
Currently, there is no written record produced by the Chief Judge that confirms whether or not the requirements of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) have been complied with in regard to the emergency processing of the Applications. Rather than comply with the Local Rules, the Chief Judge, to distract from the substance of the Applications, the prosecutorial misconduct committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115,[9] the Chief Judge deliberately, intentionally, and as an overt act in furtherance of her criminal obstruction of justice to aid and abet the continue resistance to and overt disobedience of the written commands of the Brady Court Orders — that is, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3) criminal contempt, the Chief Judge created a trivially frivolous false narrative designed to cover up and conceal the criminal acts and omissions, criminal prosecutorial misconduct, covered by L.R. 1.5(b)(5), committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors.
Fact 11
The Chief Judge was fully aware, see Dkt. 56 at 6, that the Petitioner had not requested any relief in the Applications based on her “judicial misconduct” which she referenced in the Ultra Vires Order as a ruse to ostensibly justify her egregious violation of L.R. 1.5(d)(3) requirements, the canonical case of abstract judicial incongruent duplicity.[10] Cf., Dkt. 56 at 3–4:
“Mr. Ware, the petitioner in Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY), and the defendant in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), jointly, (the “DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy”), is filing this emergency application for the District Court (SDNY) pursuant to its inherent supervisory authority to insure the fidelity and full and complete compliance with all lawful court orders, to wit, (1) the Brady Court Orders, (2) the Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, and (3) the August 18, 2009, final judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, jointly, (the “Final Judgments”), to enter an emergency order directed to the Officers of the Court named in the caption to immediately within the next two (2) days, not later than Wednesday, June 15, 2022, to show cause in writing why each shall not be disciplined by the District Court’s inherent supervisory authority ordered to show cause why each shall not be held in civil and willful criminal contempt of the Final Judgments.[11]
In support of this emergency application, Mr. Ware incorporates by reference, in heac verba, Dkts. 1–55 in Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY), and makes the same a part hereof, in addition to (1) the deliberate and intentionally unfiled and undocketed pleading 53A-9, 01.17.2022, submitted in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, Ex. 1, infra; however, Ex. 1 was refused to be docketed by District Judge Edgardo Ramos as a fraud on the court and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to aid and abet the civil and criminal contempt of the Final Judgments.”
Fact 12
To clarify and make absolutely clear and specific, Petitioner did not and is not requesting any relief from the Chief Judge in the Applications with respect to her criminal judicial misconduct. That request will be made in an imminent complaint for judicial misconduct filed with the “clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit.”
Fact 13
To clarify, Petitioner in the Applications sought emergency supervisory disciplinary relief pursuant to L.R. 1.5(b)(5) and L.R. 1.5(d)(3) in regard to the criminal prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated as officers of the court, by the DOJ’s prosecutors that participated in the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 criminal proceedings in the District Court (SDNY); which is exclusively, within the scope of the jurisdiction and investigative purview of the Committee on Grievances of the District Court (SDNY).[12]
Fact 14
Given the Chief Judge was named as an adverse party opponent in the 22cv3409 actual innocent habeas corpus petition; and according to the docket the petition was allegedly randomly assigned to District Judge Edgardo Ramos, see 22cv3409 docket; and given Petitioner presented supervisory relief claims and requested supervisory relief in the petition against both the Chief Judge and Judge Ramos, the Chief Judge, to obstruct justice, illegally and without any lawful Article III judicial authority, adjudicated the merits of the supervisory relief claims in her favor in the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, in the clear absence of the required 28 USC 2243 show cause order and all Article III subject matter jurisdiction over issues and facts that are moot, ipso facto, as a matter of law.
I Ulysses T. Ware, have this 17th day of June 2022, while under oath and pursuant to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, have made this Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts in Brooklyn, NY.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
________________________
Ulysses T. Ware
June 17, 2022
Brooklyn, NY
Kings County
II.
Request for clarification of the June 16, 2022, Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60.
Petitioner, respectfully request that the Chief Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, a judicial officer of the court, covered by 18 USC 401(2), an adverse party opponent in the 22cv3409 actual innocent habeas corpus proceedings, having a per se objective conflict of interest in 22cv3409, please (i) clarify by 5:00 pm on June 17, 2022, the following matters implicit within the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt.60, Exhibit A, and (ii) set the requested briefing schedule to permit the parties to address the concerns raised herein:
A. Clarify whether or not the Chief Judge, the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain, (SDNY), was statutorily, 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(5), and constitutionally, In re Murchison, Id., disqualified from any and all judicial involvement in the resolution and investigation concerning the prosecutorial misconduct allegations made in the Applications against her unindicted co-conspirators, DOJ prosecutors Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Merrick B. Garland, and others named in the Applications?
B. Clarify whether or not the Office of the Chief Judge pursuant to L.R. 1.5(d)(3) referred the Applications to the Committee? If so on what date were the Applications referred to the Committee? To whom were the Applications referred? What, if any, instructions were given or provided to the Committee by the Office of the Chief Judge? What, if any, actions have been taken on the Applications?
C. Clarify whether or not a docket, In re Damian Williams and Merrick B. Garland, 22 misc. ____ (SDNY) was opened to maintain the judicial records and documents generated by the Committee?
D. If no docket was opened please clarify why no such docket was opened in regard to the Applications’ investigation.
E. If such docket was opened please provide the docket number to the complainant.
F. The Chief Judge in the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, see Exhibit A, infra, used the language “to the extent” with respect to her trivially frivolous presumption Petitioner had requested alleged “judicial misconduct” and again used the “to the extent” language with respect to her comment concerning “rulings in the above [22cv3409] case, the request is denied.” Accordingly, Petitioner is requesting the Chief Judge clarify whether or not her purported ruling was limited to (i) request for “judicial misconduct” and (ii) any purported request to “make or alter any rulings in the above case [22cv3409], given the “to the extent” limiting language?
G. Please clarify to the extent that Petitioner was requesting supervisory disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5) in regard to criminal prosecutorial misconduct committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors, officers of the court, who appear in or supervised the 04cr1224 and/or 05cr1115 proceedings, did the Ultra Vires Order sua sponte deny that requested disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5) and exclusively located in the Committee?
H. Please clarify whether or not the Chief Judge made any fact-finding, conclusions of law, and made any records regarding the Ultra Vires Order? If so, who has possession of the fact-finding, conclusions of law, and records?
I. Please clarify whether or not the Chief Judge had any communication(s), whatsoever, with any DOJ prosecutor, former or current, named in the Applications? Or any communications with District Judge Edgardo Ramos?
J. And if so was a record made of the communications?
K. Clarify the subject matter of all communication(s) with any DOJ prosecutor named in the Applications;
L. Clarify the date of the communication(s);
M. Clarify the purpose of the communication(s);
N. Please clarify whether or not the Office of the Chief Judge has any lawful authority delegated under the Local Rules to sua sponte, outside of the Committee’s purview, to investigate and/or deny requested emergency disciplinary relief authorized by L.R. 1.5(b)(5)?
O. Please clarify whether or not the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, has any preclusive effect and/or legal consequences with respect to the adjudication of the merits of the actual innocent habeas corpus claims pending in 22cv3409 (SDNY)?
P. If so, please clarify exactly the legal effects and consequences the Ultra Vires Order has on the merits of the claims in the actual innocent habeas corpus petition.
Q. Given that an alleged order, the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, was entered in a pending judicial proceedings, 22cv3409 (SDNY), without briefing by the parties, in violation of due process of law, please clarify with citations of authority whether or not the Ultra Vires Order, Dkt. 60, is null and void ab initio?
R. Please clarify any legal preclusive effect(s) of the Ultra Vires Order on the parties or the merits of the allegations in the Applications?
S. And please clarify whether or not the Ultra Vires Order is clear and convincing evidence of an overt act in furtherance of the DOJ’s Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy perpetrated against Ulysses T. Ware to cover up and conceal the RICO international Hobbs Act Money Laundering, extortion, and usurious debt criminal enterprise run by unregistered broker-dealer Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and others named in the Applications?
III.
Conclusion.
Judge Taylor-Swain, this matter is of grave concern and importance to the public perception concerning the purported fair, impartial, and unbiased administration of the law in the District Court (SDNY). Your sua sponte illegal (criminal) acts and actions have placed yourself and the Court in an untenable position as the purported Chief District Judge (SDNY). You have egregiously and maliciously violated the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, egregiously violated federal laws, 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1341, 1343, 1346, 1956–57, 1961(6)(A), 1962(a-d); and 28 USC 455(a), and 455(b), violated binding Supreme Court authority, In re Murchison, Id., and, moreover, your criminal unlawful acts, actions, and omissions constitute overt acts in furtherance of the DOJ’s conspiracy to obstruct justice and continue to conceal and suppress dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence relevant to 22cv3409, 04cr1224, 05cr1115, 02cv2219, and In re Group Management Corp., 03–93031-mhm (BC NDGA), Chapter 11 proceedings.
Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Petitioner
June 17, 2022
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Ultra Vires Order (Dkt. 60) (22cv3409 (SDNY)) (Taylor-Swain, C.J.)
End of document
[1] Petitioner is requesting that the Chief Judge respond by 5:00 pm on June 17, 2022, and serve the parties with a copy to her clarification and setting of a briefing schedule to address the issues raised herein regarding the June 16, 2022, Dkt. 60, ultra vires, null and void ab initio purported “Order.” See Exhibit A, infra.
[2] “In connection with activities in this Court, any attorney is found to have engaged in conduct violative of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted from time to time by the Appellate Divisions of the State of New York. In interpreting the Code, in the absence of binding authority from the United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this Court, in the interests of comity and predictability, will give due regard to decisions of the New York Court of Appeals and other New York State courts, absent significant federal interests.” (emphasis added).
[3] The First Application and the Second Application, jointly, (the “Applications”).
[4] L.R. 1.5(d)(3). “[Disciplinary] [c]omplaints in writing alleging any ground for discipline or other relief set forth in paragraph (b) above shall be directed to the Chief Judge [see Dkt.56 and 59, 22cv3409 (SDNY)], who shall refer such complaints to the Committee on Grievances. The Committee on Grievances, by its chair, may designate an attorney, who may be selected from the panel of attorneys established pursuant to paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, if it deems investigation necessary or warranted, and to prepare a statement of charges, if the Committee deems that necessary or warranted. Complaints, and any files based on them, shall be treated as confidential unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Judge for good cause shown or in accordance with paragraph (d)(5) below.”
[5] See L.R. 1.5(d)(3).
[6] Dkt. 60, Order, “To the extent the Petitioner is requesting that the undersigned [C.J. Laura Taylor-Swain], make or alter any rulings in the above case [which the Petitioner did not request, cf., Dkt. 56 at 6, for the requested disciplinary reliefs], the request is [sua sponte without any required investigation by the Committee] denied. The Chief Judge does not have the authority to take such actions in the cases assigned to other members of the Court.” (quoting, Taylor-Swain, C.J., 06.16.2022), (emphasis and alterations added).
[7] “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man[or woman] can be a judge in his [or her] own case and no man [or woman] is permitted to try cases where he [or she] has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that “every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man [or woman] as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.” Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532.” (emphasis added).
[8] See Dkt. 56 at 4, para. 2: “Judge Taylor-Swain, Mr. Ware reminds you that you have been named in 22cv3409(SDNY) in your personal and individual capacity as an adverse party, a material fact witness, and as an unindicted co-conspirator regarding your own personal and official criminal judicial misconduct concerning your adamant illegal refusal in 2021 to exercise the District Court’s supervisory authority and ensure the full and complete compliance with the Final Judgments by the USAO’s prosecutors and others that have appeared before the District Court (SDNY) in the DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy Cases.”
[9] Mr. Ware, the Petitioner, was explicit regarding the requested relief he sought from the Committee, see Dkt. 56 at 3–4, on his claims of “prosecutorial misconduct committed by the DOJ’s prosecutors.“
[10] “To the extent Petitioner seeks action based on his allegations of judicial misconduct, Petitioner’s request is improperly directed to the undersigned in her capacity as Chief Judge because such complaints are properly directed to the ‘”clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting the Chief Judge, Dkt. 60, 22cv3409 (SDNY), Order, June 16, 2022).
[11] Mr. Ware is the petitioner in the Ware v. USA, et al., 28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent habeas corpus petition. Mr. Ware filed the petition on March 21, 2022, and no actions whatsoever have been taken by the District Court, see 28 USC 2243 entry of the required show cause order. Mr. Ware has, is, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm to his personal and business each day until the 22cv3409 (SDNY) actual innocence claims are adjudicated on the merits and proceedings are held to address the civil and criminal contempt of the Officers of the Court and other matters concerning government trial exhibits GX 1–4 and GX-5 (04cr1224), the Illegal Contracts.
United States Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr., is the current legal representative for the government in the DOJ’s Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy cases and is in current malicious civil and willful criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), of the Final Judgments.
[12] Local Civil Rule 1.5. Discipline of Attorneys (a) Committee on Grievances. “The Chief Judge shall appoint a committee of the Board of Judges known as the Committee on Grievances, which under the direction of the Chief Judge shall have charge of all matters relating to the discipline of attorneys.” (emphasis added).
