Criminal Prosecutorial Misconduct by U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams in a Racially-Motivated DOJ Hate Crime Conspiracy to Cover up the RICO Money Laundering and Extortion Conspiracy run by Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and N.Y. Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer.
Read the entire article at: https://bit.ly/3m9GWzO
Filed on 6/2/2022 1:05:22 PM
Docket 22cv3409 (SDNY) (25)
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 2, 2022
________________
Ulysses T. Ware’s re: Request for Damian Williams and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY), (the “USAO”) to disclose “all” Brady materials regarding: its 05cr1115 “principal witness” Jeremy Jones’ USSG 5k perjury contracts, Rule 11 perjury allocution, all transcripts of perjury, all communications between Marlon Kirton, Esq., the District Court, Pauley, J., Edward T.M. Garland, Michael F. Bachner, Manny Arora, Gary G. Becker, Judges Edgardo Ramos, Robert W. Sweet, Senator Charles Schumer, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., Alpha Capital, AG, LH Financial Services, Inc., Judge Robert W. Sweet, Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, FINRA, the SEC, Jeffrey B. Norris, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, The Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), the State Bar of Georgia, the U.S. Probation Office, the FBI, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Barbara R. Mittman, Esq., and all others that had or have Brady exculpatory or impeachment materials in their possession.
The government was served with this pleading on 06.02.22 via Damian Williams at damian.williams@usdoj.gov and Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov.
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844–1260
Thursday, June 2, 2022
via email and regular mail:
The Office of the United States Attorney
For the Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Damian Williams, Esq. (an officer of the court)
Re: Ulysses T. Ware:
Ware v. United States, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY)
U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
Mr. Williams:
I.
Mr. Ware is writing to you in your personal and official capacity as the United States Attorney (SDNY),[1] (the “USAO”) concerning the above cases and your official responsibilities and obligations as an officer of the court in regard to the outstanding Brady court orders, to wit: (1) United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Dkt. 32, August 10, 2007 (Sweet, J.) (deceased) and (2) United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Dkt. 17, May 19, 2006 (Pauley, J.) (deceased), jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”) and vis-à-vis 18 USC 401(3), criminal contempt, and civil contempt of the Brady Court Orders.
Mr. Williams, the current record in 22cv3409 (SDNY), shows that the USAO knowingly and willfully, in furtherance of the DOJ’s Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy perpetrated against Mr. Ware for his refusal to issue bogus and fabricated Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the Hobbs Act RICO criminal enterprise, has willfully concealed and suppressed dispositive actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” per the commands of the Brady Court Orders.[2]
II.
Mr. Williams, given the USAO has the absolute constitutional burden of proof and production, as the plaintiff in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, to establish “as a threshold issue” its Article III standing and the District Courts’ Article III and 18 USC 3231 statutory subject matter jurisdiction, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93–95, in pari materia with Lujan, Id., in order to speed the resolution of the pending jurisdictional litigation in the courts, Mr. Ware is requesting that Damian Williams, as an officer of the court, on behalf of the USAO, in compliance with all DOJ and District Court (SDNY) Rules of Professional Conduct, see Local Rule District Court (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5)[3] not later than Friday, June 3, 2022, at 12:00 noon, time of the essence, notify Mr. Ware and the District Court regarding:
1. whether or not the United States, given the Second Circuit’s August 18, 2009, final judgment in U.S. v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP), Gov.-I, in favor of Mr. Ware, contends an Article III live case or controversy currently exist between Mr. Ware and the United States and its privies in 05cr1115?
2. Whether or not the United States, given FINRA’s May 19, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs,”[4] contends (i) an Article III live case or controversy existed in 02cv2219 (SDNY), and (ii) whether or not 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction existed in 04cr1224 given it is not an “offense” to not issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to unregistered broker-dealers in criminal and civil violation of the federal securities laws, 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff?
Mr. Williams, if you would on behalf of the USAO, as an officer of the court, and in compliance with the District Court’s Local Rule 1.5(b)(5), the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and in fulfillment of your personal duty of candor to the Courts explain why the USAO has not come forth and disclosed all Brady material required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware “prior to trial” and also explain why the USAO has not notified the Court of Appeals and the District Courts the proceedings in 02cv2219, 04cr1224, and 05cr1115 are moot?
Mr. Williams, your official response, if any, or if not, will be used as the factual basis for a fraud on the court proceeding regarding your prosecutorial misconduct concerning the matters in this request.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Cc: USAG Merrick B. Garland via Jeffrey R. Ragsdale
Senator Charles Schumer
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain
[1] The USAO only has lawful statutory authority, 28 USC 547, to prosecute, i.e., indict, “offenses” committed in the SDNY that are crimes against the laws of the United States; and moreover, the District Court (SDNY), 18 USC 3231, only has lawful authority, subject matter jurisdiction, to adjudicate “offenses.” Accordingly, the USAO, as the plaintiff in both 04cr1224 and 05cr1115, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61, has the burden of proof to establish both (i) Article III standing, and (ii) Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction in regard to the proceedings sub judice.
Put another way, the USAO has the current constitutional and statutory burden of proof and production to “affirmatively establish” in the District Court that a “live Article III case or controversy” presently exist between Mr. Ware and the United States and its privies (the USAO) in regard to (1) whether or not GX 1–4 and GX-5, the Illegal Contracts admitted in 04cr1224 are lawful and enforceable contracts? No.; (2) whether or not the 02cv2219 (SDNY) “Civil Plaintiffs” were lawfully registered broker-dealers in 2001 when entering into GX 1–4 and GX-5? No according to FINRA’s May 19, 2021, certification — that is, concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence by the USAO in criminal contempt of the Brady Court Order entered in 04cr1224, Dkt. 32; and (3) whether or not the “prices” of INZS and SVSY’s securities were “artificially inflated” by immaterial press releases? No. As a matter of law immaterial press releases cannot “inflate” the “prices” of securities in an inefficient market.
Ergo, see 05cr1115 (SDNY) Pauley, J. October 2007 actual innocent inefficient market rulings, Dkt. 99, S.Tr. 31 L 18–25; S. Tr 35–36; and S. Tr. 73–76 (ruling the Government’s trial proof failed as a matter of fact on the issue of market efficiency — that is, ipso facto, an acquittal of all charges in 05cr1115 and the triggering of the absolute finality and res judicata of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which by necessary implication rendered the USAO’s authority to appear and contest any claim in 22cv3409 ipso facto prohibited by res judicata. Accordingly, application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the October 2007 Pauley actual innocent rulings, in October 2007, terminated any Article III “live case or controversy” between Mr. Ware and the United States and its privies given the Second Circuit’s August 18, 2009, entry of final judgment in U.S. v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov. -I, i.e., the government’s abandoned and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice cross-appeal of the District Court (Pauley, J.), October 2007 actual innocent rulings.
The 05cr1115 proceedings are ipso facto per se moot given the USAG conferred prevailing party status on Mr. Ware by its November 7, 2008, voluntary 18 USC 3742(b) and unreviewable and not judiciable Article II appellate political decision to dismiss with prejudice the United States and its privies right to appeal Judge Pauley’s October 2007 actual innocent inefficient market rulings vis-a-vis, U.S. v. Ware, 07–5670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.), Gov.-I.
[2] See Dkt. 50 (22cv3409).
[3] Civil and willful criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), of the Brady Court Orders violated Local Rule 1.5(b)(5) District Court and DOJ Rules of Professional Conduct, thus, triggering the District Court’s supervisory authority to discipline Damian Williams, Jun Xiang, Merrick B. Garland, Melissa Childs, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, and other that aided and abetted the civil and willful criminal contempt of the Brady Court Orders.
[4] See Exhibit 3, infra (FINRA’s May 19, 2021, certification).
