“There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.” Hamlet
NYC Federal Judge “Error-prone” Edgardo Ramos was named as an Unindicted Co-conspirator in Recent Concealed Court Filings. Is Judge Ramos above the Law? His Fate is Sealed.
IRNewswires Public Corruption Investigative Reports
Alan Reitman, JD, Ph.D., Esq., summa cum laude, Int’l Public Corruption Investigative Reporter
Sebastian Kolm, JD, Ph.D., Esq., summa cum laude, Public Corruption Analyst
Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., Esq., Public Corruption Legal Analyst
August 17, 2021
New York, NY
IRNewswires’s lawyers and investigators have obtained copies of recently submitted court filings by Ulysses T. Ware that named “error-prone” NYC federal judge Edgardo Ramos as an “UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR” for aiding, abetting, assisting, and facilitating the willful, bad faith, and intentional resistance and disobedience of the written Brady Orders entered in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) (RWS), Exhibit #1 and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (WHP), Exhibit #2.
IRN’s investigators and lawyers have also obtained copies of the official SEC emails Brady exculpatory evidence, of disgraced former SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, Exhibits 4 and DOJ official emails of former NYC law firm Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, LLP, former AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Exhibit 4 and 5, the lead prosecutor on the 05cr1115 case, and the government’s prosecutor who materially assisted in procuring the November 17, 2004, null and void ab initio 04cr1224 indictment.
Judge Ramos Conspired with Audrey Strauss to Conceal Brady
Exculpatory Evidence and Perpetrate a Fraud on the Federal Courts.
The evidence is overwhelming. NYC incompetent “error-prone” federal judge Edgardo Ramos has conspired, colluded, facilitated, aided, and abetted acting U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Audrey Straus and her Office to willfully and in bad faith resist and disobey two (2) written Brady Disclosure Orders, Exhibits 1 and 3, infra, in civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3)[1] of lawful court orders. Judge Ramos, a judicial officer of the court, has clearly and egregiously violated the Codes of Judicial Conduct for a Federal Judge.[2]
The evidence uncovered by IRN’s investigators based on interviews of persons employed in the NY federal courts, IRN was informed that Judge Ramos has knowingly and deliberately conducted the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 proceedings in willful violations of Canons 2 and 3 of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, which is the predicate unethical offenses required for a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Ramos. It was disclosed that Judge Ramos has had numerous unethical and illegal ex parte communications with DOJ prosecutors, and it was discussed how Judge Ramos would conceal and suppress all of Mr. Ware’s filings in the Court.
Moreover, IRN’s investigators were informed that Judge Ramos actually took part in the decision to cover up and continue to suppress material Brady exculpatory evidence in the possession of Audrey Strauss and the SEC that is currently required to be immediately disclosed to Mr. Ware according to the commands of the written Brady Orders, Exhibits 1 and 2. This willful act is a civil and criminal contempt of lawful court orders by a federal judge, which is a willful violation of the Canons and federal criminal law, 18 USC 401(2) and 401(3), and constituted a fraud on the federal courts by Judge Ramos, Audrey Strauss, John M. McEnany, Melissa Childs, and others.
Additional evidence has been uncovered that confirmed that Jude Ramos has refused all requests to confirm the Article III and 18 USC 3231 subject matter jurisdiction of the 1224 and 1115 district courts to have conducted any proceedings, and enter any judgments of conviction or sentence. Court records show that Judge Ramos has thumbed his nose at the Constitution of the United States Article III, and had essentially placed himself above the law as a one-man government not accountable or answerable to anyone, especially not the law, his master.
The entities named in paragraph 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment (Exhibit 3–1) are the same entities named by FINRA on May 17, 2021, as unregistered broker-dealers according to United States law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), (Exhibit 3–2), suppressed and concealed Brady material exculpatory evidence suppressed by David N. Kelley, Audrey Strauss, Melissa Childs, Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, and Katherine Polk-Failla.
On May 17, 2021, FINRA certified that the entities named as the “Civil Plaintiffs” in para. 8 of the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment was not and have never registered as required by United States law, Title 15 Section 78o(a)(1), as lawful brokers or dealers. An indisputable fact that blew up the Government’s entire case in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY). Why? Because unregistered broker-dealers lacked Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity standing to have on “March 2002” (according to para. 9 of the 1224 indictment) filed the 02cv2219 (SDNY) civil lawsuit. FINRA’s certification is indisputably suppressed material Brady exculpatory evidence that was required to have been disclosed to Mr. Ware according to the Brady Orders, Exhibits 1 and 2.
Judge Ramos, an UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR, has since July 12, 2021, willfully and in bad faith conspired with the USAO to continue to suppress and cover up Brady exculpatory evidence as a conspiracy to obstruct justice and commit a fraud on the federal courts.
Stay tuned. IRN’s investigators have uncovered more Brady exculpatory evidence, SEC and DOJ official emails, faxes, letters, and other documents that prove a conspiracy has existed between the USAO, the SEC, and the NYC federal courts to conceal Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), unregistered broker-dealer status.
[1] 18 USC 401: A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as —
(1)
Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2)
Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3)
Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, [Brady Disclosure (Exhibits 1 and 2) or Rule 41(a)(2) superseding (Exhibit 6)] order, rule, decree, or command.
[2] Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.
A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Canon 3B(6). Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is promoted when judges take appropriate action based on reliable information of likely misconduct.
