NYC Federal Judge Edgardo Ramos to be Impeached and Prosecuted?

Opinion and Editorial:

“There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.” (Hamlet).

Edgardo Ramos Must be Impeached and Prosecuted.

IRNewswires Special Reports
Harold Morey, Executive Editor
London, UK
September 16, 2021

IRN’s lawyers have obtained a copy of the most recent submissions to the NYC federal court (SDNY) by Atlanta, GA lawyer Ulysses T. Ware and also a copy of Mr. Ware’s Federal Tort Claim Act filing submitted to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ Executive Director which named NYC federal District Judge Edgardo Ramos as a “tortfeasor” for “high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable offenses.” To put it bluntly, Judge Ramos is in very serious trouble for a federal judge to be accused of impeachable offenses. However, Judge Ramos’ recent troubles are of his own making: he has callously and flagrantly refused to follow the Constitution of the United States and federal law, and adamantly Judge Ramos has refused to enforce written “Brady Court Orders.” According to IRN’s research Judge Ramos’ judicial misconduct is unprecedented criminal conduct by a United States federal judge.

IRN’s Editorial Board is of the opinion that it is untenable for Judge Edgardo Ramos to continue to serve as a United States federal judge and at the same time commit criminal offenses, Title 18, Sections 401(2) and 401(3), criminal contempt, i.e., the willful aiding and abetting the knowing resistance and obstruction of lawful Brady Court Orders entered in the United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Dkt. 32 (Sweet, J.) and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), Dkt. 17, Tr. 5–9 (Pauley, J.). Judge Ramos’ documented criminal judicial misconduct egregiously and willfully violated the constitutional rights of criminal defendants in the federal courts.

How is it permissible for Judge Ramos to continue to sit and purportedly function as an Article III federal trial judge, adhere to his oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States, and at the same time criminally violate the constitutional rights of Mr. Ware and other criminal defendants to due process of law? This cannot continue and is unsustainable by the District Court’s (SDNY) Chief Judge the Hon. Laura Taylor-Swain and the Executive Committee of the District Court (SDNY). Judge Ramos must be immediately suspended and referred to the DOJ’s Division on Public Integrity and also reported to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with a recommendation of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Just to start.

Moreover, given the callousness and flagrant judicial criminal misconduct displayed by Judge Ramos is it untenable to think Judge Ramos has not done the same judicial misconduct in other criminal cases that he harbored an undisclosed conflict of interest and actual bias and prejudice? It is entirely likely that Mr. Ware’s cases are not the first, and likely not the last, cases that Judge Ramos has exercised criminal intent and egregiously violated the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant. The question that the District Court’s (SDNY) Executive Committed must ask itself is, Are we willing to take the chance that Judge Ramos will not undertake to again violate federal law and refuse to enforce lawful court orders? The answer must be no. The risks are much too high to the public for Judge Edgardo Ramos to be allowed to continue to sit as a United States federal judge. The sooner he is gone the better for the institution of justice.

Judge Edgardo Ramos must be immediately removed from all Article III judicial and administrative functions and suspended by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s Executive Director pending a public investigation for the commission of criminal offenses against the laws of the United States. The fair and impartial administration of justice requires no less if Justice is to be respected in the District Court (SDNY).

Fate is watching. It is not wise to tempt Fate.

Copyright © 2021. IRNewswires. All rights reserved

Cleared for domestic and international distribution.

Case Nos. 05cr1115 (SDNY) and 04cr1224 (SDNY) (#51J-4)

Submitted on September 16, 2021, 2021, to: Pro_SE_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov
ChambersNYSDRamos@nysd.uscourts.gov
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844–1260 phone
utware007@gmail.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America, et al., and
State Bar of Georgia agents and employees, et al.,
Respondents, (Unindicted Co-conspirators),

v.

Ulysses T. Ware,
Petitioner (Prevailing Party).
USAO (SDNY) Systemic Brady Disclosure Failures: U.S. v. Nejad and the Ware Cases.
Certificate of Service

I Ulysses T. Ware certify that I have this 16th day of September 2021 served via email the following persons or entities to wit:

Hon. Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain
AUSA Melissa Childs
AUSA John M. McEnany
Acting USA Audrey Strauss (SDNY)
AUSA Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Counsel, DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility

Exhibit 1
The New York Law Journal
May 6, 2021, Excerpts
BY JOEL M. COHEN, SACHA HARBER-KELLY AND STEVE MELROSE
Edited by IRNewswires Editorial Board
U.S. Trends and Analysis:
Systemic Due Process Violations by the USAO SDNY: “There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.” (Hamlet).

In the United States, courts are similarly scrutinizing prosecutions, and some courts have found that the government’s failures to abide by its disclosure obligations are a basis for the dismissal of criminal charges. Two recent decisions from New York are prime examples of this trend. ‘United States v. Nejad’: In February, District Court Judge Alison Nathan granted the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s [(SDNY)] motion to vacate the jury verdict and dismiss the charges after a series of damning revelations concerning the government’s repeated violations of its disclosure obligations prior to, during, and after trial. United States v. Nejad, 2021 WL 681427 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
After the government secured a jury conviction in March 2020 against the defendant, Judge Nathan uncovered that the prosecution [criminal evidence coordinator, AUSA John M. McEnany, et al.] had not only failed to turn over an important document until the midst of trial, but had affirmatively decided to “bury” the document among other information so as to obfuscate the exculpatory information within the document. Nejad, 487 F. Supp. 3d 206, 208 (2020). This egregious error was one example among the many “serious and pervasive issues related to disclosure failures” that occurred in this prosecution. Id. Judge Nathan condemned the actions of the prosecutors as “grave derelictions of prosecutorial responsibility” that were then “compounded … through a sustained pattern of refusing to fess up” and called upon the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct “a full investigation.” Nejad, 2021 WL 681427, at *2, 4.
Judge Nathan’s decision demonstrates that courts are willing to step in to ensure the integrity of the judicial system, including by dismissing cases or precluding evidence from prosecutions where the government does not comply with its disclosure obligations. ‘United States v. Robert Morgan et al.’: In United States v. Robert Morgan et al., District Court Judge Elizabeth Wolford dismissed the indictment filed against four real estate professionals due to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s failure to comply with its voluntary discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. 493 F. Supp. 3d 171, 199 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). In its decision dismissing the indictment, the court concluded that the government prosecutors “demonstrated a disturbing inability to manage the massive discovery in this case, and despite repeated admonitions from both this court and the Magistrate Judge, the government’s lackadaisical approach has manifested itself in repeated missed deadlines,” which ultimately led to the dismissal. Id. at 208. The court detailed the government’s “significant missteps” in its management of electronic discovery, including its failure to provide custodian information and data processing issues that created “errors and inconsistencies” in the government’s productions. Id. at 180, 211.
The dismissal of the Morgan indictment suggests that the government may not always have a strong understanding of its discovery, especially at the early stages of an investigation or even after charges are filed, and the courts are unwilling to let the government’s mishaps get in the way of an efficient prosecution. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represents Mr. Morgan in the case. Similar concerns about prosecutors’ inadequate discovery practices contributed to the recent U.S. Congressional enactment of the Due Process Protections Act, which seeks to fix “inadequate safeguards in Federal law” that often fail to ensure prosecutorial compliance with disclosure obligations. See Pub. L. №116–182, 134 Stat. 184 (2020); 166 Cong. Rec. H4, 582–83 (Sept. 21, 2020) (statement of Rep. Jackson Lee). The Act amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) to require district courts to issue an order at the first appearance “that confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such order under applicable law.”
Prosecutors face sanctions for failure to abide by the amended rule. Id.; see e.g., the Brady Order sanctions entered by Chief Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain in United States v. Rodriguez-Perez, 2020 WL 6487509, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2020) (LTS). This serves as yet another tightening of the previously loosely-enforced obligation on prosecutors to be fully ready for trial when they indict.