Criminal Judicial Misconduct in the Brooklyn, NY federal courts.

Ulysses Thomas Ware, JD, LLM, Ph. D. (Elec. Engr.)

75 min readApr 8, 2022

Brooklyn, NY federal judge LaShann DeArcy Hall

See the complete article here: https://bit.ly/35SNmPr

URGENT

Submitted for filing in

22cv1531(EDNY)(LDH)(LB)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

____________________

Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Suite 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

April 7, 2022

Personal and confidential

The Judicial Conference of the United States

The Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr.

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First St, NE

Washington, D.C. 20543

The Hon. Rosalyn R. Mauskopf

Executive Director

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

1 Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, D.C. 20544

RE: Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv1531 (EDNY)(LDH)(LB)

28 USC 2241(a) actual innocent habeas corpus proceeding, (the “Habeas Proceeding”)

28 USC 2243 entry of show cause order and enforcement of Brady Court Orders

District Judge (EDNY) LaShann DeArcy Hall, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Complaint of judicial misconduct:

District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall (EDNY)

I, Ulysses T. Ware, hereby this 7th day of April 2022, in Brooklyn, NY, under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, have set my hand and seal and prepared this Declaration of fact pursuant to 28 USC 1746, and under oath states the following facts.

Chief Justice Roberts:

Mr. Ware is inquiring to the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Executive Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, (the “AOC”) in regard to:

(i) the above proceeding’s dockets integrity, accuracy, completeness, and compliance with all First Amendments, due process of law, and Rules of the Federal Courts, jointly, (the “Legal Standards”)[1];

(ii) the required “forthwith” processing of the actual innocent 28 USC 2241(a) habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 1, filed on March 21, 2022;[2]

(iii) the District Court’s (Hall, J.) absolute refusal to enter the required 28 USC 2243 statutory show cause order, (the “Show Cause Order”); and

(iv) Judge Hall’s aiding and abetting the Government’s continuous resistance and violation of two Brady Court Orders,[3] Dkt. 1, Exhibit 2, and Dkt. 1, Exhibit 3, a criminal violation of 18 USC 2, 401(3), high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable offenses, (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), collectively, (the “Judge Hall Crimes”).

Mr. Ware will address each of the above items seriatim and with the included attachments[4] the Court will be in position to assess Judge Hall’s criminal judicial misconduct, high crimes, and misdemeanors,[5] and be positioned to undertake the appropriate investigation and disciplinary actions to protect the public and to protect the integrity and fidelity of the federal judiciary from those entrusted by the public and who took a solemn oath to do justice.

First, the docket in the district court (EDNY) concerning the Habeas Proceeding is being deliberately delayed, is currently incomplete, and is being incompetently maintained by the Office of the District Clerk (EDNY). Mr. Ware has submitted numerous exhibits for docketing in the Habeas Proceedings which are not being “timely” filed and docketed by the clerk’s office. On April 6, 2022, at 2:16 pm Mr. Ware called and inquired to the clerk’s office regarding the status of his Habeas Proceedings submissions which had not appeared on the docket.[6] He spoke to a person who identified herself as “Giselle.”

Mr. Ware inquired about the status of his submissions and when would the exhibits he submitted to the court be docketed. Giselle in a very angry voice informed Mr. Ware:

“You are overloading the system … you are submitting too many documents; we cannot keep up with this. Do not submit filings every day… we cannot handle that … wait until you have 3 or 4 filings before you submit them … you are only hurting your case … wait about a week before you submit documents ….” (emphasis in original).

Justice Roberts, clearly the clerk’s office has no lawful authority to delay and withhold submissions, judicial public records, from the public docket in any proceeding, especially in an actual innocent habeas proceeding. It appears that the clerk’s office (EDNY) is very disorganized, dysfunctional, and a current threat to the timely and orderly administration of justice, and is one of the causes of the delay in the processing of Mr. Ware’s Habeas Proceeding. This is causing Mr. Ware to suffer irreparable harm each day the processing of the Habeas Proceeding is delayed.

II.

Second, Justice Roberts, federal law, 28 USC 2243,[7] requires that the processing of the Habeas Proceeding be adjudicated “forthwith” — that is, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, “immediately, and without delay.” The habeas petition, Dkt. 1, was filed by Mr. Ware on March 21, 2022, in the District Court (EDNY) which triggered the statute’s timing mandates and mandatory procedural protocols.

As of today April 7, 2022, more than two weeks after filing, and after two requests to the District Court, see attached exhibits, which have gone unanswered and not been responded to by the District Court (Hall, J.), the writ has not been granted, and the District Court (Hall, J.) has refused all requests by Mr. Ware to enter the required show cause order.[8] A clear breach of federal law, Section 2243, and an egregious case of criminal judicial misconduct in violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges.

On the face of the petition material factual disputes exist that require an evidentiary hearing to resolve. Therefore, given the material factual disputes between the parties on the face of the petition, the District Court is not lawfully authorized to summarily dismiss the Habeas Proceedings for facial insufficiency pursuant to clause three in Section 2243.

Moreover, Mr. Ware is currently being unlawfully restricted, restrained, and detained by the illegal and criminal conduct of the government and the respondents named in the Habeas Proceedings; and Mr. Ware has, is currently, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the writ is immediately, properly, and timely processed as required by federal law, Section 2243. Which the District Court has been informed, and should have caused the District Court (Hall, J.) to move “forthwith” as required by federal law.

III.

Third, as of today April 7, 2022, the District Court (Hall, J.) has criminally, nefariously, and perfidiously aligned herself, not with the interests of justice, but with the interests of the Government, and is currently willfully and intentionally aiding and abetting the Government, 18 USC 2, 371, to violate and resist the written commands of the two Brady Court Orders, Dkt 1, Exhibits 2 and 3, and obstruct justice in the process. A judicial and Government conspiracy to obstruct justice. An untenable position for a federal judge to have entangled herself.

IV.

Conclusion.

Chief Justice Roberts, District Judge Hall has violated her oath of office, unethically in violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, aligned herself with the interests of the Government, is currently conspiring with the Government to obstruct justice, and has conspired with the Government to enable it to remain in civil and criminal contempt of the two Brady Court Orders entered in the proceedings sub judice in the district courts’ criminal proceedings.

To make matters worse, Judge Hall has adamantly refused to comply with clear and concise federal law, 28 USC 2243, and has refused, without logical and rational explanation, to perform her statutory judicial duties. Judge Hall’s egregious conduct is a clear case of gross criminal judicial misconduct of the most egregious type. Which should not be permitted to go unpunished if the public is to have any confidence in the integrity of the federal judiciary’s mandate to uphold the Constitution and to do justice for all that appear in the federal courts of the United States

Chief Justice Roberts, given the gravity of the sworn allegations contained herein of felony criminal offenses, please refer this matter to the FBI with a judicial mandate with the suggestion that the FBI “forthwith” open a criminal investigation of District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace, and AUSA Nina C. Gupta.

Sincerely,

Signed under oath subject to the penalty of perjury this 7th day of April 2022.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

April 7, 2022

Brooklyn, NY

cc: Judicial Council of the Second Circuit

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall

United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace (via email)

AUSA Nina C. Gupta (via email)

USAG Merrick B. Garland (via email to Asst USAG Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility)

Enclosures:

Proof of mailing to the Supreme Court of the United States on April 7, 2022.

High crimes and misdemeanors of District Judge (EDNY) LaShann DeArcy Hall

Exhibit 1

22cv1531 (EDNY)(LDH)(LB)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Ste 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

April 6, 2022

URGENT: Order to Show Cause

Delivery to the District Court (Hall, J.).

Petitioner’s 2d Inquiry to the Court re: The Government’s Obligations under the two Brady Court Orders viz-a-viz 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt citation.

The Honorable LaShann Dearcy Hall

United States District Judge

For the Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11202

Courtroom: 4H North

Re: Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv1531 (LDH)(LB)

28 USC 2243 (show cause order); Dkt. 1, Exhibits 2 and 3 (Brady Court Orders); and Article III subject matter jurisdiction and standing of the Government.

Dear Judge Hall:

Attached is the Petitioner’s Application for an Order for the Government to Show Cause why the relief requested in the attached 04.06.22 Letter Brief shall not be granted.

All parties have been served on April 6, 2022, via email.

The Petitioner is currently suffering irreparable harm, injury, and damages caused by the

actions of the respondents.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Certificate of Service

The government’s lawyers, Breon Peace and Nina C. Gupta were served on April 6, 2022, with a copy of this application to show cause.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

22cv1531 (EDNY)(LDH)(LB)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Ste 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

April 6, 2022

URGENT

Delivery to the District Court (Hall, J.).

Petitioner’s 2d Inquiry to the Court re: The Government’s Obligations under the two Brady Court Orders viz-a-viz 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt citation.

The Honorable LaShann Dearcy Hall

United States District Judge

For the Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11202

Courtroom: 4H North

Re: Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv1531 (LDH)(LB)

28 USC 2243 (show cause order); Dkt. 1, Exhibits 2 and 3 (Brady Court Orders); and Article III subject matter jurisdiction and standing of the Government.

Dear Judge Hall:

Mr. Ware, the Petitioner, is again inquiring to the Court, for the second time, in regard to the following outstanding and urgent matters currently before the Court within the context of the 28 USC 2241(a) habeas corpus litigation, 22cv1531 (EDNY), (the “Petition”). Matters that have grave and disastrous consequences for the Government, the respondents, and their unindicted co-conspirators; and matters that are legally and factually dispositive to the litigation in favor of the Petitioner.

First, of paramount importance to the litigation is the immediate enforcement of all outstanding Brady disclosure obligations of the Government which are governed by the two written Brady Court Orders entered in the District Courts, sub judice — that is,

(a) in 05cr1115 (Pauley, J.) (deceased) Dkt 1, Exhibit 3,

(b) in 04cr1224 (Sweet, J.) (deceased) Dkt. 1, Exhibit 2, jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”);

(d) the August 18, 2009, final judgment entered in United States v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP)(2d Cir.), Gov.-I, (the “Gov.-I Final Judgment”), jointly with the Brady Court Orders, (the “Ware Court Orders”).

As of today, the Court has not undertaken any formal actions to inquire to the Government exactly when “all” required Brady disclosures will be made to the Petitioner as required by the Brady Court Orders;[9] nor has the Court indicated to the Parties exactly why absolutely no enforcement actions,[10] whatsoever, have been initiated to compel the Government to comply with the written Ware Court Orders more than two weeks after the Petition was filed on March 21, 2022, Dkt. 1.

Moreover, the Court has shown little to no interest in enforcing the law concerning the Government’s binding legal obligations viz-a-viz the Ware Court Orders to such an extent that one could draw a reasonable inference whether or not the Court has a latent and undisclosed conflict of interest, is biased, and/or prejudice to the legal interests of Mr. Ware and the ends of justice, and has unnecessarily been put into the balance regarding the confidence, integrity, and fidelity of the proceedings in this litigation.

II.

Second, the Petition was filed on March 21, 2022, Dkt 1, and Petitioner served the Government, United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace, on March 25, 2022, Dkt. 6. Furthermore, on March 31, 2022, Dkt. 10, Petitioner sought guidance from the Court regarding the entry of the required 2243 show cause order, the outstanding Brady disclosures, and the authority of the government to appear and oppose any habeas relief, i.e., the government’s Article III standing. That inquiry has gone unanswered or addressed in any regard by the Court, leaving Mr. Ware in limbo regarding how to proceed and the status of the Petition.

Judge Hall given the above indisputable facts the issue unnecessarily has to be addressed whether or not the Court intends to undertake and perform its required judicial functions pursuant 28 USC 2243 and either (i) grant the writ or (ii) enter the required show cause order which requires the government to file a sworn declaration of fact and an answer to the Petition’s claims; and whether or not the Court intends to undertake and perform its judicial duties and enforce the Ware Court Orders via civil and/or criminal contempt proceedings? That, regrettably, and unnecessarily is where the litigation now stands.

III.

Third, Judge Hall given the magnitude and the extreme urgency of these habeas proceedings where Mr. Ware has, is currently, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm caused by the government’s irresponsible callousness and egregious unprecedented delays in addressing the issues regarding the government’s Brady disclosure obligations and enforcement of the Ware Court Orders, the Court has left Mr. Ware with no other viable option than to bring this matter to a head, and if necessary, hopefully not, but if necessary, Mr. Ware will be obligated to protect his legal rights and seek emergency judicial relief from a higher court.

Therefore, accordingly, Mr. Ware, respectfully again inquires to the Court to address the issues raised in the March 31, 2022, Inquiry, Dkt. 10, and also address the issues raised herein regarding the immediate judicial enforcement of the Ware Court Orders and the required entry of the 2243 show cause order given the numerous material factual disputes, perhaps, the government will raise in its answer.[11]

Mr. Ware is respectfully requesting that the Court address the issues raised in the March 31, 2022, Dkt. 10, inquiry and raised herein today, April 6, 2022, by 5:00 pm in a directive addressed to the parties.

Judge Hall given that Mr. Ware is currently under undue criminal restraint, restrictions, and detainment caused by the criminal actions[12] of the respondents and their unindicted co-conspirators, this matter has now turned gangrenous and has reached the point of the judicial Rubicon. Either the Court will have to take immediate action to protect Mr. Ware’s legal rights or Mr. Ware will exercise his constitutional right to due process of law and seek enforcement of those immutable constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen whether black, white, brown, or other in a higher court immediately.

Judge Hall, if the Court is not inclined and refuses to judicially enforce the Ware Court Orders and protect Mr. Ware’s legal rights, in particular, the Brady Court Orders,[13] via the civil and criminal contempt legal remedies, please enter a written Order today, April 6, 2022, which states the Court’s factual findings and conclusions of law underpinning that decision so that an immediate appeal or mandamus can be taken regarding this enforcement issue.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Certificate of Service

The government’s counsel Breon Peace and Nina C. Gupta were served on April 6, 2022, via email.

cc: Judicial Conference of the United States (the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr.)

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Executive Director

DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (Jeffrey R. Ragsdale via email to USAG Merrick B. Garland, et al.)

Exhibit 2

22cv1531 (EDNY)(LDH)(LB)

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Ste 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

March 31, 2022

URGENT

Delivery to the District Court (Hall, J.).

The Honorable LaShann Dearcy Hall

United States District Judge

For the Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11202

Courtroom: 4H North

Re: Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv1531 (LDH)(LB)

28 USC 2243 (show cause order); Dkt. 1, Exhibits 2 and 3 (Brady Court Orders); and Article III subject matter jurisdiction and standing of the Government.

Dear Judge Hall:

Mr. Ware is writing to the Court in an effort to resolve the impasse and dilemma that ostensibly exist concerning the required and timely processing of the March 21, 2022, 2241(a) actual innocent habeas corpus petition, (the “Petition”) filed by Mr. Ware, (the “Petitioner”), mandated and required by statute — that is, 28 USC 2243.[14]

Judge Hall, Mr. Ware writes to the Court to gain understanding and clarity regarding the statutory processing requirements mandated by Congress with respect to the 22cv1532 2241(a) habeas corpus Petition filed on March 21, 2022, in the District Court (EDNY). Mr. Ware will address in seriatim his understanding of the statutory processing requirements that have been mandated by federal statute.

First, all due respect to the Court, this is a matter of great importance to Mr. Ware and his family; thus, the urgency in resolving the issues in the Petition. Hence, regarding clause one of the 2243 statute, the Court in essence has only two options available once the 22cv1531 2241(a) petition was filed on March 21, 2022, either:

(i) award the writ or

(ii) enter the show cause order, in this case, directed to the United States;

which the statute requires the above options to take place “forthwith,” — that is, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, immediately, without any delay. Pursuant to the statute, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not authorized to perform or conduct any other actions regarding the merits of the claims in the Petition where there exist material factual disputes[15] between the real parties in interest, Petitioner and the United States and its privies,[16] underlying the basis for the claims.[17]

Second, factual questions currently exist based on the record sub judice whether or not,

(i) the Government is legally permitted to appear and oppose the awarding of the writ[18] where the charging instrument in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (Sweet, J.) (deceased) failed as a matter of law to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense”[19] given Dkt. 1, Exhibit 7 (FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the “Civil Plaintiffs” named in para. 8 of the charging instrument, Exhibit 7–1; and also see Dkt. 1–6, AIS Claim 14 [22 in error] predicated on N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, the criminal usury law in regard to the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5,[20] enforceability and legality?

(ii) is the Government authorized and legally permitted to appear and oppose the Court awarding the writ in regard to United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) (Pauley, J.) (deceased) given that the record shows on November 7, 2008, Dkt. 1, Exhibit 6, the United States notified the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) that it had voluntarily exercised its unreviewable Article II appellate political authority and had dismissed with prejudice the Government’s United States v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, cross-appeal, of the District Court’s (Pauley, J.), October 2007 actual innocent acquittal verdicts, Dkt. 1, Exhibits 39, 40, and 41? See n. 3, supra; and

(iii) is the Government legally authorized and permitted to appear and oppose the writ in 04cr1224 given that on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 1, Exhibit 5, the “Civil Plaintiffs,” after the statute of limitations had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint, ex parte, in secret, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the 02cv2219 lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) notwithstanding N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, the criminal usury law’s application to the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5?[21]

II.

Judge Hall, as detailed above, material factual issues currently exist that precluded the Government from appearing and opposing the awarding of the writ given its Article II executive branch prosecutorial political decisions made in the proceedings sub judice, to wit:

(i) on the face of the 04cr1224, para. 8–12, the government voluntarily on November 17, 2004, pleaded itself out of the court by pleading binding judicial admissions, actual innocent affirmative defenses, the “Civil Plaintiffs” were in fact 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters legally ineligible for Rule 144(k) exemption to Section 5 strict-liability registration requirement, see SEC Release 33–7190 n. 17 (1995).

(ii) the government on November 7, 2008, Dkt. 1, Exhibit 6, in fact, and there is no dispute, voluntarily pursuant to 18 USC 3742(b) dismissed with prejudice all appeals of the District Court’s (Pauley, J.) October 2007 actual innocent acquittal verdicts, Dkt. 1, Exhibits 39, 40, and 41, which consequently had dire and devasting legal consequences on the Government’s Article III standing and subject matter jurisdiction regarding 05cr1115 in all post-trial proceedings.

Any misfortunes the Government is now facing were self-inflicted, were deliberate, and were informed executive branch Article II prosecutorial prerogatives exercised by the executives within the DOJ regarding the government’s legal option, which are binding on the government, equitable and judicial estoppel, the Court, and control and preclude the government’s permissible conduct in this habeas proceeding.

III.

Conclusion.

Judge Hall, the Petitioner is respectfully requesting for the foregoing reasons and legal analysis the following judicial intervention from the Court to resolve the impasse and judicial dilemmas that exist:

1. Set this matter down “forthwith” for a conference between the parties for the Court to establish and identify all pertinent factual and legal issues the Government will assert regarding its past and current obligations under the Brady Disclosure Orders, Dkt. 1, Exhibits 2 and 3;

2. For the Government to produce the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5;

3. For the Government to produce all USSG 5k materials from all individuals involved in the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings, including but not limited to all Rule 11 materials and grand jury materials from all witnesses that testified for the government at trial in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115;

4. For the Government to produce all ex parte communications between the Government and District Judges Sand, Pauley, Sweet, Thrash (NDGA), the 02cv2219 “Civil Plaintiffs,” government USSG 5k witness Jeremy Jones and his CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., and the Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, and its partners Dennis S. Meir, Esq., John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV, and C. Ray Mullins;

5. For the Government to produce all communications between it and the Atlanta, GA law firm Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, PC, including Edward T.M. Garland, Donald F. Samuel, Manibur A. Arora, and David Levitt; and its affiliate New York lawyer Michael F. Bachner.

Judge Hall, the Court’s forthwith entry of a Government preliminary pre show cause disclosure order, (the “Government Disclosure Order”), will reduce the amount of time this matter will require of the Court to adjudicate the claims in the Petition; reduce the burden and costs of conducting extensive evidentiary hearings that will require the attendance of many witnesses and other individuals who will be very compromised having to testify in open court.

Entry of the Government Disclosure Order will also provide a degree of certainty to Mr. Ware, the party currently being illegally and unlawfully detained, restrained, restricted, harmed, and injured, given he is currently suffering irreparable harm caused by the criminal actions of the respondents, and Mr. Ware and will continue to be illegally detained, restrained, and unlawfully restricted in his personal and professional activities which are being delayed, unjustly and unfairly, by the inaction in this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Certificate of Service

Counsel for the government, United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace was served at breon.peace@usdoj.gov, and AUSA Nina C. Gupta was served at nina.gupta@usdoj on March 31, 2022, at 9:45 am.

Exhibit 3

Docket NO: 22cv1531 (LDH)(LB)

Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

_____________________________

Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Petitioner”)

123 Linden Blvd., Suite 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

Utware007@gmail.com

March 24, 2022

In the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of New York

Ulysses T. Ware,

Petitioner,

The United States of America (habeas corpus respondent) by and through Merrick B. Garland, Lisa O. Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Damian Williams, Margaret M. Garnett, Daniel Gitner, and Audrey Strauss, jointly, (the “DOJ Respondents” or “Government Lawyers”), in their individual and personal capacities; Edgardo Ramos, individually and personally; and Laura Taylor-Swain, individually and personally, jointly (the “Federal Judges”), jointly with the DOJ Respondents,

Respondents.

Petitioner’s Exhibit #48 re: March 24, 2022, First Inquiry #1.0 to AUSA Nina C. Gupta and U.S. Attorney Breon Peace concerning the Government’s litigation position on various issues.

__________

United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace was served at breon.peace@usdoj.gov and AUSA Nina C. Gupta were served on April 1, 2022, at nina.gupta@usdoj.gov.

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Ste 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

March 24, 2022

Time of the essence

AUSA Nina C. Gupta

United States Attorney’s Office (EDNY)

271-A Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Ware v. United States, 22cv1531 (LHD) (EDNY): the Government’s litigation position viz-a-viz the outstanding Brady discovery court orders, Exhibit 2 (04cr1224) and Exhibit 3 (05cr1115), jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”), and other pertinent matters.

Ms. Gupta:

I write to you as the government’s representative[22] and as a government-lawyer officer of the court having a duty of complete candor to the court, and to comply with DOJ Rules of Professional Responsibility.

First, I draw your attention to the written Brady Court Orders referenced above. Full and complete disclosure was deliberately and intentionally never made by the government in the proceedings sub judice regarding disclosure of “all” Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials in the actual and/or constructive possession of the government.

As is evident from the attached Exhibits and Appendices to the petition, Dkt. 1, the government and others[23] that aided and abetted the suppressions and concealment of Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 evidence, knowingly and willfully, have egregiously violated and resisted complete disclosure as required by the written commands of the Brady Court Orders, DOJ policy, see Exhibits 28 and 28–1, and Fed. R. Crim P. 5(f).[24]

Ms. Gupta, at the current stage in this litigation the government is in civil contempt and willful criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C 401(3), of the Brady Court Orders. The government cannot in good faith dispute that material fact — that is, see Exhibit 7 (FINRA’s May 17, 2021, suppressed dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence) and also see Exhibit 8 (the suppressed SEC’s actual innocent exculpatory Brady email). Both willfully and deliberately concealed and suppressed by the government in civil and criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders, a fraud on the court, civil and willful criminal contempt, cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f).

Ms. Gupta with that foundation laid, Mr. Ware is inquiring to the Government whether or not it intends to come into full and complete compliance with the commands of the Brady Court Orders? The inquiry is being made given that the government’s Brady disclosure obligation is a continuing obligation and disclosure also extend to post-trial proceedings; a fact acknowledged by the government during the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Exhibit 3, 05cr1115 discovery conference (Pauley, J.), Tr. 5. Ergo, the government is required in this proceeding to immediately disclose all Brady and Giglio materials.

If the government does intend to fulfill its disclosure obligations and comply with the Brady Court Orders’ commands and immediately make full and complete Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 disclosures to Mr. Ware, please advise when that required disclosure will be made.

Ms. Gupta, in order to not delay the litigation of many issues in this matter that depend in whole and/or in part on the government’s complete disclosure of “all” Brady and Giglio materials, if you would please notify the undersigned not later than March 25, 2022, at 12:00 noon, time of the essence, whether or not the government intends to immediately make full and complete Brady exculpatory and impeachment disclosure to Mr. Ware. If not also please notify the undersigned of the government’s decision, either way, to allow Mr. Ware to assess his legal options necessary to compel the government to disclose the required Brady and Giglio evidence that has been deliberately and intentionally suppressed.[25]

If the government would like to discuss the matter I am available on Friday, March 25, 2022, between the hours of 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm to discuss the issues and arrange for immediate full and complete compliance with the outstanding Brady Court Orders rather than involving the Court in the dispute.

II.

Second, Mr. Ware also writes in regard to the government’s position on the affirmative defenses pleaded by the government on the face of the 04cr1224 indictment, para. 8–12, which ipso facto as a matter of law pleaded the government out of court — that is, the government pleaded in para. 8–12, binding judicial admissions and confessions, judicial and equitable estoppel on the government in this proceeding, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” were 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters of Group Management Corp., (“GPMT”). As a matter of law, SEC Release 33–7190 n. 17 (1995),[26] the “Civil Plaintiffs” were legally ineligible for any Rule 144(k) exemption to 15 USC 77e, Section 5, strict-liability registration requirements.[27]

Ms. Gupta, please advise regarding the litigation position the government intends to take regarding these matters. Ostensibly, there are no good faith nonfrivolous litigation positions the government can take regarding SEC Release 33–719 n. 17 (1995) and its application given the government admitted at trial, Tr. 190, para. 10.1(iv) of GX-5, which will subject it to draconian Rule 11 sanctions for advancing frivolous, bad faith, vexatious, and filed for an improper purpose arguments and pleadings.

III.

Lastly, Mr. Ware inquires to the government regarding Dkt. 1–6 (AIS Claim 14 [22]) regarding the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5, viz-a-viz the Court of Appeals March 15, 2022, Appx. 7, Dkt 1–4, opinion in Adar Bays, LLC v. Genesys ID, Inc. with respect to N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, the criminal usuary law. The Court of Appeals decision governs the Illegal Contracts viability, legality, and enforceability, GX 1–4 and GX-5; and the rule of law applied to the facts of the unlawful contracts that charged a criminal rate of interest, a usurious rate, the “Civil Plaintiffs’” Illegal Contracts are “void ab initio” and unenforceable. See also 18 USC 1961(6)(A), the collection of an unlawful debt, a racketeering criminal offense.[28]

Ms. Gupta, I am sure the government will agree that GX 1–4 and GX-5 are null and void ab initio which abrogated and annulled all probable cause and Article III subject matter jurisdiction of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) district court (Sand, J.) (deceased) and vitiated the 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction of the 04cr1224 district court (Sweet, J.).

Accordingly, the 04cr1224 indictment is null and void ab initio; and the proceedings and purported conviction and sentence entered in 04cr1224 are null and void ab initio.

Ms. Gupta, please advise Mr. Ware regarding the position the government intends to advance with respect to N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, the criminal usury law, as it applies to the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5, vitality, legality, and enforceability. See Dkt. 1–6 in the petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

cc: The Garland Law Firm (Edward Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, and David Levitt)

Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.

The Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) (Wendy L. Hagenau, et al.)

The State Bar of Georgia Office of the General Counsel (Paula Fredrick, et al.)

Sims W. Gordon, Jr., Esq.

Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP (J. Henry Walker, IV, CEO, et al.)

Exhibit 4

Docket NO: 22cv1531 (LDH)(LB)

Submitted by:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

_____________________________

Ulysses T. Ware, (the “Petitioner”)

123 Linden Blvd., Suite 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

Utware007@gmail.com

March 29, 2022

In the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of New York

Ulysses T. Ware,

Petitioner,

Respondents.

Petitioner’s Exhibit #50: March 29, 2022, Second Inquiry #2.0 on United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace re: Outstanding Brady disclosures and 18 USC 3231 and Article III standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

__________

United States Attorney (EDNY) Breon Peace was served at breon.peace@usdoj.gov and AUSA Nina C. Gupta was served on March 29, 2022, at nina.gupta@usdoj.gov.

Exhibit #50

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.

Ste 9-L

Brooklyn, NY 11226

(718) 844–1260

utware007@gmail.com

March 29, 2022

Time of the essence

United State Attorney Breon Peace

United States Attorney’s Office (EDNY)

271-A Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Ware v. United States, 22cv1531 (LHD) (EDNY): the Government’s litigation position viz-a-viz the N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, the criminal usury law with respect to the government’s trial exhibits in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), GX 1–4 (the “Notes”) and GX-5 (the so-called Subscription Agreement”), jointly, (the “Illegal Contracts”), concerning the Actual Innocent Claim, Dkt. 1–6, and other pertinent matters.[29]

Mr. Peace:

I write to you as the government’s representative[30] and as a government-lawyer officer of the court which you have “a duty of complete candor” to the court, and to comply with DOJ Rules of Professional Responsibility and the District Court’s Rules on Professional Conduct for lawyers appearing before the Court.

Mr. Peace, see Dkt. 1–4, Appx. 7, the March 15, 2022, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Adar Bays, LLC v. Genesys ID, Inc., 18–3023. In the opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals adopted the opinion of the N.Y. Court of Appeals concerning the request for certification of the two questions put to the Court of Appeals regarding N.Y. criminal usury law and whether or not a discount feature in a convertible note [31]constituted additional interest beyond the stated interest in the contract.

On both questions the N.Y. Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative; and ruled that a contract, the Illegal Contracts, which contained a usurious rate of interest was “void ab initio” and unenforceable, and constituted a violation of the Criminal Usury Law, a class E felony.[32]

The Adar Bays decision has dire and devastating legal consequences for the government’s 04cr1224 indictment, the proceedings in In re Group Management Corp., a/k/a GPMT, 03–93031-mhm (BC NDGA)[33], and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit — which by the way on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90 (SDNY), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) was voluntary, after the statute of limitations had run on all claims in the complaint, was dismissed with prejudice[34]by the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” — and for the government’s prosecutors that initiated the bogus and fraudulent 04cr1224 (SDNY) criminal proceedings — that is, the government’s lawyers committed a criminal fraud on the grand jury and deliberately misled the grand jury into returning a bogus null and void ab initio charging instrument[35] which as a matter of law, ipso facto, failed to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense.”[36]

II.

Mr. Peace, on March 24, 2022, Mr. Ware inquired to AUSA Gupta and you regarding the government’s litigation position with respect to the Illegal Contracts and their legality, viability, and enforcement given the Adar Bays March 15, 2022, decision. Mr. Ware as of today has received no response from the government that addressed the dispositive points and issues raised in the March 24, 2022, Inquiry #1.0. See Exhibit 48 (submitted to the Court for docketing and filing on 03.26.22, but not as of 03.29.2022, does not appear on the 22cv1531 docket).

Accordingly, Mr. Ware is again inquiring regarding the government’s intentions apropos its “continuing duty” to make Brady exculpatory and impeachment disclosures as required by the written Brady Court Orders, Dkt. 1 at Exhibits 2 and 3, and DOJ policy, see Dkt. 1 at Exhibits 28 and 28–1.

Mr. Peace, I am sure that you are aware of the District Court’s supervisory authority to enforce via civil and/or criminal contempt, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), the commands of written Brady Court Orders, Dkt. 1 at Exhibits 2 and 3, entered in the district court’s proceedings sub judice. Which I am sure you are aware that a civil or criminal contempt citation on your office will have devastating and dire credibility and integrity issues in this and other cases in the Court.[37]

Thus, Mr. Ware is inquiring again in good faith when, and if, the government intends to comply with the written commands of the Brady Court Orders fully and completely, Dkt 1, Exhibits 2 and 3? Mr. Peace, the Brady disclosure issues have reached a gangrenous and critical juncture and Mr. Ware does intend to, and will, take full advantage of all available legal remedies to seek enforcement of his legal rights under the Brady Court Orders.

Accordingly, not later than March 30, 2022, at 12:00 noon, time of the essence, please notify Mr. Ware in writing, either way, whether or not the government does intend to fully and completely comply with the commands of the Brady Court Orders and make disclosure of all exculpatory and impeachment materials in the actual and/or constructive possession of the government; or if the government has no intentions of complying fully and completely with the commands of the Brady Court Orders, notify Mr. Ware of the government’s legal reasons for its position.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

cc: AUSA Nina C. Gupta (via email)

USAG Merrick B. Garland (via email to Jeffrey R. Ragsdale)

Ps: Mr. Peace, would you please inquire on the Office of the District Clerk (EDNY) regarding the delay in the “timely” docketing of Mr. Ware’s submission to the Court before the matter become critical?

Filed on ECF on March 29, 2022, at 11:43 am.

End of Document

[1] 28 U.S. Code § 604 — Duties of Director generally.

(a)The Director shall be the administrative officer of the courts, and under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, shall:

(1) Supervise all administrative matters relating to the offices of clerks and other clerical and administrative personnel of the courts;

(2) Examine the state of the dockets of the courts; secure information as to the courts’ need of assistance; prepare and transmit semiannually to the chief judges of the circuits, statistical data and reports as to the business of the courts.

[2] Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv1531 (EDNY)(LDH)(LB).

[3] The Government has been and is currently in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), DOJ policy, and the Brady Court Orders which constitutes civil contempt, and willful criminal contempt of a court order, 18 USC 401(3), by the Government’s prosecutors. The Government, aided and abetted by District Judge Hall, has adamantly refused to disclose all Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials in its possession, i.e., USSG 5k secret and covert cooperation agreements of its trial witnesses; secret Rule 11 allocution transcripts of its witnesses; secret Rule 16 letters exchanges with the lawyers of its trial witnesses that confirmed its witnesses were in fact cooperating with the Government, yet all testified at trial they were not cooperating and expected no rewards for their testimony; exculpatory material concealed and suppressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission which completely exonerated Mr. Ware of all charges; suppressed and concealed exculpatory material in the possession of FINRA which completely exonerated Mr. Ware of all charges, and others materials the Government has refused to turn over and disclose to Mr. Ware.

[4] See Exhibit 1, 2, 3, and 4, infra, attached hereto and made a part hereof this complaint of judicial misconduct.

[5] High crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses, and aiding and abetting the Government’s willful criminal contempt of two Brady Court Orders, Dkt. 1, Exhibits 2 and 3, rises to the level of per se gross and egregious judicial misconduct, violation of the public trust, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstruction of the due administration of justice, all felony criminal impeachable offenses which District Judge Hall is guilty of.

[6] As of today, April 7, 2022, at 8:00 am, all of Mr. Ware’s habeas submissions still do not appear on the docket in 22cv1531 (EDNY).

[7] A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [i] award the writ or [ii] issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the [face of the] application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The person [U.S. Attorney (EDNY)] to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.

When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.

[8] See attached letters to the District Court (Hall, J.) dated March 31, 2022, Dkt. 10, and April 6, 2022, raising numerous issues regarding the processing and adjudication of the Habeas Proceedings.

[9] According to the Brady Court Orders, DOJ Policy, and Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) the government was required to have disclosed “all” Brady exculpatory and impeachment materials to Petitioner “prior to the start of trial” during trial, and even after trial once discovered.

[10] As a matter of law Petitioner, Mr. Ware, the party who was awarded the Ware Court Orders has the legal right to enforce the Ware Court Orders via compensatory civil contempt and also via Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), show cause proceedings, which are imminent.

[11] At this stage of the habeas proceedings 2243 give the Court only two legal options, (i) grant the writ or (ii) entry of the show cause order. A facial insufficiency review of the Petition at this stage of the litigation is not available to the Court given claims of mixed questions of law and fact have been raised and supported by affidavit and evidence that require an evidentiary hearing to resolve — that is, a facial review of the actual innocent claims is limited to the face of the Petition and all attached exhibits, see Bundy v. Wainwright, 808 F.2d 1410, 1417 (11th Cir. 1987) (reversed the 2243 summary dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and ruled, “The judge did not limit himself to the [face of] the petition. He expressly searched for sources outside the petition to add to what the petition [, cf., the March 21, 2022, Dkt. 1, Petition’s Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts the Court is required to accept as true at the pleading stage] told him.”). (emphasis and brackets added).

Thus, the law is clear, this habeas court is not lawfully authorized to look outside the four corners of the March 21, 2022, 2241(a) habeas petition, Dkt 1; and moreover, an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve disputed issues of material facts, i.e., the Government’s compliance with the Ware Court Orders, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct claims, the Kordel claim, the N.Y. criminal usury law claim, and the actual innocent claims all are questions of fact that are not lawfully permitted to be rejected in a 2243 facial insufficiency review. Id.

[12] See N.Y. Penal Law §190.40, a class E felony for loan sharking, extortion, money laundering, kidnapping, conspiracy, bribery, mail and wire frauds, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud (cf., Chief Judge Wendy L. Hagenau’s and the Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court’s employees’ willful criminal obstruction of justice committed in In re Group Management Corp., 03–93031 (BC NDGA) Dkt 1, Appx. 6 and Exhibits 16).

[13] Until the government makes full and complete Brady disclosure Petitioner reserves the right to file additional actual innocent habeas claims and amend the Petition to reflect any such governmental Brady disclosures.

[14] A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [(i)] award the writ or [(ii)] issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The person to whom the writ or order is directed [the United States by and through the United States Attorney (EDNY)] shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.

When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.

[15] Obviously, without any rational or nonfrivolous factual dispute by the Government to the claims and Facts within the Petition the required Article III “live” “case or controversy” does not exist over which the court has Article III subject matter jurisdiction to entertain (to adjudicate) the merits of the claims, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. 93–95 (Article III subject matter jurisdiction is a “threshold issue” that every federal court “first” must resolve “before reaching the merits of the claims ….” (emphasis added) (Scalia, J.).

[16] However, see Dkt. 1, Exhibit 6, the United States and its privies voluntarily pursuant to Article II, 18 USC 3742(b) and Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on November 7, 2008, dismissed with prejudice its United States v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I, Rule 28.1 cross-appeal of the District Court’s (Pauley, J.) October 2007 actual innocent acquittal verdicts, Dkt. 1, Exhibits 39, 40, and 41. Furthermore, on August 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) ratified the November 7, 2008, voluntary dismissal of the 07–5670 cross-appeal with prejudice, Dkt. 1, Exhibit 4, and accordingly entered final judgment and triggered the absolute finality of res judicata and the Double Jeopardy Clause against the Government and its privies in Gov-I and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). Ergo, as a matter of law, as of November 7, 2008, a “live” Article III “case or controversy” has not existed between the parties, Petitioner and the United States and its privies, in regard to the United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings. The Government lacks Article III standing and authority to appear in and oppose the Court awarding the writ regarding 05cr1115 given the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

[17] The Petitioner included a verified declaration in the Petition, Dkt. 1, which the Facts have not been denied or disputed by the Government in any filing in the Court despite two prior requests (March 24, 2022, and again on March 29, 2022) to the Government by Petitioner.

[18] Put another way, is the Court permitted to accept or entertain any argument or contentions from the Government opposing the awarding of the writ where the Government sub judice lacked Article III and 28 USC 547(1) standing to have appeared in the district court, without, “first” the Government appearing and “affirmatively” establishing in this habeas proceeding the required Article III “live case or controversy” existed in the 04cr1224 district court and also currently exist in regard to the legality and enforceability of the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5, given N.Y. Penal Law, §190.40, the criminal usury law, and 18 USC 1961(6)(A)? A legal impossibility given the Illegal Contracts as a matter of law charged a criminal usurious rate of interest and therefore are null and void ab initio; which rendered the 04cr1224 criminal contempt proceedings conviction and sentence moot.

[19] See 28 USC 547(1) the United States Attorney is authorized, has standing, to prosecute only “offenses;” and the 04cr1224 district court only had subject matter jurisdiction, 18 USC 3231, to adjudicate an “offense” that was charged in the indictment; which the 04cr1224 charging instrument failed to do. Accordingly, before reaching the merits of the habeas claim, the Government “first” must appear in the Court and “affirmatively establish,” Steel Co., Id., being the plaintiff sub judice, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61, its Article III and 28 USC 547(1) standing at this stage of the proceeding, which is a legal impossibility. Consequently, as a matter of law Petitioner is legally entitled to respectfully request the Court to “forthwith” — that is, immediately and without delay award the writ pursuant to the 2243 statute.

[20] The Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 (the “Notes”) and GX-5 (the so-called “Subscription Agreement”), government trial exhibits entered in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224(SDNY) (Sweet, J.) (deceased) and the moot subject matter of the Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v. Group Management Corp., a/k/a GPMT, et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.) (deceased), per the March 15, 2022, decision in Adar Bays, LLC v. Genesys ID, Inc., 18cv3023 (2d Cir.), Dkt. 1–4, Appx. 7, are “null and void ab initio” and “unenforceable.” Accordingly, the 04cr1224 purported indictment is null and void ab initio, required to be annulled and dismissed with prejudice, and the conviction and sentence in 04cr1224 also are null and void ab initio as a matter of law. Ergo, there is no nonfrivolous “live” Article III “case or controversy” that currently exist between the parties regarding the legality and enforceability of the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5. The matter is moot.

[21] See binding circuit precedent in A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501–02 (2d Cir. 1952) (plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit 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 proceedings, and rendered the matter moot). (emphasis added).

[22] Ms. Gupta, please advise whether or not the government in this matter represents the legal interests of the Atlanta, GA law firms Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, PC and Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP; and Manibur S. Arora, Esq., David Levitt, Esq.; Michael F. Bachner, Esq.; Gary G. Becker, Esq.; Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.; The State Bar of Georgia’s agents and former and current employees, Sims W. Gordon, Jr., Esq.; Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.; Ari Rabinowitz, unregistered broker-dealer LH Financial Services; and the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court’s employees?

[23] The “others” include but is limited to the Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court’s employees, the Garland Law Firm, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., the Securities and Exchange Commission, Michael F. Bachner, Esq., Gary G. Becker, Esq., Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., the State Bar of Georgia’s agents and employees, the U.S. Probation Office (SDNY), Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, et al., and others.

[24] The willful resistance of a court order by any person constitutes 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt, a criminal offense.

[25] As the prevailing party to the Brady Court Orders Mr. Ware is legally authorized to seek judicial enforcement of the Brady Court Orders via civil contempt and a Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a) criminal contempt proceeding. See petition, Dkt. 1 at 135.

[26] See Exhibit 46 attached hereto, SEC Release 33–7190 n. 17 (1995) (Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters [the 02cv2219 “Civil Plaintiffs” are] required to register with the SEC pursuant to Section 5 all distribution of securities [i.e., GX 1–4 via GX-5, the Illegal Contracts]. (emphasis added).

[27] Notwithstanding the indisputable fact that on May 17, 2021, see Exhibit 7, FINRA certified the “Civil Plaintiffs” were unregistered broker-dealers; ipso facto as a matter of law also ineligible for Rule 144(k).

[28] The Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5, as a matter of law are unenforceable and “void ab initio”: ipso facto the In re Group Management Corp, 03–93031-mhm (BC NDGA) Chapter proceedings May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28, order of dismissal with prejudice is abrogated and annulled — that is, the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) lacked Article III subject matter jurisdiction to have granted the “Civil Plaintiffs” any judicial relief; and the “Civil Plaintiffs” as a matter of law lacked Article III standing to have appeared in and criminally obstructed GPMT’s Chapter 11 proceedings. See 18 USC 1961(6)(A) and 18 USC 2, 157 and 371.

[29] Relevant to this discussion are the proceedings in In re Group Management Corp., a/k/a GPMT, 03–93031-mhm (BC NDGA), see bogus and fraudulent May 21, 2003, Dkt. 28, null and void ab initio order (dismissal with prejudice, Murphy, J.): entered as a RICO Hobbs Act extortion and money laundering overt act in furtherance of 18 USC 157, 1961(6)(A) and N.Y. Criminal Usury Law conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 USC 157, by the bankruptcy court employees; and the Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, and its partners Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV, and C. Ray Mullins, jointly, (the “Unindicted Co-conspirators”).

[30] Mr. Peace, please advise whether or not the government in this matter represents the legal interests of the Atlanta, GA law firms Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, PC and Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP; and Manibur S. Arora, Esq., David Levitt, Esq.; Michael F. Bachner, Esq.; Gary G. Becker, Esq.; Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.; The State Bar of Georgia’s agents and former and current employees, Sims W. Gordon, Jr., Esq.; Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq.; Ari Rabinowitz, unregistered broker-dealer LH Financial Services; and the Atlanta, GA Bankruptcy Court’s employees and others in current violation of N.Y. Criminal Usury Law?

[31] See GX 1–4 in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).

[32] Mr. Peace, posit the following contention: if the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5, are null and void ab initio, which they are, as ruled by the N.Y and U.S. Courts of Appeals, which is binding on the government and the court in this habeas proceeding, and binding on the 04cr1224 district court sub judice (Sweet, J.) (deceased), binding on the 02cv2219 (SDNY) district court (Sand, J.) (deceased), and binding on the GPMT Atlanta, GA 03–93031 bankruptcy court viz-a-viz GX-250, GX-251, GX-252, and GX-253, which it is, then, ipso facto, the 04cr1224 purported indictment was fatally flawed and clearly failed as a matter of law to charge an 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt “offense” over which the 04cr1224 district could lawfully exercise 18 USC 3231 and Article III subject matter jurisdiction.

Therefore, accordingly, the government being the plaintiff in the sub judice criminal proceedings has the burden of proof and production, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61, in this stage of the proceedings to “affirmatively establish,” see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93–95, sua sponte, its Article III and 28 USC 547(1) standing as a “threshold matter” in the habeas proceedings. Id.

A legal impossibility given (i) the Adar Bays decision and (ii) Dkt. 1, Exhibit 7, FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification on unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs”. Accordingly, the 02cv 2219, 03–93031, and 04cr1224 proceedings are moot; and the conviction and sentence entered in 04cr1224 are null and void ab initio. Steel Co., Id. at 94–95.

[33] In 04cr1224, the government via AUSA Maria E. Douvas, knowingly and deliberately in reckless discard for the law and the facts, as an overt act in furtherance of a government fraud on the court, introduced into evidence GX-250, GX-251, GX-252, and GX-253, exhibits regarding GPMT’s bankruptcy proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court (NDGA) with respect to the Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5. Cf., Dkt. 1, Appx. 6 and Exhibits 16; see also Appx. 3.

[34] See Petition, Dkt. 1, at Exhibit 5. See A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501–02 (2d Cir. 1952) (plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit annulled and vitiated all prior orders [GX-11 andGX-24], judgments [GX-7] and proceedings [in 02cv2219 and 04cr1224] as if the “lawsuit had never been filed;” terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the [02cv2219 and 04cr1224] proceedings, and rendered the [02cv2219 and 04cr1224] proceedings moot). (emphasis added).

[35] Mr. Peace as a government-lawyer, officer of the court, you have a “duty of complete candor to the court” now that you have appeared in 22cv1531, an ethical and professional responsibility duty attached to you as the United States Attorney (EDNY) to immediately inform the Court in this actual innocent 2241 habeas corpus proceeding, and the district court sub judice, that the government’s 04cr1224 trial theory and indictment has been abrogated and annulled by the U.S. Court of Appeals March 15, 2022, opinion in Adar Bays, Dkt. 1–4, Appx. 7.

Therefore, accordingly, the government cannot advance any nonfrivolous good faith opposition to the granting of the writ with respect to the null and void ab initio United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) 18 USC 401(3) bogus and fraudulent criminal contempt prosecution.

If so please inform the undersigned not later than March 30, 2022, 12:00 noon, time of the essence, of any good faith and nonfrivolous opposition the government intends to advance concerning Dkt. 1–4, the Actual Innocent Claim #14, that is contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals Adar Bays decision concerning the null and void ab initio Illegal Contracts, GX 1–4 and GX-5.

[36] It is not an “offense” for Mr. Ware, GPMT’s securities lawyer, to not criminally violate the federal securities laws, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff, and not draft, sign, and issue, bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 02cv2219 “Civil Plaintiffs” in violation of N.Y. criminal usury law and enable an illegal public offering of GPMT’s restricted securities, GX 1–4. Mr. Ware is actually and factually of all bogus and fraudulent charges in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). See Exhibit 46 (submitted to the Court for docketing and filing on 03.26.22, but as of 03.29.2022, does not appear on the 22cv1531 docket).

[37] See United States v. Ng, 18cr00538 (EDNY) (criminal proceedings delayed due to government’s lawyers’ admissions and belated disclosures of Brady materials).