UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
United States of America, :
Respondent-Plaintiff, :
:
:
:
: Case No. 07-5222cr (08.1)
v. :
:
:
Ulysses T. Ware, :
Appellant-Defendant. :
__________________________________________:
Appellant-Defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s Supplemental Memorandum of
Law (re: Part II Judicial Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Commit
Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall, Ramos, Pauley,
Taylor-Swain, and Cabranes) in Support of the Requested Reliefs
Regarding the May 12, 2024, and June 10, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to
Recall the August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, and (2) The immediate
access to all judicial court records used in or a part of U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) and used in or by this Court to reach its decision in its
August 18, 2009, 07-5222cr mandate, reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d
442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.) not later than Friday, May 31, 2024, time
of the essence.
Respectfully Submitted by:
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Filed on Friday, June 21, 2024
Page 1 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Table of Contents
A Opening statement. ............................................................................................................................. 4
B Analysis of Exhibit 3I's Judicial Admission and Its Legal Consequences. ........................................... 5
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 5
II. Judicial Admission and Its Binding Nature .......................................................................................... 6
A. Definition and Legal Consequences .................................................................................................. 6
B. Exhibit 3I's Judicial Admission ........................................................................................................... 7
III. Incorporation into 05cr1115 (SDNY) Proceedings ............................................................................. 7
A. Judicial Admission's Effect Across Related Cases, to wit, 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY). .. 7
B. Binding Nature on the Court and USAO (SDNY) ............................................................................... 8
IV. Double Jeopardy Implications ............................................................................................................ 8
A. Attachment of Jeopardy on January 16, 2007, in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). .......................... 8
B. Impact of Exhibit 3I’s Judicial Admission .......................................................................................... 9
C. Double Jeopardy Clause Protection ................................................................................................ 10
V. Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges. .............................................................................................. 10
A. Legal Standard: Fraud on the Court ................................................................................................ 10
B. Criminal Judicial Fraud on the Court Factual Background .............................................................. 11
C. Fraudulent Actions by Federal Judges ............................................................................................ 11
D. Legal Implications ........................................................................................................................... 13
E. Double Jeopardy Implications ......................................................................................................... 13
F. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 13
VI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Exhibit 3H1—Ware, 577 F.3d at 445, false, unsupported by the actual trial record, and fraudulent
findings made by Circuit Judges Kearse, Sack, and Hall, which do not appear in the 05cr1115 official trial
record—according to David Ng on June 5, 2023, the District Court (SDNY) custodian of records, there is
no record of a government expert witness that testified at trial regarding “artificial” “inflation” of “stock
prices” “caused by” “press releases” which “pumped up” “increased” or “inflated” SVSY or INZS “stock
prices.” .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 3H2—FBI Analyst Maria A. Font’s teary and distressed 05cr1115 trial testimony regarding GX 92
and GX 93, the government’s fabricated and fraudulent chart evidence which is contradicted by the
SEC-DOJ’s July 14, 20023, Article II affirmative defenses pleaded on the face of the 03-0831 (D. NV)
unsigned and void ab initio complaint—actual innocent SEC-DOJ exculpatory evidence suppressed by
the trial judge (Pauley, J.) and the government’s prosecutors’ collusion and conspiracy. ..................... 18
Page 2 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 3I—03-0831 (D. NV) SEC-DOJ July 14, 2003, Article II law enforcement officials’ (SEC lawyers)
actual innocent affirmative defenses, judicial admissions, which contradicted and completely
impeached, undermined, and discredited the Ware, 577 F.3d at 445, see Ex. 3G, supra, Court’s
erroneous and unsupported by the actual trial record evidence conclusions ........................................ 19
Exhibit 5A—suppressed and concealed SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, a law enforcement official’s
determination and official litigation position regarding the Government’s alleged conspiracy, actual
innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment email from SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris to Jeremy Jones,
the “government’s principal witness” required to have been disclosed and produced “prior to trial”
pursuant to the Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B, supra. ............................................................................. 20
End of document ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Page 3 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
“Knowledge is power, but ignorance of the law is underrated.”
A Opening statement.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is presented with a gross and
unprecedented example of judicial corruption and prosecutorial misconduct, with the case of
Ulysses T. Ware, Appellant-Defendant. This Supplemental Memorandum of Law exposes the
calculated fraud on the court perpetrated by federal judges and prosecutors, including the SEC-
DOJ officials and District Court and Court of Appeals judges, who have colluded, acted in concert,
coordinated, and conspired to conceal critical exculpatory evidence, a fundamental miscarriage
of justice.
The SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission, filed in the Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s
unsigned 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint on July 14, 2003, unequivocally stipulated and judicially
admitted by SEC lawyers, law enforcement officials, that the press releases regarding INZS and
SVSY did not cause any increase in stock prices. This binding judicial admission, detailed in Exhibit
3I, constituted an actual innocent Brady exculpatory Article II affirmative defense to all claims
in 03-0831 ((D. NV) and all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY). That should have nullified the claims of
market manipulation in both the 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) cases. The SEC-DOJ's July
14, 2003, judicial admission, binding on the United States, rendered the prosecution's allegations
legally void and required the dismissal of all charges against Mr. Ware.
However, this indisputable Brady actual innocent exculpatory judicial admission was and
has continuously been maliciously and insidiously covered up, suppressed, and concealed by the
Page 4 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
federal judges and prosecutors involved, obstructing justice and leading to Mr. Ware's wrongful
conviction. This memorandum not only details the criminal, bogus, and fraudulent actions taken
by Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall, Pauley, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Ramos, Cabranes, and others but
also argues vigorously for the immediate dismissal of the moot void ab initio 05cr1115 and 03-
0831 (D. NV) charges against Mr. Ware, citing the principles of judicial and equitable estoppel,
the binding nature of judicial admissions, and the constitutional protections under the Double
Jeopardy Clause.
By presenting the factual and legal basis for Mr. Ware's exoneration, this memorandum
demands the Court acknowledge the profound miscarriage of justice that has occurred and take
swift action to rectify it. The judicial system's integrity hinges on the fair and transparent
administration of justice, a standard egregiously violated in this case.
B Analysis of Exhibit 3I's Judicial Admission and Its Legal
Consequences.
I. Introduction
Exhibit 3I, infra, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
suppressed and concealed by the District Court (SDNY) (Pauley, J., Ramos, J.),1 the government,
1
See 05cr1115 (SDNY) Dkt. 35, Jan. 8, 2007, order (Pauley, J.) (deceased) entered as the request of the
government, see Dkt. 28, (AUSA Southwell) to (i) prevent Mr. Ware access to the SEC’s lawyers and
employees involved in the Law Vegas 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings, and (ii) to suppress,
cover up, and conceal the criminal offenses committed during the 03-0831 proceedings by Alexander H.
Southwell, David Makol, Stephen Webster, John C. Martin, Robert Hannan, Kent J. Dawson, Jeffrey B.
Norris, Steven R. Peikin, Joan E. McKown, Michael J. Garcia, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, Marlon
G. Kirton, Jeremy Jones, Michael H. Dolinger, and others.
Page 5 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
and the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) (Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes), jointly, (the “Unindicted
Coconspirators”), an illegal association in fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4), contains a critical
Article II actual innocent, judicial admission, affirmative defense to all claims in 03-0831 (D. NV)
and all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY)—that is, a binding Article II judicial admission pleaded by the
SEC and DOJ in paragraph 33 of the 03-0831 (D. NV) Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding’s unsigned
complaint, which stipulated as fact that the press releases in question regarding INZS and SVSY
(the same subject matter of the 05cr1115 proceeding) did not cause any “increase” in stock
“prices.” This binding Article II prosecutorial (litigation position) judicial admission, made on
behalf of the United States2 in the 03-0831 (D. NV) case, has significant legal consequences that
extend to the 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings.
Additionally, this judicial admission raises substantial issues concerning double jeopardy
implications in these and subsequent proceedings which are discussed below.
II. Judicial Admission and Its Binding Nature
A. Definition and Legal Consequences
2
The United States is the real party in interest in 03-0831 (D. NV) and in 05cr1115 (SDNY) judicial
proceedings—that is, paragraph 33 pleaded by the SEC and DOJ’s lawyers is binding on the United States
in 03-0831 (D. NV) and necessarily in 05cr1115 (SDNY) as a factual stipulation which pleaded the United
States out of court in 03-0831 and 05cr1115 as of July 14, 2003. Ergo, initially and at this stage of the
proceedings (03-0831 and 05cr1115) the 05cr1115 (22cv3409) district court and the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit were bound absolutely in 07-5222cr and 23-869, respectively, by paragraph 33, Ex. 3I,
which rendered the proceedings null and void ab initio and moot. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. 93-95 read in
pari materia with Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978) (jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn in a
criminal trial) and Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009) (Cabranes, J.), the court stated that
"[a] judicial admission... is conclusive in the case." Similarly, in Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 144 (2d
Cir. 1994), the Second Circuit held that "[j]udicial admissions are formal concessions in the pleadings, or
stipulations by a party or its counsel, which are binding upon the party making them." (emphasis added).
Page 6 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
A judicial admission, Ex. 3I, infra, is a formal statement or stipulation made by a party (the
United States) in a legal proceeding (03-0831 D. NV), which conclusively establishes the admitted
fact without the need for further proof. According to federal law, a judicial admission is binding
in the case in which it is made and relieves the opposing party (Mr. Ware) from having to prove
the admitted fact (Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009); Purgess v. Sharrock, 33
F.3d 134, 144 (2d Cir. 1994)).
B. Exhibit 3I's Judicial Admission
In Exhibit 3I, the SEC-DOJ explicitly admitted on or about July 14, 2003, that INZS and
SVSY’s press releases did not cause any increase in stock prices. This judicial admission, Article II
actual innocent affirmative defense directly vitiated negated the SEC’s and DOJ’s claims of
market manipulation and artificial inflation in both the 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY)
cases.
III. Incorporation into 05cr1115 (SDNY) Proceedings
A. Judicial Admission's Effect Across Related Cases, to wit, 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY).
The SEC-DOJ’s July 14, 2003, judicial admission made in the 03-0831 (D. NV) case, Ex. 3I,
infra, on behalf of the United States, the real party in interest, has binding legal consequences
that extend to related proceedings, including 05cr1115 (SDNY).3 This principle is rooted in the
3
The court noted, “Judicial estoppel will bar a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is
inconsistent with a claim that the party has previously successfully asserted in a prior proceeding.” (748
F.3d at 117). (emphasis added). This is particularly relevant to Mr. Ware’s case, as it supports the
argument that the SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission in the 03-0831 (D. NV) case are binding in the 05cr1115
(SDNY) case.
Page 7 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
notion that an admission by a party in one case is binding in another case involving the same
parties and the same factual issues.4
B. Binding Nature on the Court and USAO (SDNY)
The judicial admission in Exhibit 3I binds the district court (D. NV) and SDNY) and the USAO
(SDNY) in the 05cr1115 proceedings and the Court of Appeals in the 07-5222cr and 23-869
appeals. This means that the courts and the USAO (SDNY) must accept the fact that the press
releases did not cause any increase in stock prices, as admitted by the SEC-DOJ in the unsigned
03-0831 complaint’s paragraph 33, Ex. 3I. Consequently, this admission nullifies the allegations
of market manipulation and artificial inflation, which formed the basis of the charges against
Mr. Ware in the 05cr1115 (SDNY) case.
IV. Double Jeopardy Implications
A. Attachment of Jeopardy on January 16, 2007, in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).
4
The SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission in the 03-0831 (D. NV) case, Ex. 3I, that the press releases did not cause
any increase in stock prices, carries binding legal consequences that extend to related proceedings,
including 05cr1115 (SDNY). Judicial admissions are formal concessions made during litigation that are
conclusively binding on the party [the United States] making them, thereby precluding the necessity of
further proof on the admitted fact (Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009); Purgess v.
Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 144 (2d Cir. 1994)). Given that the SEC and DOJ represent the United States, the
real party in interest in both cases (03-0831 and 05cr1115), the July 14, 2003, Ex. 3I, judicial admission
negates the SEC's claims of market manipulation and artificial inflation in the 03-0831 case, thus
impacting the validity of the charges in 05cr1115. The same factual issues underlie both cases, specifically
the effect of the press releases on stock prices. The judicial admission effectively nullifies the allegations
against Mr. Ware in 05cr1115, as the foundational premise of market manipulation is discredited. The
Second Circuit has recognized that an admission in one case can bind the same parties in a related case
involving identical factual issues, reinforcing the legal principle that such admissions are conclusive and
carry over to prevent inconsistent positions across related proceedings (Adelphia Recovery Trust v.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., 748 F.3d 110, 116-17 (2d Cir. 2014)).
Page 8 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when the jury is empaneled and sworn (Crist v. Bretz,
437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978)). In U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), jeopardy attached to the expressed
and implicit factual allegations, Ex. 3I, in the 05cr1115 indictment on January 16, 2007, when
the jury was sworn. From that moment on January 16, 2007, Mr. Ware was constitutionally
protected under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevented and strictly prohibited the January
2007 trial of the 05cr1115 indictment given the SEC-DOJ’s July 14, 2003, Ex. 3I, Article II
affirmative defense, judicial admission implicitly pleaded in the 05cr1115 indictment by the
principle of judicial and equitable estoppel and judicial admission.5
B. Impact of Exhibit 3I’s Judicial Admission
The judicial admission in Exhibit 3I, stating that the press releases did not cause any
increase in stock prices, serves as an acknowledgment by the prosecution that no market
5
The SEC-DOJ's July 14, 2003, judicial admission pleaded in paragraph 33, see Ex. 3I, infra, in the 03-0831
(D. NV) unsigned complaint, as detailed in Exhibit 3I, was implicitly pleaded in the 05cr1115 (SDNY)
indictment by the principle of equitable and judicial estoppel in pari materia with a judicial admission.
This judicial admission explicitly stated that the press releases did not cause any increase in stock prices,
negating the claims of market manipulation. Through the principles of judicial and equitable estoppel, this
admission was binding and conclusive across both proceedings. Jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when
the jury is empaneled and sworn (Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978)). In U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),
jeopardy attached on January 16, 2007, when the jury was sworn. At that moment, Mr. Ware was
constitutionally protected under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents multiple prosecutions for
the same offense. The implicit pleading of the SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission in the 05cr1115 indictment by
the DOJ rendered the allegations legally insufficient, as the admission nullified the foundational claims of
market manipulation. Consequently, the swearing in of the jury on January 16, 2007, triggered the Double
Jeopardy Clause, acquitted Mr. Ware of all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY). This implicit admission on behalf
of the United States strictly prohibited further prosecution, the January 2007 trial, based on the same
facts, thus the trial in January 2007 was unconstitutional and void ab initio. The constitutional protection
under the Double Jeopardy Clause mandated that Mr. Ware be acquitted, as the legal basis for the charges
had already been nullified.
Page 9 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
manipulation occurred. This admission impacts the validity of the charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY) by
negating the foundational claims. Since jeopardy had already attached, the admission should lead
to the conclusion that there was no legitimate basis for the charges, thereby necessitating
acquittal.
C. Double Jeopardy Clause Protection
Given that jeopardy had attached on January 16, 2007, in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
and the July 14, 2003, SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission, Ex. 3I, negated and nullified the allegations
of market manipulation—alleged “artificial inflation of stock prices,” any subsequent proceedings
or attempts to arrest Mr. Ware in 2005 and prosecute Mr. Ware regarding 05cr1115 on January
16, 2007, and thereafter for the same conduct pleaded in the 03-0831 (D. NV) complaint and the
05cr1115 (SDNY) indictment egregiously violated the Double Jeopardy Clause’s protection. This
clause prohibits multiple prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense, ensuring
that once a defendant is in jeopardy, they cannot be subjected to repeated legal jeopardy for the
same facts.
V. Fraud on the Court by Federal Judges.
A. Legal Standard: Fraud on the Court
In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the Supreme Court
unequivocally held that fraud on the court involves corruption or deceit by officers of the court
(lawyer, judges, or prosecutors) that undermines the judicial machinery, preventing it from
performing its impartial task of adjudicating cases. The Court emphasized, “tampering with the
Page 10 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
administration of justice...involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against
the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” Id. 244-46. This precedent provides
the foundation to expose the egregious misconduct perpetrated by the SEC-DOJ and complicit
federal judges.
B. Criminal Judicial Fraud on the Court Factual Background
Exhibit 3I, filed on July 14, 2003, in the fraudulent and void ab initio Las Vegas SEC-DOJ
03-0831 (D. NV) case, contains a crucial judicial admission, an Article II affirmative defense to
all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY), pleaded in the 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned complaint’s paragraph
33 by the SEC-DOJ’s lawyers and law enforcement official (officers of the court)—that is, the
United States admitted and stipulated as fact the press releases concerning INZS and SVSY did
not cause any increase in stock prices. This binding judicial admission, an Article II affirmative
defense, directly negated (i) probable cause to arrest or indict Mr. Ware, (ii) and negated and
vitiated the SEC-DOJ’s claims of market manipulation and “artificial inflation of stock prices” in
both the 03-0831 (D. NV) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) cases. Despite this clear and unequivocal judicial
admission, numerous federal judges and prosecutors colluded, acted in concert, confederated,
conspired, and continue to conspire to this day, June 21, 2024, to bury, cover up, conceal, and
suppress this actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence, leading to the wrongful conviction of
Mr. Ware. This is a flagrant judicial abuse of judicial power and a fundamental miscarriage of
justice.
C. Fraudulent Actions by Federal Judges
Page 11 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
The orchestrated suppression and concealment of Exhibit 3I by Judges Kearse, Sack, Hall,
Ramos, Pauley, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, and Cabranes constitute a direct and deliberate fraud
on the court. This Article II affirmative defense judicial admission, which unequivocally
dismantled the prosecution’s risible and fraudulent Jim Crow racially-motivated retaliatory
persecution against Mr. Ware, was maliciously hidden and obstructed the fair administration of
justice.
1. Judge Pauley’s Collusion: On January 8, 2007, Judge Pauley (deceased) issued a
conspiratorial order (Dkt. 35) at the behest of AUSA Southwell (Dkt. 28: motion in limine),
barring Mr. Ware from compelling as witnesses and accessing SEC lawyers and employees
involved in the 03-0831 Las Vegas Bootleg Grand Jury Proceedings. This nefarious and
vindictive order was a deliberate move to conceal the SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission, which
would have exonerated Mr. Ware. This is nothing short of judicial malfeasance.
2. Judges Kearse, Sack, and Hall’s Fabrications: The fraudulent findings in Ware, 577 F.3d
442 (2d Cir. 2009), by Judges Kearse, Sack, and Hall, included manufactured and
unsupported assertions of market manipulation. David Ng, the SDNY records custodian,
personally confirmed to Mr. Ware on June 5, 2023, that there was no record of expert
testimony regarding the artificial inflation of stock prices caused by press releases,
directly refuting the court’s fraudulent findings. These Court of Appeals judges (Kearse,
Sack, Hall) in 07-5222cr brazenly ignored this truth to sustain a baseless conviction.
3. FBI Analyst Maria A. Font’s Testimony Ignored: During the 05cr1115 trial, alleged FBI
Analyst Maria A. Font under brutal cross-examination by Mr. Ware under emotional
Page 12 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
distress and in tears—caught in a perjury trap orchestrated by AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, Ms. Font testified that there was no evidence that the press releases affected
stock prices. Her testimony, which directly contradicted, impeached, and nullified the
government’s case, was deliberately ignored by the judiciary (Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall,
Ramos, Cabranes, DeArcy-Hall, and Taylor-Swain). This selective blindness to exculpatory
evidence is a gross miscarriage of justice.
D. Legal Implications
The deliberate concealment of Exhibit 3I by the SEC-DOJ and the involved judges deprived
Mr. Ware of a fair trial. This orchestrated suppression is a textbook example of fraud on the court,
as defined in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. The fraudulent actions of these judicial officers have
profoundly corrupted the judicial process, necessitating the setting aside of their decisions.
E. Double Jeopardy Implications
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn (Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35
(1978)). In U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), jeopardy attached on January 16, 2007. The implicit
pleading of the SEC-DOJ’s judicial admission in the 05cr1115 indictment, which negated the
foundational claims of market manipulation, mandated Mr. Ware’s acquittal. The continued
prosecution after the jury was sworn egregiously violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the
legal basis for the charges was nullified. Any subsequent proceedings or attempts to prosecute
Mr. Ware based on the same facts were constitutionally prohibited.
F. Conclusion
Page 13 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 3I's judicial admission by the SEC-DOJ, stating that the press releases did not cause
any increase in stock prices, unequivocally nullifies the charges against Mr. Ware. The fraudulent
concealment of this admission by federal judges constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice and a
flagrant fraud on the court. Given that jeopardy attached on January 16, 2007, any continued or
subsequent proceedings based on the same facts were unconstitutional. Therefore, the charges
in 05cr1115 (SDNY) are void ab initio, and any further prosecution attempts must be permanently
barred. The court’s actions have been nothing short of a judicial travesty, demanding immediate
rectification and the full exoneration of Mr. Ware.
VI. Conclusion
Exhibit 3I's judicial admission by the SEC-DOJ that the press releases did not cause any
increase in stock prices has profound legal implications. This admission is binding on the court
and the USAO (SDNY) in the 05cr1115 proceedings, nullifying the basis for the charges against
Mr. Ware. Furthermore, since jeopardy attached when the jury was sworn on January 16, 2007,
the Double Jeopardy Clause strictly prohibited any continued or subsequent proceedings based
on the same facts stipulated to by the United States. Consequently, the charges in 05cr1115
(SDNY) are null and void ab initio, the federal and state courts (The Supreme Court of Georgia)
lack all jurisdiction over the moot and void ab initio bogus and fraudulent 05cr1115 (SDNY)
judgment; and accordingly, ipso facto, as a matter of law and fact all actions and matters must
be reversed, vacated, and dismissed, and any further prosecution based on in whole and/or in
part on the 03-0831 (D. NV) or 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings are barred by law.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Page 14 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Filed on Friday, June 21, 2024
Page 15 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibits
Page 16 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 3H1—Ware, 577 F.3d at 445, false, unsupported by the actual trial record, and
fraudulent findings made by Circuit Judges Kearse, Sack, and Hall, which do not appear in
the 05cr1115 official trial record—according to David Ng on June 5, 2023, the District Court
(SDNY) custodian of records, there is no record of a government expert witness that
testified at trial regarding “artificial” “inflation” of “stock prices” “caused by” “press
releases” which “pumped up” “increased” or “inflated” SVSY or INZS “stock prices.”
Page 17 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 3H2—FBI Analyst Maria A. Font’s teary and distressed 05cr1115 trial testimony
regarding GX 92 and GX 93, the government’s fabricated and fraudulent chart evidence
which is contradicted by the SEC-DOJ’s July 14, 20023, Article II affirmative defenses
pleaded on the face of the 03-0831 (D. NV) unsigned and void ab initio complaint—actual
innocent SEC-DOJ exculpatory evidence suppressed by the trial judge (Pauley, J.) and the
government’s prosecutors’ collusion and conspiracy.
Page 18 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 3I—03-0831 (D. NV) SEC-DOJ July 14, 2003, Article II law enforcement officials’ (SEC
lawyers) actual innocent affirmative defenses, judicial admissions, which contradicted and
completely impeached, undermined, and discredited the Ware, 577 F.3d at 445, see Ex.
3G, supra, Court’s erroneous and unsupported by the actual trial record evidence
conclusions
Page 19 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
Exhibit 5A—suppressed and concealed SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris, a law enforcement
official’s determination and official litigation position regarding the Government’s alleged
conspiracy, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment email from SEC lawyer
Jeffrey B. Norris to Jeremy Jones, the “government’s principal witness” required to have
been disclosed and produced “prior to trial” pursuant to the Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B,
supra.
Page 20 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
End of document
Page 21 of 21
Friday, June 21, 2024
(8.1) re Criminal fraud on the court by the SEC, the DOJ’s prosecutors (Southwell, Garcia, Goldin,
Douvas, Bharara, Fish, Feldman,), Kirton, Pauley, Kearse, Sack, Hall, and Cabranes, and others.
