No. 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.

)
In re Colleen McMahon, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Office of the Chief Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Claims, Demand for disclosure information, and other

defensive documents required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1-4) disclosures.
_______________

Please be advised, take notice, and be aware of the

following vital information.
Civil Action No. 24cv____ (NDGA)
Ulysses T. Ware, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Andre Damian Williams,1 Debra Ann Livingston, et al.
Unindicted Coconspirators, Putative Defendants.
___________

RE: Draft Memorandum Opinion and Order re: Damian Williams, Colleen
McMahon’s, et al. 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. RICO Predicate Acts’ Liability.

Federal Rules of Civil Proc. Rule 11(b)(1-4)

Notice of RICO Conspiracy Prefiling Investigation.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Filed on Sunday, September 22, 2024, at 8:19:59 PM

1
a/k/a “Damian Williams,” a/k/a “Damian,” a/k/a U.S. Attorney (SDNY), a/k/a “federal prosecutor.”

Page 1 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Table of Contents
Disclaimer: Regarding Rule 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation for Ware RICO Litigation and
JC&D Rule 3(a)(2) Probable Cause. ....................................................................................................... 10
A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOUR LIABILITY INSURANCE
CARRIER(S) AS ADMISSION OF LIABILITY REGARDING YOUR RICO AND OTHER
TORTS’ CULPABILITY AND LIABILITY. ........................................................................................ 10
A. Introduction. ................................................................................................................................. 14
I. Relevant Facts Underpinning the RICO Criminal Enterprise ..................................................... 15
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY DRAFT VERIFIED COMPLAINT ........................................................................ 19
Demand for a trial by jury: .................................................................................................................. 20
Damages:............................................................................................................................................. 20
B. RICO Hobbs Act Predicate Acts: September 1, 2004 (Atlanta, GA) and September 12, 2024
(Brooklyn, NY) Inherently Dangerous, Armed, Forced unlawful entries by U.S. Marshals regarding
the Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp, et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s null and
void ab initio, unenforceable, 18 USC 1961(6)(B) and NYS Penal Law, § 190.40 Hobbs Act criminal
usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, implemented by GX 5 (the so-called
subscription agreement). .......................................................................................................................... 21
C. (Draft) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ............................................................... 24
I. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................ 25
RICO Liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1962 .......................................................................................... 25
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: RICO OVERT AND PREDICATE
ACTS. 26
1. Judge Colleen McMahon’s Ultra Vires, Vindictive Sanctions (Dkt. 120, 137, 141, 151) ..................... 26
2. U.S. Marshals’ Armed, Forced, Unlawful, and Inherently Dangerous Entries in Brooklyn, NY
(2024) and Atlanta, GA (2004): Extortionate Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt Collection Activity in
violation of 18 USC §§ 1961(6)(B), and 1962(d). .................................................................................... 28
3. Judicial and Legal Misconduct—RICO Overt Acts: Suppression of Brady Evidence............................ 32
4. RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain and
05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s CJA bribery,
kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy. See Supp. Appx. #3.0, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra. ...................... 34
Overt Act 1: Refusal to Process Rule 1.5(b)(5) Lawyer Misconduct Complaints ....................... 34
Overt Act 2: Fraudulent Appointment of Marlon G. Kirton to District Court (SDNY) CJA
Panel as a kickback, bribery, and illegal gratuity for Kirton’s role in the alleged Sept. 22, 2006,
Rule 11 proceedings that involved a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones. ................................... 35
Overt Act 3: Suppression of Brady Evidence ................................................................................. 36
Overt Act 4: Concealment of Kirton’s Bribery and Kickback Scheme ....................................... 37
How Taylor-Swain’s Conduct Furthered the Conspiracy ............................................................ 37

Page 2 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 38
III. RICO ELEMENTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 38
1. Existence of an Enterprise .................................................................................................................. 39
2. Pattern of Racketeering Activity ......................................................................................................... 39
3. Causation and Injury ........................................................................................................................... 40
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................................................ 40
Joint and Several Liability ...................................................................................................................... 40
V. ORDER .................................................................................................................................................. 41
D. (DRAFT) PRELIMINARY JUDICIAL FINAL ORDER ........................................................ 42
I. RELEVANT FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 43
II. LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 44
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 46
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ........................................................................................................ 47
V. JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT ............................ 48
Exhibits—RICO Overt Acts ........................................................................................................................... 49
Exhibit 1—Overt Act--(02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ voluntary ex parte plaintiffs’ dismissal with
prejudice) Zitter’s Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice given the statute of
limitations had run on all claims, and given that the statute of limitations is not tolled by the plaintiffs’
voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit—a final judgment on the merits in favor of the defendants.............. 50
Exhibit 2—(counterclaim) 02cv2219 (SDNY) defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s counterclaim, Dkt. 31—see
Dkt. 118 (02cv2219 (SDNY)—McMahon retaliated and vindictively revoked Mr. Ware’s halfway housing
in 2019 once this pleading was filed........................................................................................................ 51
Appendix 1—Critical Analysis of Legal Ramifications of Zitter’s Dec. 20, 2007, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2)
dismissal with prejudice, Ex. 1, supra. ......................................................................................................... 52
Appendix 2—Overt Act--moot orders 2022 McMahon, J. (02cv2219) Jim Crow racially-motivated ultra
vires retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive leave to file sanctions entered to suppress and conceal Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and to violate Mr. Ware’s and GPMT’s legal right to enforce the
Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment via civil and criminal contempt processes against McMahon, Hagenau,
Ramos, Cabranes, DeArcy-Hall, KTS, the State Bar of GA, Sweet, the U.S. Probation Office, Barbara S.
Jones, Zitter, Rabinowitz, LH Financial, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, the USAO, and others who aided, abetted,
and enabled the civil and/or criminal contempt of the Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 58
1—Overt Act-- 02cv2219 Dkt 120--Page 1. Moot Dkt 120(1), 02cv2219 (SDNY): Bogus and moot Order
(McMahon, C.J.), entered as an overt act in the conspiracy to obstruct justice and enable the continued
18 USC 1961(B)(6) unlawful debt collection. On May 17, 2019, Judge McMahon knew 02cv2219 on
12/20/2007, see Ex. 1, supra, had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)
by the plaintiffs, cf., Ex. 1, supra.............................................................................................................. 59
Page 2. ................................................................................................................................................. 60

Page 3 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Page 3. ................................................................................................................................................. 61
Page 4. ................................................................................................................................................. 62
2 02cv2219 Dkt. 137—Overt Act--McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, void ab initio vindictive, Jim Crow
racially-motivated punitive and defective leave to file sanction show cause order. Note that McMahon
tailored her ultra vires, moot, null and void ab initio, bogus and fraudulent leave to file show cause
order on the Court of Appeals moot, ultra vires, vindictive and punitive Nov. 5, 2010, 07-5222cr,
defective show cause order and sanction. .............................................................................................. 62
3 02cv2219 Dkt. 141—Overt Act--McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, void ab initio cryptic and mentally
delusional purported order ..................................................................................................................... 65
4 02cv2219 Dkt. 151—Overt Act--McMahon’s lies, perjury, and fraudulent order entered in
conspiracy and collusion with Atlanta, GA Chief Bankruptcy Judge Wendy L. Hagenau (03-93031 BC
NDGA), see Dkt. 258, 274, and 275, cf., Ex. 5, infra, to cover up Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence regarding the unregistered broker-dealer status of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs. Note
McMahon’s use of Jim Crow racially-coded language to disparage Mr. Ware’s arguments based on
circuit precedents, L-3 Comm’cs and A.B.Dick., cf., Appx. 3, infra. .......................................................... 65
5—Oct. 2022, Gitner, McMahon and Hagenau’s—Overt Act--Collusion, conspiracy, and coordination of
Jim Crow racially-motivated retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive moot void ab initio leave to file
sanctions initiated in concert and by judicial collusion of Wendy L. Hagenau and Colleen McMahon as
overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, Hobbs Act attempted armed
robbery, armed aggravated assault and battery, conspiracy, and other crimes, 18 USC 2, 156-157, 371,
924(c),1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d). See In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-
90036jm (2d Cir.) re: Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct (Pending). ........................................... 68
Appendix 3—Mr. Ware’s Dec. 22, 2022, response submitted to and filed with District Judge (SDNY)
Colleen McMahon regarding her moot, ultra vires, and void ab initio Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151, see
Appx. 2, supra, retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive Jim Crow racially-motivated ultra vires leave to file
sanction, Dkt. 151, which McMahon, J. refused to file on the docket and has suppressed and concealed
the same in violation of 18 USC 2, 156-57, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1201, 1202, 1512, 1519,
1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b). ............................................................. 69
Supplemental Appendices #1.0 ................................................................................................................ 77
Appendix 1—U.S. Marshals’ note given to Ulysses T. Ware on Sept. 12, 2024, in Brooklyn, NY at
10:17 AM, during the unlawful, armed, forced entry into Mr. Ware’s residence while the Marshals
lacked a lawful search warrant, arrest warrant, or lawful legal process; aided, abetted, assisted, enabled,
and facilitated by the property manager. ................................................................................................. 78
A. Overt Act-- Sept. 12, 2024, 10:17 AM, Brooklyn, NY alleged U.S. Marshals (SDNY) Plummer,
Morton, and Belriz outside of Mr. Ware’s residence regarding a fraudulent referral by former
(SDNY) magistrate Judge Michel H. Dolinger and Colleen McMahon regarding a lawful Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation concerning imminent RICO and 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
unlawful, armed debt collection activities, related to U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY),04cr1224, and
02cv2219 (SDNY); and In re Group Management Corp.., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), to wit: GX 1, GX
2, GX, 3, and GX 4—the NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, criminal usury unlawful debts............... 79
A-1a—Overt Act--U.S. Marshals’ Hobbs Act Vindictive Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy
murder for hire order (02cv2219)(SDNY), Sand, J. authorized the U.S. Marshals (SDNY) in
knowing violation of 18 USC §§ 2, 371, 241, 242, 924(c), 1201-02, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,

Page 4 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d) to use deadly force to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1,
GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, cf., McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, manifestly bogus, and fraudulent order,
Dkt. 120 (02cv2219 (SDNY), see Ex. 1, supra. .................................................................................. 80
A-1b (con’t)—02cv2219 (SDNY), Sand, J. (deceased). .................................................................. 81
B.--Overt Act--Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA armed, forced, unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s law
office—Hobbs Act conspiracy to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and
GX 4—government trial exhibits in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and plaintiffs’ exhibits in
02cv2219 (SDNY), and in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11. ..... 82
C.—Overt Act--Actual innocent dispositive Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
deliberately, intentionally, and in bad faith suppressed and currently being concealed by U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr., AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D.
Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, David N.
Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Robert W. Sweet, (deceased), Colleen McMahon, Leonard B. Sand,
(deceased), William H. Pauley, III (deceased), Robert A. Katzmann (deceased), Jose A. Cabranes,
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Talor-Swain, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Damian Williams, Daniel
Gitner, Won Shin, Andrea Griswold, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Jun Xiang, Michael H.
Dolinger, and other Unindicted Coconspirators.................................................................................. 83
D.—Overt Act--September 1, 2004 (Atlanta, GA) and September 12, 2024 (Brooklyn, NY)
Armed, Forced, and Unlawful Entries and Kidnappings of Mr. Ware—A Systematic Pattern of
Violent Racially-Motivated Jim Crow Hobbs Act Coercion. ........................................................ 84
E.—Overt Acts’--Detailed Damages Calculations for the Atlanta, GA September 1, 2004, and
Brooklyn, NY September 12, 2024, Hobbs Act Armed, Forced, Unlawful, Vindictive, and
Retaliatory Racially-motivated Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy Crimes: .............................. 85
F. Final Calculations:................................................................................................................... 88
G. RICO Joint and Several Liability: Holding the Unindicted Coconspirators Accountable
89
Appendix 2—Overt Acts--McMahon’s, Sica’s, Tailwind’s, Ramos, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall,
Livingston, Cabranes, Kearse, Sack’s, Gitner’s, and Hagenau’s coordinated conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud and obstruct justice regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224
(SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)—the Hobbs Act Unlawful Debt Collection Proceedings, to wit: 18
USC §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1201-02, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b), a pattern of racketeering activities—conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud, conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to collect criminal usury unlawful debts,
and racketeering conspiracy to enable the investment of money laundering and criminal usury profits
and proceeds............................................................................................................................................ 91
Appendix 2-1—Overt Act-- (con’t)—Money laundering vehicle formed from the Hobbs Act
money laundering and criminal usury unlawful debt collection activities profits and proceeds
fraudulently obtained by Unindicted Coconspirators Arie Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Alpha
Capital, AG, et al. ............................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 2-2—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219
(SDNY) plaintiff—that is, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) extrajudicial and moot criminal proceeding, suppressed and concealed
by Unindicted Coconspirators Southwell, Kelley, Zitter, KTS, Meir, Mills, Walker, Garland,
Samuel, Arora, Singer, Bachner, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Sweet, Katzmann, Hall,
Barbara S. Jones, Garcia, Dolinger, Bharara, Damian Williams, Gitner, Won Shin, Jun Xiang,

Page 5 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Melissa Childs, McMahon, Goldin, Douvas, Polk-Failla, Garnett,
Ramos, Cabranes, Sack, Kearse, Livingston, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, and other
Unindicted Coconspirators.................................................................................................................. 93
Exhibits—RICO Overt Acts: A pattern of racketeering activities. ...................................................... 94
Exhibit 1—(RICO Overt Act #1) FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification
for each KTS’ clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs and fraudulent creditors in In re Group
Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11—that is, actual innocent Brady exculpatory
and impeachment evidence in the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) extrajudicial and moot criminal
proceeding, suppressed and concealed by Unindicted Coconspirators Southwell, Kelley, Zitter, KTS,
Meir, Mills, Walker, Garland, Samuel, Arora, Singer, Bachner, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services,
Sweet, Katzmann, Hall, Barbara S. Jones, Garcia, Dolinger, Bharara, Damian Williams, Gitner, Won
Shin, Jun Xiang, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Melissa Childs, McMahon, Goldin, Douvas, Polk-
Failla, Garnett, Ramos, Cabranes, Sack, Kearse, Livingston, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, and
other Unindicted Coconspirators. ........................................................................................................... 95
Exhibit 2—(RICO Overt Act #2) McMahon’s, Sica’s, Tailwind’s, Ramos, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-
Hall, Livingston, Cabranes, Kearse, Sack’s, Gitner’s, and Hagenau’s coordinated conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud and obstruct justice regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224
(SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)—the Hobbs Act Unlawful Debt Collection Proceedings, to wit: 18
USC §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1201-02, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b), a pattern of racketeering activities. ........................................ 96
Exhibit 3—(RICO Overt Act #3)—“a pattern of racketeering activities” Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court’s
employees willful resistance to the Court Orders. .................................................................................. 97
Exhibit 3-1--(RICO Overt Act #4) ........................................................................................................... 98
Exhibit 3-2--(RICO Overt Act #5) ........................................................................................................... 99
Exhibit 3-3--(RICO Overt Act #6) ......................................................................................................... 100
Exhibit 3-4--(RICO Overt Act #7) ......................................................................................................... 101
Exhibit 3-5--(RICO Overt Act #8) ......................................................................................................... 102
Supplemental Appendices #2.0—RICO Overt Acts ............................................................................ 104
A Third Inquiry to Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack ................................................................................ 107
I. The alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings regarding the government’s “principal witness” in
1115 a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones................................................................................................ 107
Ulysses T. Ware’s May 7, 2024, Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts. ......................................... 109
II. Discussion and analysis regarding the Government’s and District Judges Ramos, Taylor-Swain, and
DeArcy-Hall’s fraud on the court and aiding, abetting, assisting, and enabling the civil and criminal
contempt of the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra—a fundamental miscarriage
of justice. ................................................................................................................................................... 116
Legal Standard: ...................................................................................................................................... 116
1. Government's Non-Disclosure, Concealment, and Suppression of Brady Exculpatory and
Impeachment Evidence. ........................................................................................................................ 116
2. Judges' Failure to Enforce the Brady Order: ...................................................................................... 117
3. Impact of the Judges’ and Prosecutors’ Fraud on the Court: ............................................................ 118

Page 6 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 4. Legal Implications: ............................................................................................................................. 118
5. Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................................ 119
III. Requested reliefs.......................................................................................................................... 119
IV. Exhibits—RICO Overt Acts ............................................................................................................ 124
Exhibit A—May 6, 2024 Rule 27-1 filing memorandum. ....................................................................... 125
Exhibit B—May 6, 2024, Rule 27-1 motion cover page ......................................................................... 127
Exhibit C1—Brady demand to District Judge (SDNY) Edgardo Ramos regarding U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY). .................................................................................................................................................. 128
Exhibit C2—Sept. 7, 2022, Brady demand on the District Court (SDNY), Ramos, J. regarding Sept. 22,
2006, alleged Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts. ................................................... 129
Exhibit C3—Brady demand served on the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), Damian Williams regarding
alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts and related judicial court
records. ................................................................................................................................................. 130
Exhibit D—In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.) investigation into the personal and
business ownership of +$22 million in RICO criminal usury and other unregistered securities while not
registered as a broker-dealer, or investment advisor as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1). ... 131
Exhibit 1A—05cr1115 (SDNY), Brady court order, May 19, 2006, Pauley, J. ......................................... 132
Exhibit 1B—con’t ................................................................................................................................... 133
Exhibit 1C—the USAO’s Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670cr
(XAP), Gov-I, cross-appeal which triggered the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s
protection for the defendant Ulysses T. Ware, terminated the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over
05cr1115, and terminated the Court’s Article III and appellate jurisdiction over 07-5222cr, acquitted
the defendant Ulysses T. Ware of all charges in 05cr1115 for insufficient evidence which is binding on
the Court in all subsequent proceedings, and constituted a voluntary actual innocent Article II
affirmative defense to all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY). ........................................................................ 134
Exhibit 1D—the Court of Appeals Aug. 18, 2009, entry of final judgment on Gov-I (07-5670) in favor of
the defendant Ulysses T. Ware, an acquittal of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), which
triggered the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause and res judicata in favor of Ulysses T.
Ware, subject to enforcement by civil and criminal contempt of this court order and final judgment. 135
Exhibit 2A—Alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings involving a person claimed to be without any
record proof to be the government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 (SDNY) according to Judge Kearse
to be “Jeremy Jones.” See U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 444 (2d Cir. 2009). (Kearse, J.). Note that Doc.
#24 does not appear on the 05cr1115 docket during the trial or appeal of the proceedings, cf., Ex. 2C,
infra. ...................................................................................................................................................... 136
Exhibit 2B—Alleged Rule 11 transcript, Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 plea proceedings of a person alleged to
be Jeremy Jones of which there is no official record of the Rule 11 proceeding according to the
custodian of records David Ng on June 5, 2023. ................................................................................... 137
Exhibit 2C—05cr1115 docket--fabricated, fraudulent, and counterfeit 05cr1115 (SDNY) docket
supplied by the District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick regarding the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11

Page 7 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 proceeding of Jeremy Jones—there is no record on the official docket of any such alleged Sept. 22,
2006, Rule 11 proceeding...................................................................................................................... 138
Exhibit 2D—CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., letter to the district court (Pauley, J.) confirming that
the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones “cooperated” with the government and “received a
5k letter” for his substantial assistance, perjured testimony, to the government during the 05cr1115
proceedings. .......................................................................................................................................... 139
Exhibit 2E1—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115, Tr. 31 L 18-25, Oct. 2007, post-trial Rule 29 proceedings Pauley, J.,
market inefficiency ruling—accepted Plaintiff Ware’s arguments and ruled against the government,
ruled the government’s trial proof was insufficient on “efficiency of the market” and ordered a “Fatico
[evidentiary] hearing.”........................................................................................................................... 140
Exhibit 2E2—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115 (SDNY), S. Tr, 35-36, Oct. 12, 2007, post-trial Rule 29 rulings/acquittal
verdicts by the trial judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased) the CCE’s de facto agents in fact trial proof
regarding market efficiency was insufficient. ........................................................................................ 141
Exhibit 2E3—Dkt 99, S. Tr. 36 (con’t). Cf. Ex. 34-3, and 34-3.1 infra, Unindicted Coconspirator, de facto
agent in fact Steven D. Feldman was and is totally incompetent in advanced securities laws, and
depends in whole on the CCE’s corrupt kickback, bribery, and payoff patronage for his professional
advancements. ...................................................................................................................................... 142
Exhibit 2E4-- Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 73-79 (con’t). ............................................................................................. 143
Exhibit 3A—March 20, 2023, EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 FOIA responses concerning the production
of Brady materials regarding the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)
proceedings: the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and criminal contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J.,
Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra ........................................................................................................ 144
Exhibit 3B—Nov. 9, 2023, EOUSA’s FOIA Response-- the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and criminal
contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra ..................................... 145
Exhibit 3C—Nov. 17, 2023, EOUSA FOIA response— the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and criminal
contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra ..................................... 146
Exhibit 3D—Dec. 14, 2023, EOUSA’s FOIA response—the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and criminal
contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra. .................................... 147
Exhibit 3E—Missing, stolen, destroyed, concealed, and suppressed alleged “5k letter” granted to
Jeremy Jones, the government’s “principal witness” in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), cf., Ex. 2D, supra.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 148
Exhibit 3F—Missing, stolen, destroyed, concealed, and suppressed alleged Rule 11 plea contract, and
(2) USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contract, jointly, (the “Perjury Contracts”) entered into by Jeremy Jones
and the government’s “principal witness” in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), cf., Ex. 2A, supra. .......... 149
Exhibit 3G—U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.) opinion finding “The
government’s principal witness was [Jeremy] Jones ….” (emphasis added). ......................................... 150
Exhibit 3H—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. ................... 152

Page 8 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Exhibit 3I—03-0831 (D. NV) SEC-DOJ July 14, 2003, Article II actual innocent affirmative defenses that
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. ...................... 153
Exhibit 3J1—RICO overt—03-0831 D. NV act to intimidate Mr. Ware during the 2003 Las Vegas bootleg
grand jury proceedings official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and concealed by AUSA Alexander H.
Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia,
Preet Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and others. ............................ 154
Exhibit 3J2—official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and concealed by AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia, Preet
Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and others....................................... 155
Exhibit 3J3—official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and concealed by AUSA Alexander H. Southwell,
Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia, Preet
Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and others....................................... 156
Exhibit 4A1—AUSA Maria E. Douvas’ Perjured Declaration regarding Brady evidence, cf., EOUSA’s In re
Ware, 000907 responses, Ex. 3A-3D, and Ex. 2A-2D, supra. ................................................................. 157
Exhibit 4A2—con’t ................................................................................................................................. 158
Exhibit 4A3—con’t ................................................................................................................................. 159
Exhibit 4A4—con’t—deliberate and intentional perjury of AUSA Maria E. Douvas—Douvas knew that
the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts, related judicial court records had
not been disclosed and were not properly filed and docketed into the district court’s records by the
government and Pauley, J., as an over act in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct justice. ......... 160
Exhibit 4A5—con’t ................................................................................................................................. 161
Supplemental Appendix #3.0—RICO Overt Acts ............................................................................... 162
Ex. 1A—RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain
and 05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s CJA bribery,
kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy. ...................................................................................... 163
Ex. 1B (con’t)—RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-
Swain and 05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s CJA
bribery, kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy.......................................................................... 164
End of document ....................................................................................................................................... 165

Page 9 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Disclaimer: Regarding Rule 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation for
Ware RICO Litigation and JC&D Rule 3(a)(2) Probable Cause.
A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE PRESENTED TO
YOUR LIABILITY INSURANCE CARRIER(S) AS ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY REGARDING YOUR RICO AND OTHER TORTS’
CULPABILITY AND LIABILITY.

This document (attorney in fact work product) contains allegations and analyses related
to the Rule 11(b)(1-4) prefiling investigation concerning JAMS, Michael H. Dolinger, Colleen
McMahon, and others regarding the Ware RICO litigation. The information presented herein is
based on an ongoing prefiling factual and legal investigation into RICO claims, state law tort,
claims of biased and unethical quasi-judicial misconduct, and other claims, (the “Claims”),
involving these parties, (the “Putative Defendants” or “Unindicted Coconspirators”). It is
essential to note that all individuals and entities named in this document, including McMahon,
Sica, Tailwind, Bertisch, JAMS, Michael H. Dolinger, and others are, at this time, presumed
innocent of any wrongdoing unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

The use of Rule 11(b)(1-4) reflects a legal process designed to ensure that all allegations
are made following an adequate prefiling investigation. This document should not be construed
as a final judgment or determination of liability but as part of a legal review aimed at determining
whether formal claims should be pursued under applicable law, see binding Supreme Court
precedent requiring a Rule 11(b)(1-4) “reasonable” prefiling investigation by the putative
plaintiffs, Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprise, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 548, 550-
51 (1991).2

2
“The Magistrate accepted this explanation, but determined that sanctions were nonetheless
appropriate. Id., at 48a. First, he found that Business Guides, in filing the initial TRO application, had
"failed to conduct a proper inquiry, resulting in the presentation of unreasonable and false information
to the court." Id., at 53a” Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 533, 538 (1991); Id.,
498 U.S. 533, 538-39 (1991) (“The District Court agreed with the Magistrate, stating: "The standard of
conduct under Rule 11 is one of objective reasonableness. Applying this standard to the circumstances of
this case, it is clear that both Business Guides and Finley Kumble have violated the Rule."119 F.R.D. 685,

Page 10 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Accordingly, the Putative Plaintiffs request that the Putative Defendants (Unindicted
Coconspirators)3 or their legal counsel immediately, time is of the essence, notify them in writing
of any “unreasonable [or] false information … or inaccurate information …” contained herein
as required by Business Guides, Id. at 538.4

Please be advised that the Putative Defendants and Unindicted Coconspirators' failure

to timely respond (silence)5 to this Rule 11(b)(1-4) prefiling investigation within the specified

period ending on September 24, 2024, at 1:00 PM, time being of the essence, will be deemed

and presumed as an admission that you have no good faith defenses, immunities, or

688-689 (ND Cal. 1988). The court reiterated the Magistrate's conclusion that: (1) Business Guides violated
Rule 11 by filing the initial TRO application; (2) Business Guides and Finley, Kumble violated the Rule
by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry once they were put on notice of several inaccuracies; and (3)
Business Guides and Finley, Kumble violated the Rule in their arguments to the Magistrate at the
first two evidentiary hearings. Id., at 689.”). (emphasis added).
3
If the “Unindicted Coconspirator” status is “reasonably” disputed by any Putative Defendants the Putative
Plaintiffs hereby demand a written refutation of the Unindicted Coconspirator status supported by credible
objective evidence not later than September 24, 2024, time is of the essence. Otherwise, the Putative
Plaintiffs will represent to the Court the Putative Defendants have each consented, factually stipulated,
agreed, and admitted Unindicted Coconspirator Status regarding all claims in the Ware RICO Litigation
lawsuit.
4
Also see Sussman v. Bank of Israel, 56 F.3d 450, 453 (2d Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s counsel sent prefiling
“warning letter” to defendants). (“Before filing the complaint, Lewin sent identical letters dated May 30,
1991 (the prefiling "May 1991 warning letter"), to several Israeli government officials, including then-
Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir, then-Minister of Finance Yitzchak Moda'i, and BOI Governor Michael
Bruno, warning them of Sussman and Guilden's intention to bring the present suit, and proposing
settlement discussions.”).

5
United States v. Eucker, 532 F.2d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 1976) (“Although appellant argues that he was not a
member of any conspiracy, but at most a silent onlooker, this argument is not persuasive. Where the goal
of a conspiracy can be reached only through deception and concealment, silence which is designed to
conceal may indicate an intention to conspire. United States v. Colasurdo, 453 F.2d 585, 592-93 (2d Cir.
1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 917, 92 S.Ct. 1766, 32 L.Ed.2d 116 (1972). The trial court instructed the jury
that to be an act in furtherance of a conspiracy, "silence must be a planned act" and that if intended to
facilitate the conspiracy, it can be an overt act in pursuance thereof. This was a correct statement of the
law. United States v. Freeman, 498 F.2d 569, 575 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1974); Forman v. United States, 259 F.2d
128 (9th Cir. 1958), modified, 261 F.2d 181 (1959) (per curiam), aff'd 361 U.S. 416, 80 S.Ct. 481, 4
L.Ed.2d 412 (1960).”). (emphasis added).

Page 11 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
objections to the facts and claims stated herein. Additionally, your failure to respond will result

in the application of the legal doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, precluding you from later

asserting any defenses, immunities, or objections that you might have otherwise raised in response

to this inquiry. By your silence and inaction,6 you will effectively concede the validity of the

claims and allegations, thereby waiving any right to contest them in subsequent legal proceedings.

This presumption, along with the potential estoppel, will be a factor in determining the propriety

of filing a formal complaint, and shall severely limit your ability to defend against the claims

should litigation be initiated.

Respectfully Submitted by:

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260

Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, attorney in fact for the putative plaintiffs.

Sunday, September 22, 2024

6
Eucker, Id. at 254 (silence as an overt act). For example, in the context of judicial misconduct or
corruption within a criminal enterprise, as long as the corrupt official or judge knowingly agrees to
further the criminal scheme or remains “silent” and passively assists and does not stop the enterprise, (see
McMahon’s moot, risible, null and void ab initio fake and fraudulent 02cv2219 (SDNY) orders to assist the
unregistered broker-dealers, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, Rabinowitz, Zitter, Sica, Tailwind, KTS, Kadaba, et
al., cf., Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151, see Appx. 2, Ex. 1-4, infra; see Hagenau, C.J., risible Dkt. 256, 258,
274, and 275, (03-93031 (BC NDGA)) they [Judges Livingston (see 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.)), Dawson
(see 03-0831 (D. NV)), Thrash (see Sept. 1, 2004, Hobbs Act murder for hire kidnapping in Atlanta, GA
of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.), McMahon, Hagenau, Ramos (see 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY)), Taylor-Swain
(see Local Rule (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) theft and concealment of In re Edward T.M. Garland, et al.,
complaint for lawyer misconduct), DeArcy-Hall (see Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv1531 (EDNY)), Cabranes
(see In re Edgardo Ramos, 02-22-90046jm (2d Cir.)), Kearse (see Nov. 5, 2010, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.))
risible leave to file order, Sack (same as Kearse), Dolinger (see fraudulent alleged U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY) Sept. 22, 2006, alleged Rule 11 proceedings regarding a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones)),
Garnett, and Polk-Failla], can be prosecuted under conspiracy laws even if they are not involved in
every illegal transaction.

Page 12 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Date: Sunday, September 22, 2024

To: Putative Defendants or their legal counsel

Re: Immediate Demand for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC §1927 Admittance,

Rebuttal, or Refutation with credible objective evidence of the following RICO Predicate Acts,

RICO Overt Acts, supporting facts, exhibits and appendices, alleged to have been committed,

jointly, severally, jointly, and collectively by the Putative Defendants and aided, abetted, assisted,

enabled, coordinated, and/or knowingly. or passively, or silently facilitated by other Unindicted

Coconspirators.7

A. Duties Under Rule 11(b).

As putative defendants, each Unindicted Coconspirator is legally and ethically required and
must:

1. Engage meaningfully in the Claimants' prefiling factual investigation to confirm or deny

the alleged facts surrounding the judicial proceedings described herein.
2. Avoid bad-faith conduct, such as suppressing evidence, which could result in severe
sanctions under Rule 11(c) and § 1927.

7
Pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1-4) you are required to either admit, rebut, or refute each factual allegation and/or
overt act, and/or predicate act listed herein. Failure to do so with objective, credible evidence by the
requested deadline on Sept. 24, 2024, time is of the essence, it will be deemed as your willful and informed
factual stipulation, factual agreement, and/or factual judicial admission binding on each Putative Defendant,
jointly and severally, in your individual and personal capacity, (the “Factual Stipulation”)—that is, the
Factual Stipulation will be presented to the Court, relevant disciplinary authorities, law enforcement, and
your liability insurance companies as factual admissions for each RICO claims, and for each tort liability
claim presented herein, or subsequent presented to your liability insurance carrier based on the included
Factual Stipulation.

Page 13 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 3. Cooperate fully by providing factual clarity regarding the “Jeremy Jones” proceedings,
ensuring that any representations they make to the court are grounded in verified facts and
law.8

Given that Rule 11(b) prefiling inquiries are meant to clarify factual disputes before litigation
ensues, failing to respond or misrepresenting facts would clearly violate the obligations imposed
by Rule 11(b).

A. Introduction.
Dear Putative Defendants:

Damian Williams,9 Gitner, McMahon, Hagenau, Dawson, Rabinowitz, Kilpatrick,

Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Kearse, Sack, Livingston, Cabranes, Ramos, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-

8
Courts have also emphasized that "bad faith may be found in conduct that constitutes knowing or reckless
disregard for the truth" (In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir. 1985) (“ … If a lawyer pursues a path
that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the
conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious. To put this a little differently, a lawyer engages in bad
faith by acting recklessly or with indifference to the law, as well as by acting in the teeth of what he
knows to be the law.”) (emphasis added). Failure to cooperate during a prefiling factual investigation can
be deemed an act of bad faith. Courts have long held that litigants [putative plaintiffs and defendants]
must engage in good faith to clarify factual disputes before litigation, as it is critical to preventing
unnecessary costs and delays (Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 22 F.3d 1274, 1277, (“On December 10, 1992,
the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion at which [Attorney] Greenfield testified. On
December 15, 1992, the court entered an order directing Malone, Isquith, Levin, and Sklar to submit
documentation that each [attorney had] "conducted a reasonable pre-filing inquiry into the facts and law"
supporting the actions”, 1279 (3d Cir. 1994)). (emphasis added).
9
The Putative plaintiffs demand that U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1-4)
immediately “meaningfully engage” and either admit or rebut with credible objective evidence all factual
allegations and contentions regarding: (i) the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceeding which involved
a person claimed by the USAO, Pauley, Kirton, and Dolinger to be “Jeremy Jones;” (ii) disclose and
produce all Brady exculpatory, impeachment evidence, all Jencks Act, all Giglio, and all Rule 16 materials
regarding the 02cv2219(SDNY) unregistered broker-dealer plaintiffs, all materials related to Arie
Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Konrad Ackermann, Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman,
Lawrence B. Mandala, Thomas A. Leghorn, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV, Wab
Kadaba, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, Alexandria Kane, Mitchell
Nussbaum, Jeremy Jones, Kenneth A. Zitter, Marlon G. Kirton, Edward T.M. Garland, Michael F. Bachner,
Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Gary G. Becker, David Makol, Maria A. Font, Alexander H.

Page 14 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Hall, Southwell, Kelley, Douvas, Goldin, Feldman, Dolinger, Kirton, Jeremy Jones, Morton,

Plummer, Belviz, Mulcahy, McCarthy, Fitzpatrick, Krajick, O-Hagan-Wolf, Dessources, Kurot,

Sinback, Thrash, Thomas, Nash, Burgess, NeSmith, Fredrick, Arndt, Hostetter, Garland, Samuel,

Loeb, Arora, Levitt, Bachner, Kirton, Jones, Becker, Fish, Griswold, Sassoon, Scotten, Xiang,

Shin, Childs, JAMS, Poole, Elsner, Pyle, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, Kane, Nussbaum, LH Financial

Services, Alpha Capital AG (Anstalt), Zitter, Rabinowitz, KTS, the State Bar of Georgia, Nall &

Miller, LLP, Arndt, Hostetter, Thrash, Meir, Mills, Walker, Kadaba, Sica, Bertisch, the GEO

Group, Inc., Leonard A. Churn, Stephen Webster, Jeffrey B. Norris, and Tailwind Capital

Management LLP, et al.) and/or your legal counsel:

This Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4), JC&D Rule 3(a)(2) probable cause, 26(a)(1)(A)(iv),

and 28 USC § 1927 notice, (the “RICO Notice”), serves as a formal and immediate demand for

the following defensive information for any denial or credible refutation of the factual assertions

and claims made herein this Rule 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation Inquiry:

I. Relevant Facts Underpinning the RICO Criminal Enterprise

As outlined in the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Draft Verified Civil Racketeering Complaint

and Notice of Claims, infra, the plaintiffs, Ulysses T. Ware and others, allege that the putative

defendants have recklessly in danger to public safety, knowingly, deliberately engaged in a pattern

of racketeering activities in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

(RICO) Act. The plaintiffs assert claims for retaliatory bad faith conduct, armed unlawful entry,

Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Myron Williams, and Leonard A.
Churn.

Page 15 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
intentional infliction of emotional distress, racketeering conspiracy, 18 USC 1962(d),10 Hobbs Act

murder for hire, attempted armed robbery, kidnapping, bribery, perjury, conspiracy to commit

bankruptcy fraud, Rule 11 fraud and perjury, Brady discovery fraud conspiracy, Habeas corpus

fraud conspiracy, theft, suppression, concealment, and destruction of judicial court records, 42

USC 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), criminal and civil contempt of court orders and judgments, mail and

wire fraud conspiracy, honest service fraud conspiracy, racketeering to commit bribery and perjury

conspiracy, Hobbs Act armed unlawful detainment, Jim Crow racially-motivated grand jury

perjury and fraud committed by Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Michel J. Garcia,

Nicholas S. Goldin, David Makol, and others, conspiracy to commit armed unlawful entries into

law firms and personal residences, conspiracy to impose unlawful bails, and conspiracy to obstruct

justice, all of which culminated in the Hobbs Act Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime

conspiracy on Thursday, September 12, 2024, in Brooklyn, NY.

Given the severity of these allegations, plaintiffs are entitled to immediate disclosure of the

aforementioned insurance and legal representation information in order to adequately prepare for

the proceedings.

10
In Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997), the Supreme Court clarified that under § 1962(d), it is
not necessary for a conspirator to commit or even agree to commit the two predicate acts required
for substantive RICO liability under § 1962(c). It is sufficient that the conspirator knew about the
nature of the enterprise and agreed to facilitate its goals. Therefore, a person [McMahon, Sica, Bertisch,
Tailwind, Ramos, Rabinowitz, Trailblazer Merger Corp., I, Zitter, Grushko, Mittman, Makol, Font,
Livingston, Kearse, Sack, Dolinger, JAMS, Krajick, O’Hagan-Wolf, Dessources, Kurot, Mulcahy,
McCarthy, Fitzpatrick, Fish, Damian Williams, Shin, Sassoon, Scotten, Gitner, Griswold, Shin, Childs,
Kirton, Jones, Southwell, Goldin, Douvas, Kelley, Garcia, Feldman, Hagenau, NeSmith, Fredrick, Arndt,
Hostetter, Nall & Miller, LLP, Meir, Walker, Kadaba, Mills, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP,
Sinback, Burgess, Nash, Mittlemen, Hewett, Myer, Garland, Samuel, Arora, Loeb, Singer, Bachner,
Becker, Levitt, Singer, Thrash, Dawson, Polk-Failla, Paul, DeArcy-Hall, Cabranes, et al.) can and will be
convicted of the RICO conspiracy without having committed any overt acts themselves, as long as they
agreed to join and further the conspiracy.

Page 16 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Deadline for Response

You are hereby demanded to comply with the requests outlined in this letter within the

following deadlines:

• Insurance Information: Due within 3 calendar days of receipt of this letter on Sunday,

September 22, 2024.

• Legal Counsel Information: Due within 3 calendar days of receipt of this letter on

Sunday, September 22, 2024.

• Refutation of the facts, issues, and claims stated herein as required pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4), and the Supreme Court binding authority Business Guides, Inc.

v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprise, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 548, 550-51 (1991)11 within 3

calendar days from Sunday, September 22, 2024, time is of the essence.

Failure to comply will result in further legal action, including motions to compel, requests for

sanctions, and claims for attorneys’ fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37, Rule 11, and 28 U.S.C. §

11
“The Magistrate accepted this explanation, but determined that sanctions were nonetheless
appropriate. Id., at 48a. First, he found that Business Guides, in filing the initial TRO application, had
"failed to conduct a proper inquiry, resulting in the presentation of unreasonable and false information
to the court." Id., at 53a” Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 533, 538 (1991);
Id., 498 U.S. 533, 538-39 (1991) (“The District Court agreed with the Magistrate, stating: "The standard
of conduct under Rule 11 is one of objective reasonableness. Applying this standard to the circumstances
of this case, it is clear that both Business Guides and Finley Kumble have violated the Rule."119 F.R.D.
685, 688-689 (ND Cal. 1988). The court reiterated the Magistrate's conclusion that: (1) Business Guides
violated Rule 11 by filing the initial TRO application; (2) Business Guides and Finley, Kumble violated
the Rule by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry once they were put on notice of several inaccuracies;
and (3) Business Guides and Finley, Kumble violated the Rule in their arguments to the Magistrate
at the first two evidentiary hearings. Id., at 689.”). (emphasis added).

Page 17 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
1927; and seeking of ex parte legal remedies to protect assets necessary to satisfy the RICO 3x

and punitive damages judgment in the sum certain amount of $5.225 billion (USD).

Sincerely,

Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Page 18 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY DRAFT VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Civil Action No.: 24cv____ (NDGA)
In the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Georgia
________

Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

Putative Plaintiffs,
v.

Andre Damian Williams, Jr.12, Debra Ann Livingston, Jose A. Cabranes, Colleen McMahon,
David N. Kelley, Frank V. Sica, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert
D. Sack, LaShann DeAcy-Hall, Katherine Polk-Failla, Alexander H. Southwell, Jeremy Jones,
Marlon G. Kirton, Michael J. Garcia, Michael F. Bachner, Gary G. Becker, Ruby Krajick, Arie
Rabinowitz, Trailblazer Merger Corp, I., Wendy L. Hagenau, LH Financial Services, Alpha
Capital, AG (Anstalt), Kenneth A. Zitter, Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Lawrance B.
Mandala, Thomas A. Leghorn, London & Fisher, LLP, Robert A. Alberal, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, Michael Bertisch, Michael H. Dolinger, JAMS, Chris
Poole, Sheri Flame Elsner, State Bar of Georgia, Paula Fredrick, William D. NeSmith, William
Alan Myer, Jonathan Hewett, the estate of William P. Smith, III, Nall & Miller, LLP, Patrick N.
Arndt, Michael D. Hostetter, Wab Kadaba, J .Henry Walker, IV, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills,
III, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., Edward T.M.
Garland, Donald F. Samuel, Robin N. Loeb, Manibur S. Arora, David N. Levitt, Janice Singer,
Jeremy Jones, Marlon G. Kirton, Kent J. Dawson, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., David Makol, Maria A.
Font, the GEO Group, Inc., Jeffrey B. Norris, Stephen Webster, Leonard A. Churn and Seven (7)

12
U.S. Attorney (SDNY) a/k/a Damian Williams has and is currently a knowingly, intentional, material,
and active participant in the direction, operations, business, and overt act of the criminal enterprise—
Williams, et al. are (i) currently in bad faith obstructing justice by his/their suppressing and concealing
actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, to wit: Jeremy Jones’ alleged Sept. 22, 2006,
Rule 11 judicial records, (ii) the material regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ violations of federal
law, and (iii) suppressing and concealing the SEC’s lawyers’ reports there was no “artificial inflation of
INZS and SVSY’s stocks’ prices, amongst other Brady evidence, as overt acts or omissions, in furtherance
of the 18 USC §§ 1962(d) predicate act on behalf of the criminal enterprise knowingly, willfully, in bad
faith in violation of 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 924(c), 1503, 1512, 1519, 1951, l956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a)(b), and NYS Penal Law, § 190.40, concealing, suppressing actual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence, removing the alleged Jeremy Jones’ Sept. 22, 2006, Rule
11 judicial records from the custodian of records, aiding, abetting, assisting, and enabling the continued
unlawful collection of the criminal usury debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, and obstructing the proper
and lawful administration of justice regarding Mr. Ware’s U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v.
Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) case.

Page 19 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
John Doe Marshals, three (3) John/Jane Doe circuit judges (2d Cir.), et al., in their personal and
individual capacities, jointly and severally, Unindicted Coconspirators, putative Defendants.13
__________________
(Draft) Verified Civil Racketeering Complaint
Plaintiffs’ Civil Action for Retaliatory Bad Faith Conduct, Armed, Forced, Unlawful Entry,
Intentionally Infliction of Emotional Distress, Conspiracy for the Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of
Legal Process, False Imprisonment, Armed Collection of an Unlawful Criminal Usury Debt, Civil
Conspiracy, RICO, Fraud, Conspiracy, Armed Intimidation, and other NYS and Federal
Constitutional tort claims Related to the Hobbs Act Jim Crow Racially-Motivated Hate Crime
Conspiracy Unlawful Entry and Intimidation on September 12, 2024.

Demand for a trial by jury:

The plaintiffs exercise their legal rights and demand a trial by jury on all claims unless

resolved prior to trial.

Damages:

The plaintiffs, jointly, separately, and individually, demand the award of damages,

compensatory, economic, noneconomic, and punitive in the total sum certain amount of $5.225

billion (USD), levied against each defendant, jointly severally, individually, and in their individual

and personal capacity, payable by all putative defendants

13
Additional defendants will be named after the conclusion of the ongoing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4)
prefiling investigation.

Page 20 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
B. RICO Hobbs Act Predicate Acts: September 1, 2004 (Atlanta,
GA) and September 12, 2024 (Brooklyn, NY) Inherently Dangerous,
Armed, Forced unlawful entries by U.S. Marshals regarding the
Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp, et al., 02cv2219
(SDNY) lawsuit’s null and void ab initio, unenforceable, 18 USC
1961(6)(B) and NYS Penal Law, § 190.40 Hobbs Act criminal usury
unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, implemented by GX 5
(the so-called subscription agreement).14
September 12, 2024: Hobbs Act Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crime conspiracy over

and predicate act, armed, forced, unlawful entry into his, Ulysses T. Ware’s, residence at 10:17

AM in Brooklyn, NY by alleged U.S. Marshals (SDNY) (Morton, Plummer, and Belviz)

perpetrated against Plaintiffs Ulysses T. Ware, et al. by the Putative Defendants and their

Unindicted Coconspirators designed with the criminal objective to obstruct justice, violate Mr.

Ware’s Fourth Amendment rights, threaten and intimidate Mr. Ware to give up and forego his

legal and constitutional rights, and to instill fear, mental distress, anxiety, and other psychological

threats on Mr. Ware; and collect the Hobbs Act criminal usury unlawful debts.

The Hobbs Act September 12, 2024, armed, forced, retaliatory, Jim Crow racially-

motivated hate crime conspiracy unlawful entry into Mr. Ulysses T. Ware’s residence, (the

14
See Supplemental Appendix #1.0, Appendix 1 (A-G), infra, for economic and non-economic damages
directly and approximately caused by the Putative Defendants’, Unindicted Coconspirators’ “pattern of
racketeering activities” Hobbs Act Jim Crow racially-motivated armed, forced, criminal usury unlawful
entries in Atlanta, GA (Sept. 1, 2004), and Brooklyn, NY (Sept. 12, 2024), to collect the Hobbs Act
extortion criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, government trial exhibits in (i) U.S.
v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (ii) the moot subject matter in 02cv2219 (SDNY) (McMahon, J.), and (iii)
moot subject matter in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) (Hagenau, C.J.), cf., Appx
2., Ex. 5 (McMahon, Hagenau, and Gitner’s coordinated overt acts to deprive Mr. Ware of his legal and
due process rights to present evidence of fraud on the court, unregistered broker-dealer status, and
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud by Atlanta, GA law firm, KTS’ clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiffs, an illegal association in fact, a criminal enterprise.

Page 21 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
“Hobbs Act Unlawful Entry” or “Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy”), presents several clear

indicators that the action was carried out in bad faith as part of an illegal and unlawful retaliatory

scheme designed for the unlawful purpose and objective to intimidate Mr. Ware and compel him

to abandon his legal rights.15 The context, timing, and nature of the entry strongly suggest that this

was not a legitimate law enforcement action but rather an abuse of power orchestrated by parties

with vested interests in obstructing Mr. Ware's ongoing legal proceedings, including his Rule

11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation and RICO litigation.

Below, Mr. Ware will discuss in detail the legal framework and specific facts that support

the conclusion that the unlawful entry was done in bad faith and constituted retaliation and

intimidation; and discuss the criminal and civil liability of Damian Williams, Debra Ann

Livingston, Colleen McMahon, Michael H. Dolinger, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital

Management LLP, Chris Poole, Sheri Flame Elsner, Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Ruby

Krajick, Laura Taylor-Swain, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Jose A. Cabranes, Julie Pyle,

Wab Kadaba, Edward T. M. Garland, Marlon G. Kirton, Alexander H. Southwell, Gibson, Dunn,

LLP, McDermott, et al., LLP, Michael J. Garcia, Ruby Krajick, Jeremy Jones, et al. jointly,

severally, in their individual and personal capacity, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), an illegal

15
The actions of the individuals and entities involved in the unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s residence on
September 12, 2024, definitively constitute criminal violations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. Section
241 unequivocally criminalizes conspiracies to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" any individual in
the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights. The clear conspiracy to retaliate against Mr.
Ware, initiated through a fraudulent complaint and the use of U.S. Marshals to unlawfully enter his
residence, falls squarely within this statute. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 242 holds any person acting under
color of law criminally liable for willfully depriving others of their constitutional rights. In this instance,
the U.S. Marshals, acting under the authority of the fraudulent complaint, violated Mr. Ware's Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and his First Amendment right to access
the courts without fear of retaliation. The retaliatory and coercive purpose behind the entry clearly meets
the statutory criteria for prosecution under both sections 241 and 242.

Page 22 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
association in fact--a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 18 USC § 1961(4) and OCGA

§ 16-14(3)(3)—Racketeering Conspiracy to obstruct justice and violate federal and NYS law,

engaged in an ongoing pattern of racketeering activities.

Page 23 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
C. (Draft) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is an extensive review and evaluation of the Putative Plaintiffs’ Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation regarding their RICO and other claims to be brought by

Mr. Ulysses T. Ware and the Claimants in their ongoing civil RICO imminent litigation prefiling

investigation against several Unindicted Coconspirators. After a careful review of the facts, the

applicable law, attached exhibits and appendices, and the relevant legal standards under both the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and

Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq.),

this Court issues the following preliminary legal analysis regarding the “reasonableness” of the

Putative Plaintiffs’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) prefiling investigation.

The Court finds the Putative Plaintiffs’ facts and claims fully supported by

overwhelming, clear, convincing, and objective evidence, and found to be legally and

factually sufficient on each element of proof to establish and prevail on their legal claims,

and be awarded RICO treble (3x) compensatory and punitive damages against the Putative

Defendants, jointly and severally.

This preliminary review and opinion analyzed in detail:

(i) each predicate act alleged,

(ii) the overt acts carried out in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, and

(iii) the specific legal liabilities of the Unindicted Coconspirators, based on the factual

records presented, particularly in relation to judicial sanctions, fraudulent debt collection, and

Page 24 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Brady evidence suppression. The Court also reviewed each retaliatory sanction, providing a

thorough legal context for how these actions furthered the criminal enterprise’s unlawful and

criminal objectives.

I. LEGAL STANDARD
RICO Liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1962

To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a plaintiff must prove:

1. The existence of an “enterprise” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4);

2. That the enterprise engaged in or affected interstate commerce;

3. That the defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise;

4. That the defendant participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise's

affairs; and

1. That the defendant engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” which requires

the commission of at least two predicate acts of racketeering within ten years.

RICO also provides a civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), allowing plaintiffs injured

by violations of § 1962 to recover treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. To prevail in a civil

RICO claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the injury was caused by the defendants’

commission of at least two predicate acts constituting a pattern of racketeering activity.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any

provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c). The liability of the Putative Defendants arises from their

participation in a conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, as outlined under §

Page 25 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
1962(c). To establish liability under § 1962(d), it is not necessary for each defendant to have

personally committed two predicate acts; rather, the plaintiff must show that the defendants

knowingly agreed to participate in the enterprise’s affairs and understood that their actions were

part of an overarching illegal scheme.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: RICO

OVERT AND PREDICATE ACTS.
1. Judge Colleen McMahon’s Ultra Vires, Vindictive Sanctions (Dkt. 120, 137, 141, 151)

The Court finds that Judge Colleen McMahon issued a series of ultra vires, punitive, and

retaliatory leave-to-file sanctions, notably reflected in Dkt. 120, Dkt. 137, Dkt. 141, and Dkt.

151 in 02cv2219 (SDNY). See Appx. 2, infra. These ultra vires, null and void ab initio purported

orders were entered after the plaintiffs in 02cv2219 (SDNY) voluntarily dismissed their claims

with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) on December 20, 2007, see RICO Overt Acts, Ex. 1,

infra. This dismissal with prejudice, by operation of law, terminated the 02cv2219 (SDNY),

22cv10566 (SDNY), 23-865, 11-4181cv (2d Cir.), Courts’ subject matter and appellate jurisdiction

over subsequent proceedings related to the underlying claims, thus rendering any orders entered

after the dismissal as legally void.

Factual Specificity: The timeline is crucial to understanding the impropriety of the sanctions. The

plaintiffs in 02cv2219 voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on December 20, 2007, pursuant to Rule

41(a)(2), ipso facto, as a matter of law and facts, a final judgment on the merits in favor of Mr.

Ware. Despite the final dismissal, Judge McMahon issued a series of ultra vires sanctions—

racketeering overt acts, see Exhibits—RICO Overt Acts, Appx 2 (1-5), infra, designed to suppress

Page 26 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
exculpatory Brady evidence and retaliate against Mr. Ware for pursuing legal action to enforce his

rights.

Legal Analysis: These ultra vires and void sanctions are not only procedurally defective but

constitute overt acts in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy. The fact that these ultra vires

purported orders were entered in 2022 long after the court’s jurisdiction had terminated in 2007

makes them void ab initio. The legal standard, as established in Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207

(2d Cir. 1998), holds that a litigant must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard prior

to the imposition of any filing injunction.16 In this case, (cf. Dkt. 137, 141, and 151) the lack of

any hearing prior to McMahon’s void ab initio illegal sanctions violated due process and

underscored the punitive nature of the sanctions’ illegally and unlawfully, punitively and

vindictively imposed against Mr. Ware as a retaliatory Jim Crow hate crime. Cf., McMahon’s

Dkt. 137, 141, and 151 overt acts.

Additionally, these illegal actions of McMahon in furtherance of the criminal enterprise

are RICO predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), as they meet the statutory definition of

obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503,17 and retaliation against a witness, victim, or

16
Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (“The unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the
district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua sponte without providing the litigant
with notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Moates v. Rademacher, 86 F.3d at 15; Board of Managers
of 2900 Ocean Ave. Condominium v. Bronkovic, 83 F.3d 44, 45 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); In re Martin-
Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir. 1984); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 613 F.2d 388, 390-91 (2d Cir.
1979) (per curiam). Indeed, we strictly enforced this rule when a district court in our circuit had earlier
imposed a filing ban on this very litigant without providing him with notice or a hearing. See Moates v.
Rademacher, 86 F.3d at 15.”). (emphasis added).
17
18 USC 1503 (a): Whoever [Colleen McMahon, Michael H. Dolinger, JAMS, Chris Poole, KTS, Kadaba,
Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, and seven (7) U.S. Marshals] corruptly, or by threats
or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any
grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any

Page 27 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
informant under 18 U.S.C. § 1513.18 These predicate acts were designed to suppress Mr. Ware’s

legal rights, interfere with his ability to challenge the criminal and civil cases against him and

obstruct justice in ongoing legal proceedings.

The sanctions also furthered the objectives of the RICO enterprise, which sought to silence

Mr. Ware, undermine his legal efforts, and prevent the exposure of fraudulent conduct by the

plaintiffs—unregistered broker-dealers, see Supp. Appx. #1.0, Appx. 2-2, infra, in 02cv2219

and related cases.

2. U.S. Marshals’ Armed, Forced, Unlawful, and Inherently Dangerous Entries in

Brooklyn, NY (2024) and Atlanta, GA (2004): Extortionate Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt
Collection Activity in violation of 18 USC §§ 1961(6)(B), and 1962(d).

The Court finds that the violent, reckless, potentially deadly, forced, unlawful, inherently

dangerous, and armed entries into Mr. Ware’s law office in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 1,

examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate,
in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of
any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures
any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of
the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the
due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this
section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves
the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed
for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have
been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
18
18 USC 1513 (e): Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any
person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a
law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any
Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

18 USC 1513 (f): Whoever [McMahon, Dolinger, Sica, Tailwind, Bertisch, JAMS, et al.] conspires to
commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Page 28 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
2004, see Supp. Appx. #1.0, Appx. 1(A, B, and D), and his residence in Brooklyn, New York, on

September 12, 2024, Id. at 1(A), infra, were RICO predicate and overt acts committed in

furtherance of the criminal enterprise’s goal of intimidation, retaliation, vindictiveness, and

enforcing fraudulent and unlawful debts in violation of RICO predicate acts, to wit: 18 USC §§

2, 156-57, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d),

collectively, a pattern of racketeering activities.

Factual Specificity: In the 2004 Atlanta incident, four heavily armed individuals, impersonating

U.S. Marshals, entered Mr. Ware’s law office, with guns drawn, threatening to “ … we will kill

you right now nigga … unless you give us that stock and the papers Judge Sand wants ….”19

without a valid warrant (arrest or search) or legal process. The clear objective was to intimidate

Mr. Ware and forcibly collect criminal usury unlawful debts using firearms tied to criminal usury

debt instruments, to wit: GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 arising from fraudulent financial

transactions, including those associated with the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs20. Id. at 1(B).

19
Note that the unregistered broker-dealers required GPMT’s free-trading equity securities (+$200 million
in Group Management Corp. free-trading shares) to cover an illegal naked short position—note given that
each 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff on Aug. 13, 2003, Dkt. 65, Sand, J. (02cv2219) judicially admitted to
being 15 USC 78p(b) statutory insiders of Group Management, and therefore, ipso facto, as a matter of law
all RICO profits and proceeds derived from the unregistered broker-dealers’ illegal insider trading sale of
GPMT’s (a publicly-traded company) +$200 million in stock is required to be disgorged back to GPMT.
20
See government trial exhibits in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), GX 1-4; also see plaintiffs’ exhibits in
02cv2219 (SDNY); and also see KTS’ unregistered broker-dealer clients’ fraudulent exhibits presented to
the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 case—RICO overt acts and/or
omissions, by Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., Dennis S. Meir, Esq., John W. Mills, III, Esq., J. Henry
Walker, IV, Esq., and by extension Wab Kadaba, Esq., lawyers, officers of the court, cf., Hazel Atlas
Glass v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1944) (fraud on the court is committed when officers
of the court, lawyers or judges, attempt to corrupt the processes of the court to fairly adjudicate its matters);
each lawyer listed above is sua sponte subject to the District Court (SDNY) Local Rule 1.5(b)(5) lawyer
disciplinary process “in regard to matters in connection with” the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 04cr1224 (SDNY),
05cr1115, 22cv3409, and 22cv10566 (SDNY) proceedings.

Page 29 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Similarly, on September 12, 2024, three (3) individuals posing as U.S. Marshals forcefully,

while armed, unlawfully entered Mr. Ware’s Brooklyn residence, again without a valid warrant,

threatening him with violence and demanding compliance with fraudulent debt collection efforts.21

Both unlawful incidents involved threats to Mr. Ware’s life, racial animus, and intimidation tactics

designed to coerce him into abandoning his legal rights and business interests.22

Legal Analysis: These incidents meet the legal standard for extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18

U.S.C. § 1951.23 The use of force, threats of violence, and impersonation of law enforcement

21
See Supp. Appx. #1.0, Appx. 1(A, B, C, E, F, and G) infra.

22
The Court cannot ignore the Jim Crow racially-motivated hate crimes evident in the unlawful entries
into Mr. Ware’s law office in 2004 and his personal residence in 2024. On September 12, 2024, three
individuals, again on behalf of the criminal enterprise, posing as U.S. Marshals, forcibly and unlawfully
entered Mr. Ware’s Brooklyn residence while armed, without a valid warrant or legal justification. These
actors implicitly threatened Mr. Ware’s life and demanded compliance with fraudulent debt collection
efforts tied to the enterprise’s long-standing financial coercion. The racial animus underlying these
incidents is clear. The perpetrators (putative defendants, jointly and severally liable) not only sought to
intimidate Mr. Ware physically and mentally, but also aimed to invoke fear rooted in the racial terror tactics
historically employed under Jim Crow, leveraging the racial identity of Mr. Ware as a Black man to coerce
him into surrendering his legal rights and business interests. The putative defendants' use of armed
(potentially deadly) force, impersonation of law enforcement, and direct threats of violence against Mr.
Ware are a modern extension of racially charged, extrajudicial actions historically deployed to oppress and
silence African Americans. These unlawful acts, embedded in racial hate and financial intimidation, further
illustrate the pervasive and calculated nature of the criminal enterprise targeting Mr. Ware based on both
racial and economic grounds. See Supp. Appx. Id.

23
18 USC 1951 (a): Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the
movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or
conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance
of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)As used in this section—
(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in
the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of
injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person
or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or
obtaining.
(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by
wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Page 30 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
officers to collect unlawful debts constitutes extortion, a predicate act under RICO. The acts also

qualify as robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),24 as the perpetrators were armed and intended to

deprive Mr. Ware of his property through violent coercion.

The Court must emphasize the significance of these incidents—RICO overt acts, within

the broader context of the RICO conspiracy. These actions were not isolated; they were part of a

long running, +20-year continuous pattern of racketeering activity aimed at silencing Mr. Ware

and enforcing unlawful financial obligations through violence and intimidation. The fact that

these RICO overt acts occurred nearly 20 years apart underscores the enduring and continuous

nature of the criminal enterprise’s corrupt control, influence, and harm over Mr. Ware’s business

and personal affairs.25

(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession
of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of
Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any
place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101–
115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45.

24
The Court must unequivocally condemn the defendants' actions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which
criminalizes the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, including extortion
and robbery. The defendants' conduct—posing as U.S. Marshals while armed—constitutes an egregious
violation of this statute. Their use of firearms to intimidate and coerce Mr. Ware into compliance with
fraudulent debt collection efforts qualifies not only as extortion under the Hobbs Act but also as robbery
under § 924(c). These actions were carried out with the clear intent to deprive Mr. Ware of his
property through force and threats, with firearms playing a central role in amplifying the fear and
violence. This deliberate use of armed intimidation during these unlawful entries exacerbates the gravity of
their criminal conduct. The presence of firearms, particularly when wielded under the false pretense of
legal authority, escalates this conduct from mere extortion to a direct and violent assault on Mr. Ware's
rights, liberty, and safety. The statutory penalties under § 924(c) are severe, and rightfully so, as such
criminal acts represent a flagrant violation of federal law and a gross abuse of power.

25
The Court emphasizes the gravity of the Unindicted Coconspirators’ conduct, which constitutes a pattern
of systemic racketeering activities designed to silence and financially cripple Mr. Ware. These RICO overt
acts—ranging from armed extortion under the guise of law enforcement to the judicial abuse of
authority—are not isolated incidents but form part of a larger, deliberate conspiracy that spans nearly two

Page 31 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
3. Judicial and Legal Misconduct—RICO Overt Acts: Suppression of Brady Evidence

The Court finds that various unindicted coconspirators, including Damian Williams, the

USAO’s line and supervisory prosecutors, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Debra Ann

Livingston, Jose Cabranes, Ruby Krajick, Richard Dessources, Catherine O’Hagan-Wolf, Edgardo

Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, LaShann DeArcy-Hall, Kenneth A. Zitter, Alexander H. Southwell,

Steven D. Feldman, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia,

Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Won Shin, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Daniel Gitner,

Andrea Griswold, Melissa Childs, Jun Xiang, Breon Peace, Nina Gupta, Merrick B. Garland,

Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, KTS, Wab Kadaba, J. Henry Walker, IV, John W. Mills,

III, Dennis S. Meir, Margaret H. Murphy, Kenneth A. Zitter, the State Bar of Georgia, and Chief

Bankruptcy Judge Wendy L. Hagenau, and others both known and unknown, knowing, in

furtherance of the criminal enterprise’s unlawful objects engaged in concerted efforts to suppress

critical Brady exculpatory evidence in Mr. Ware’s criminal (04cr1224 and 05cr1115) and habeas

(22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY) legal proceedings. This evidence, specifically related to the

unregistered broker-dealer status of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, was deliberately withheld

from Mr. Ware, undermining his ability to mount a proper defense in both civil and criminal

decades. The continuous nature of these acts, occurring 20 years apart, reveals the long-standing
corrupt influence of the enterprise over Mr. Ware’s business, property, and legal rights. This enduring
conspiracy, which utilized violent intimidation, judicial misconduct, and the suppression of exculpatory
evidence, reflects a deep-seated intent to destroy Mr. Ware's livelihood while shielding the criminal
enterprise from accountability. The fact that the defendants, including federal judges, law firms, and law
enforcement, coordinated these illegal actions over such a prolonged period underscores their calculated
effort to maintain unlawful financial control over Mr. Ware. The sustained use of intimidation and fraud to
enforce unlawful obligations violates the very core of RICO, exposing the defendants' flagrant disregard
for the law. The Court must and will hold each participant accountable, as their collective criminal conduct
has irreparably harmed Mr. Ware’s business and personal life, demanding the full weight of legal remedy.

Page 32 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
matters. See Supp. Appx. #1.0, Appx. 2-2, FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer

certification.

Factual Specificity: The exculpatory evidence in question, identified as GX 1-4, included records

demonstrating that the plaintiffs in 02cv2219 were engaged in illegal insider trading and other

financial crimes.26 The failure to disclose this evidence violated Mr. Ware’s due process rights, as

the suppression occurred in both the criminal case U.S. v. Ware (04cr1224 SDNY) and related

bankruptcy proceedings (03-93031 BC NDGA). The records were material to Mr. Ware’s defense

and would have substantially altered the outcome of his cases.

Legal Analysis: The suppression of this Brady material constitutes obstruction of justice under

18 U.S.C. § 1503 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud). These

acts were carried out with the intent to ensure Mr. Ware’s wrongful conviction, disbarment, and

financial ruin, all in furtherance of the RICO enterprise’s objectives of controlling the financial

proceeds from the underlying fraudulent transactions.

The suppression of exculpatory evidence is not only a violation of Mr. Ware’s

constitutional rights but also a direct action in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The deliberate

concealment of these records allowed the enterprise to perpetuate the fraudulent collection of debts

and obstruct any meaningful legal challenge by Mr. Ware.

26
See Dkt. 65, Aug. 13, 2003, 02cv2219 (SDNY), Sand, J. order finding each plaintiff to be a member of
a Rule 16 group by Stonestreet, L.P. judicially admitted “beneficial ownership of more than 9.9% of
[GPMT’s] stock.”

Page 33 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
4. RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura
Taylor-Swain and 05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones, Marlon G.
Kirton, Esq.’s CJA bribery, kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy. See Supp. Appx.
#3.0, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra.

The following section details the specific overt acts committed by Chief District Judge

Laura Taylor-Swain (SDNY) and Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., in furtherance of a conspiracy to

commit multiple predicate acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO), specifically under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Each of these overt acts violated federal statutes

under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and furthered the objectives of the criminal enterprise aimed at securing

wrongful convictions, manipulating legal proceedings, and protecting the illicit activities of the

enterprise’s members.

Overt Act 1: Refusal to Process Rule 1.5(b)(5) Lawyer Misconduct Complaints

Chief District Judge Taylor-Swain’s refusal to process Mr. Ware’s District Court (SDNY)

Rule 1.5(b)(5) lawyer misconduct complaints against Marlon G. Kirton, Esq. and In re Garland,

et al. under SDNY Local Rule 1.5(b)(5) constitutes a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503

(Obstruction of Justice). The complaints outlined Kirton's and Garland, et al.’s participation in a

bribery and kickback scheme tied to his representation of the government's principal witness,

Jeremy Jones, in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). By refusing to refer the complaints to the

Committee on Grievances, Taylor-Swain knowingly obstructed the investigation into Kirton’s

illicit conduct and allowed the bribery conspiracy to proceed without scrutiny. Her failure to act

violated § 1503, as it impeded judicial processes and deprived Mr. Ware of his right to a fair

hearing on the merits of his claims of attorney misconduct.

Page 34 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Violation of Predicate Act: 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice)

Taylor-Swain’s refusal to act obstructed legal processes aimed at uncovering Kirton’s and

Garland’s misconduct. This overt act allowed Kirton to continue participating in the bribery

scheme, ensuring that Mr. Ware’s complaints were suppressed and preventing any legal recourse

that would have exposed the enterprise’s fraudulent activities.

Overt Act 2: Fraudulent Appointment of Marlon G. Kirton to District Court (SDNY) CJA

Panel as a kickback, bribery, and illegal gratuity for Kirton’s role in the alleged Sept. 22,

2006, Rule 11 proceedings that involved a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones.

The evidence against Taylor-Swain, see Supp. Appx. #3.0, Ex 1A, 1B, infra, is

indisputable, circumstantial evidence of her overt acts in furtherance of the objects of the criminal

enterprise. The evidence shows that Taylor-Swain knowingly appointed Kirton to the District

Court (SDNY)’s CJA panel despite Kirton’s direct involvement in bribery, perjury, and conspiracy

to obstruct justice regarding the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule 11 proceedings involving

a person claimed to be Jeremy Jones—that is, the perjury scheme aimed at fabricating testimony

in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY). This fraudulent bribery appointment was essential to

perpetuating the enterprise’s goal of securing a wrongful conviction against Mr. Ware. By

facilitating Kirton’s fraudulent appointment, Taylor-Swain violated 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery).

Kirton’s role was to manipulate Jones' perjured testimony in exchange for illegal gratuities, with

the knowledge and consent of Taylor-Swain. This direct appointment and subsequent facilitation

of bribery furthered the enterprise’s control over judicial proceedings and perpetuated its illegal

objectives.

Page 35 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Violation of Predicate Act: 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery)

Taylor-Swain’s actions violated § 201 by facilitating and endorsing Kirton’s role in

accepting bribes and kickbacks, knowing that his appointment would serve the criminal

enterprise’s goal of fabricating testimony to secure convictions. The deliberate nature of the

appointment underscores Taylor-Swain’s involvement in the criminal conspiracy.

Overt Act 3: Suppression of Brady Evidence

Chief District Judge Taylor-Swain played a pivotal role in the suppression of exculpatory

Brady evidence during the proceedings in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware,

05cr1115 (SDNY). The evidence in question, particularly the unregistered broker-dealer status of

the plaintiffs in the related civil case 02cv2219 (SDNY), was deliberately withheld. Taylor-

Swain’s suppression of this evidence—by her refusal to process the Rule 1.5(b)(5) lawyer

misconduct complaints, ensured that Mr. Ware could not mount an adequate and effective actual

innocent 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition in 22cv3409/22cv10566 (SDNY).

This criminal judicial misconduct by Taylor-Swain constitutes 18 U.S.C. § 1512

(Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant), as Taylor-Swain’s actions actively

prevented Mr. Ware from utilizing and access to critical evidence that would have exposed the

fraudulent activities of the enterprise and discredited the testimony of government witnesses,

particularly Jeremy Jones.

Violation of Predicate Act: 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Tampering with a Witness)

Page 36 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Taylor-Swain’s suppression of exculpatory evidence violated § 1512, as her actions

prevented Mr. Ware from accessing key information necessary to challenge the government’s

witnesses and effectively prosecute his § 2241 habeas corpus petitions. This obstruction was

calculated to ensure that the criminal enterprise's activities remained concealed and that Mr. Ware

was deprived of a fair trial, furthering the criminal conspiracy.

Overt Act 4: Concealment of Kirton’s Bribery and Kickback Scheme

Chief District Judge Taylor-Swain’s refusal to investigate or disqualify herself from

matters involving Marlon G. Kirton—despite being aware of Kirton’s role in the conspiracy—

constitutes 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). By knowingly

concealing Kirton’s illegal conduct and facilitating fraudulent proceedings, Taylor-Swain violated

federal fraud statutes, as her actions were intended to deprive Mr. Ware of his property and legal

rights through fraudulent legal processes. This concealment of Kirton’s involvement in the

conspiracy allowed the criminal enterprise to perpetuate its fraudulent financial claims against Mr.

Ware, including the enforcement of unlawful debts and judgments.

Violation of Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud)

Taylor-Swain’s concealment of the bribery and kickback scheme through fraudulent legal

filings and communications directly violated § 1341 and § 1343. By ensuring that Kirton’s and

Garland, et al.’s misconduct was hidden from the legal process, Taylor-Swain enabled the

enterprise to continue defrauding Mr. Ware, furthering the RICO conspiracy.

How Taylor-Swain’s Conduct Furthered the Conspiracy

Page 37 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Each of the overt acts committed by Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain directly

furthered the objectives of the criminal enterprise. Her actions and omissions served to protect the

enterprise’s illegal financial interests by manipulating judicial processes, suppressing exculpatory

evidence, and obstructing legal recourse for Mr. Ware. By refusing to address complaints of

attorney misconduct, facilitating the fraudulent appointment of CJA counsel, and concealing key

evidence, Taylor-Swain ensured that the criminal enterprise could continue its activities without

exposure or accountability. Each predicate act—ranging from bribery and obstruction of justice

to witness tampering and fraud—was integral to the conspiracy’s success in securing wrongful

convictions and suppressing legal challenges.

Conclusion

Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain’s criminal judicial misconduct constitutes

multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) predicate acts, including obstruction of justice,

bribery, witness tampering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Each of these acts and/or omissions

furthered the criminal conspiracy by (i) preventing Mr. Ware from exercising his legal rights, (ii)

facilitating the continued operation of the criminal enterprise, and (iii) ensuring that fraudulent

judgments and financial obligations could be enforced against him. Her criminal judicial

misconduct, in collaboration with Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., Edgardo Ramos, Edward T.M. Garland,

Colleen McMahon, Debra Ann Livingston, and other unindicted coconspirators violated 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(d) and renders the Putative Defendants’ jointly and severally liable under RICO for their

participation in the conspiracy.

III. RICO ELEMENTS ANALYSIS

Page 38 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
1. Existence of an Enterprise

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), an “enterprise” includes any group of individuals associated

in fact, which may include both legal entities and illicit associations. In this case, the enterprise

consisted of judicial officers (including Sica, Bertisch, Kane, Nussbaum, JAMS, Dolinger,

Livingston, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Thrash, KTS, GSL, Judge Colleen McMahon and

Judge Wendy L. Hagenau), attorneys (including Kenneth A. Zitter, KTS, Arora, Bachner,

Kirton, Becker, Dolinger, JAMS, Meir, Mills, Walker, Kadaba, Damian Williams,

Southwell, Feldman, Goldin, Douvas, Makol, Font, Kent J. Dawson, et al.), the State Bar of

Georgia (Nall & Miller, LLP, Hostetter, Arndt, NeSmith, Fredrick, Nash, Burgess, Henry,

Rojas-Rafter, O’Sullivan, Myer, Hewett, Smith (deceased), Mittleman), and other financial

actors, known and unknown connected to or associated with the 02cv2219 plaintiffs and other

Unindicted Coconspirators.

This enterprise was engaged in a continuous pattern of fraudulent litigation, judicial

misconduct, illegal debt collection, and the suppression of exculpatory evidence. The Court finds

sufficient evidence to conclude that this association-in-fact enterprise operated with a common

purpose of defrauding Mr. Ware, obstructing justice, and perpetuating financial crimes.

2. Pattern of Racketeering Activity

A pattern of racketeering activity under RICO requires at least two predicate acts. The

Court finds that the enterprise engaged in multiple predicate acts, including:

• Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (through judicial misconduct and

suppression of evidence);

Page 39 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 • Extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (through armed debt collection efforts

in 2004 and 2024);

• Retaliation Against a Witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (through vindictive sanctions

against Mr. Ware);

• Mail and Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 (through the fraudulent

manipulation of court filings and orders).

These predicate acts demonstrate a clear pattern of racketeering activity within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and OCGA § 16-14-4.

3. Causation and Injury

Mr. Ware’s injuries, including the destruction of his business, lost business opportunities,

financial harm, and emotional distress, were directly caused by the actions of the enterprise. The

racketeering activities—particularly the armed threats, fraudulent debt collection, and judicial

retaliation—created an environment of fear and coercion that effectively deprived Mr. Ware of his

legal rights and financial livelihood.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Joint and Several Liability

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and OCGA § 16-14-6(c), all members of the RICO enterprise

are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by the racketeering activities. Each

coconspirator, whether directly involved in a specific predicate act or not, is legally responsible

for the entire scope of the harm caused by the conspiracy. This includes the financial losses,

Page 40 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
destruction of property, and psychological harm suffered by Mr. Ware as a result of the enterprise’s

continuous criminal activities.

V. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Unindicted Coconspirators are jointly

and severally liable under both federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Mr. Ware is entitled to recover

compensatory and punitive damages for the harm caused by the RICO enterprise, including

treble damages as permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) as described in the following Final Order.

Page 41 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
D. (DRAFT) PRELIMINARY JUDICIAL FINAL ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Civil Action No. 24cv________ (NDGA)

Ulysses T. Ware, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Debra Ann Livingston, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind
Capital Management LLP, Trailblazer Merger Corp., I, LH Financial Services, Michael Bertisch,
JAMS, Chris Poole, The State Bar of Georgia, William D. NeSmith, Paula Fredrick, Jonathan
Hewett, William A. Myer, Margaret H. Murphy, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Dennis S. Meir, John W.
Mills, III, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Wab Kadaba, J. Henry Walker, IV, Wendy L.
Hagenau, Arie Rabinowitz, GSL, Michael H. Dolinger, Kenneth A. Zitter, Edgardo Ramos, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Edward T.M. Garland, Nall & Miller, LLP, Patrick N. Arndt, Michael D. Hostetter,
Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Lawrence B. Mandala, Thomas A. Leghorn, Robert Albaral, Ruby
Krajick, Richard Dessources, Dina Kurot, Jose A. Cabranes, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack,
Alexander H. Southwell, David N. Kelley, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Loeb & Loeb,
LLP, and U.S. Marshals Service, et al.,

Putative Defendants, Unindicted Coconspirators.

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

THE COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS ULYSSES T. WARE, ET AL.

The Court finds IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS in a bench trial after a review of all
of the evidence finds by a preponderance of evidence the Putative Plaintiffs’ facts and claims fully
supported by overwhelming, clear, convincing, and objective evidence, and finds by a
preponderance of evidence, see infra, to be legally and factually sufficient on each element of
proof to establish and prevail on each of their legal claims; and each PLAINTIFF is hereby
ADJUDGED, DECREED, AND AWARDED RICO treble (3x) compensatory and punitive
damages, costs, and expenses, against EACH Putative Defendant, jointly and severally, in the
sum certain amount of $5.225 billion (USD). A money Judgment shall be immediately entered.

_________________

Page 42 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 This matter comes before the Court on the ongoing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4) prefiling

investigation and review of Plaintiffs' RICO claims against a broad array of Unindicted

Coconspirators, including judicial officials, law firms, financial entities, and law enforcement.

Based on the overwhelming and irrefutable objective evidence submitted, see infra, this Court

issues its preliminary findings and legal conclusions with respect to the civil and criminal liability

of the putative defendants under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO) and OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq.

(Georgia RICO Act). In particular, the Court addresses the unlawful conspiracies, fraudulent

judicial actions, extortionate debt collection, and suppression of evidence aimed at Mr. Ulysses T.

Ware, amounting to systemic violations of his constitutional and civil rights.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

The Plaintiffs, led by Ulysses T. Ware, allege an extensive and concerted effort by the

Unindicted Coconspirators to obstruct justice, violate Mr. Ware's rights, and perpetuate a

fraudulent scheme of unlawful debt collection. The facts underlying the RICO claims include:

1. Ultra Vires Judicial Sanctions by Colleen McMahon: Judge McMahon issued multiple

sanctions (Dkt. 120, 137, 141, 151) in the case 02cv2219 (SDNY), which had been

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2007, under Rule 41(a)(2). Despite

the dismissal terminating jurisdiction, Judge McMahon continued to issue punitive

sanctions designed to obstruct justice by suppressing exculpatory evidence and retaliating

against Mr. Ware for exercising his legal rights. These actions represent retaliatory conduct

and an abuse of judicial power intended to further the criminal enterprise’s unlawful

objectives.

Page 43 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 2. Armed, Unlawful Entries in Brooklyn (2024) and Atlanta (2004): U.S. Marshals,

impersonating law enforcement, conducted dangerous, forced, unlawful, and armed entries

into Mr. Ware's law office (Atlanta, 2004) and residence (Brooklyn, 2024), under

fraudulent pretenses aimed at enforcing unlawful debts tied to criminal usury. These

actions were coordinated with other defendants, including financial entities such as

Tailwind Capital and legal representatives such as Kilpatrick Townsend, who sought to

intimidate Mr. Ware and suppress his legal efforts.

3. Suppression of Brady Evidence and Legal Misconduct: Critical Brady exculpatory

evidence, related to the unregistered broker-dealer status of the plaintiffs in 02cv2219

(SDNY), was deliberately suppressed by various judicial officials and attorneys, including

KTS, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker, IV, Wab Kadaba, Wendy

Hagenau and Kenneth Zitter, amongst other unindicted coconspirators. This willful

and bad faith concealment and suppression of actual innocent exculpatory and

impeachment evidence was aimed at securing unlawful judgments against Mr. Ware and

obstructing his ability to defend himself in both civil and criminal matters.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

RICO Liability

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), it is unlawful for any person associated with an enterprise

engaged in interstate commerce to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise through

a pattern of racketeering activity. A "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two predicate

acts within a ten-year period, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

Page 44 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any

provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c). The liability of the Putative Defendants arises from their

participation in a conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, as outlined under §

1962(c). To establish liability under § 1962(d), it is not necessary for each defendant to have

personally committed two predicate acts; rather, the plaintiff must show that the defendants

knowingly agreed to participate in the enterprise’s affairs and understood that their actions were

part of an overarching illegal scheme.

Here, the Putative Defendants’ concerted actions—such as the issuance of ultra vires

judicial sanctions, armed extortionate debt collection, and suppression of exculpatory evidence,

among other overt acts—demonstrate a clear, coordinated effort to further the enterprise’s goals.

Each defendant, by either actively participating in or acquiescing to these illegal activities,

conspired to obstruct justice, intimidate Mr. Ware, and enforce fraudulent financial claims. Their

mutual awareness and agreement to participate in these unlawful activities fulfill the requirement

under § 1962(d), exposing them to liability for the entire scope of the enterprise’s racketeering

actions, regardless of their individual involvement in specific predicate acts. Consequently, their

liability extends to the full range of damages caused by the RICO enterprise’s pattern of unlawful

conduct.

To establish a RICO claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate:

1. The existence of an enterprise;

2. A pattern of racketeering activity;

3. A nexus between the enterprise and the racketeering activity;

Page 45 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 4. Injury to the plaintiff's business or property by reason of the racketeering activity.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS

1. Judge Colleen McMahon's Ultra Vires Sanctions entered in 02cv2219 (SDNY).

The Court finds that Judge Colleen McMahon’s sanctions (Dkt. 120, 137, 141, 151) were

issued without jurisdiction, as the case 02cv2219 had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice27

under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2) on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90 (Sand, J.) (deceased). These

sanctions were null and void ab initio, moot, vindictive, retaliatory, and intended to suppress Mr.

Ware’s legal rights. The ultra vires actions amount to obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. §

1503 and retaliation against a witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1513, qualifying as RICO predicate

acts. The continuation of judicial actions by Judge McMahon after the termination of jurisdiction

furthered the criminal enterprise’s objective of maintaining unlawful financial control over Mr.

Ware. Cf., Dkt. 120 (02cv2219) (McMahon, J.).

2. Unlawful Armed Entries in Atlanta (2004) and Brooklyn (2024)

The unlawful armed entries into Mr. Ware’s Atlanta, GA law office and residence in

Brooklyn, NY, conducted by U.S. Marshals acting under the influence of fraudulent legal orders,

constituted extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. These highly dangerous illegal and

unlawful actions were carried out with the intent to intimidate Mr. Ware and enforce unlawful

debts tied to criminal usury and fraudulent financial transactions. The defendants' Marshals’ use

of extreme and unreasonable potentially deadly force and threats to coerce Mr. Ware further

27
On Dec. 20, 2007, the NYS statute of limitation had run on all claims in the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Page 46 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (use of firearms during a crime of violence), qualifying as additional

RICO predicate acts.

3. Suppression of Brady Evidence

The deliberate suppression of actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment Brady

material in Mr. Ware’s criminal cases (04cr1224 and 05cr1115 SDNY) and related civil cases,

particularly regarding the unregistered broker-dealer status of the plaintiffs in 02cv2219,

constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341

and 1343. This bad faith suppression was aimed at securing wrongful convictions and judgments

against Mr. Ware and furthered the RICO enterprise’s financial interests.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the overwhelming evidence, the Court finds that the Unindicted Coconspirators,

including Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel Gitner, Andrea Griswold, Danielle Sassoon,

Hagan Scotten, Jun Xiang, Won Shin, Melissa Childs, Colleen McMahon, Frank Sica,

Tailwind Capital, Michael Bertisch, Michael H. Dolinger, JAMS, Chris Poole, the State Bar

of Georgia, Kilpatrick Townsend, Hagenau, Arie Rabinowitz, Michael D. Hostetter, Patrick

N. Arndt, William D. NeSmith, Paula Fredrick, William Alan Myer, Jonathan Hewett,

Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, Robin Loeb, Janice Singer,

Michael F. Bachner, Marlon G. Kirton, Jeremy Jones, Edgardo Ramos, LaShann DeArcy-

Hall, Wendy L. Hagenau, Kent J. Dawson, Andrew J. Peck, Barbara S. Jones, Thomas W.

Thrash, Jr., Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Jose A. Cabranes, Debra Ann Livingston,

Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, the U.S.

Page 47 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Marshals Service, et al. knowingly, willfully, intentionally, in bad faith, maliciously, and with

depraved and corrupt intentions engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity designed to

intimidate, defraud, conceal the overt acts of the enterprise, and silence Mr. Ware. These actions

caused substantial injury to Mr. Ware’s business and property and meet the threshold for civil and

criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and OCGA § 16-14-4.

V. JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

Given the irrefutable and overwhelming record evidence reviewed by this Court, evidence

of civil and criminal liability, see infra, this Court recommends that the Unindicted

Coconspirators—Colleen McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, Bertisch, Dolinger, JAMS,

Poole, the State Bar of Georgia, KTS, Kadaba, Meir, Mills, Walker, Hagenau, Rabinowitz,

Hostetter, Arndt, NeSmith, Fredrick, GSL, et al., and the U.S. Marshals Service—

immediately engage in settlement negotiations with the Claimants. The damages, including

compensatory, punitive, and treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), are fully supported by the

record factual evidence, and preliminarily estimated to exceed $5.225 billion (USD).

SO ORDERED.

DATE: Sunday, September 22, 2024.

__________________________________________________

Signed this _____ day of ______________________, 2024.

Page 48 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Exhibits—RICO
Overt Acts

Page 49 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1—Overt Act--(02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ voluntary ex parte plaintiffs’ dismissal
with prejudice) Zitter’s Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice given
the statute of limitations had run on all claims, and given that the statute of limitations is
not tolled by the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit—a final judgment on the
merits in favor of the defendants.

Page 50 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2—(counterclaim) 02cv2219 (SDNY) defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s counterclaim,
Dkt. 31—see Dkt. 118 (02cv2219 (SDNY)—McMahon retaliated and vindictively revoked
Mr. Ware’s halfway housing in 2019 once this pleading was filed.

Page 51 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 1—Critical Analysis of Legal Ramifications of Zitter’s Dec. 20,
2007, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice, Ex. 1, supra.

Introduction

The ex parte voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit on

December 20, 2007, see Ex. 1, supra, fundamentally affects the criminal proceedings against Mr.

Ulysses T. Ware in U.S. v. Ware, (04cr1224 (SDNY)). This voluntary dismissal, coming immediately

after the 04cr1224 trial in November 2007, nullified key evidence used in the 04cr1224 trial [GX

7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34]28 and undermined the integrity of the prosecution’s case in 04cr1224.

The misconduct of the courts, Kenneth A. Zitter, the State Bar of Georgia, and the United States

Attorney's Office (USAO) in relying on Nullified Evidence from a mooted proceeding (02cv2219

and 04cr1224) constitutes a grave violation of legal and ethical standards.

Legal Ramifications of the Courts' Misconduct

The courts’ failure to recognize and address the implications of the dismissal of the

02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) with prejudice see Ex. 1, supra, constitutes

judicial negligence and a critical lapse in judicial oversight. This negligent oversight by the federal

courts allowed the prosecution to use evidence that was effectively nullified post-trial by Zitter’s

Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the 02cv2219 lawsuit. The

28
Now nullified (the “Moot Evidence” or “Nullified Evidence”), constitutes actual innocent Brady
exculpatory and impeachment evidence of which the 04cr1224, 03-93031 (BC NDGA); and Second Circuit’s
09-0851, 11-4181, 11-2151, 17-2214, and 23-865/23-869 moot appeals are legally required to take notice
of and assess the legal effect of the Rule 41(a)(2) ex parte voluntary dismissal with prejudice on the
respective now moot and abrogated proceedings. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95, and Arbaugh v. Y&D
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (any party or the court sua sponte is permitted to raise an objection to a
federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction at any time, even after trial and entry of judgment). (emphasis
added).

Page 52 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
judicial system's integrity relies on the accuracy and admissibility of evidence, and the courts'

neglect in this regard compromised Mr. Ware’s right to a fair trial.

Implications:

• Judicial Oversight Failure: The courts' inability and refusal to consider the 02cv2219

(SDNY) Dec 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal's impact and legal consequences on 03-

93031, 04cr1224, 09-0851cr (2d Cir.), 11-4181cv (2d Cir.), 17-2214 (2d Cir.), and 23-

865/23-869 (2d Cir.) demonstrate a profound failure and gross negligence in maintaining

judicial integrity and ensuring due process.29

• Erosion of Trust: Such oversights erode public trust in the judicial system, highlighting a

systemic failure to safeguard defendants' legal and constitutional rights to ‘fundamental

fairness’.

Criminal Misconduct by Kenneth A. Zitter and Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, &

Stockton, LLP. (“KTS”).

Leonard B. Sand’s (deceased) and Kenneth A. Zitter's executive role in (i) hiring KTS to

deliberately and intentionally obstruct and impede GPMT’s 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 case

from being able to recoup and have disgorged 15 USC 78p(b) +$522 million in short-swing profits

back to the Chapter 11 estate realized from KTS’ unregistered broker-dealer clients’ illegal insider

29
See Appendix 2, infra—District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon’s ultra vires, fraudulent, vindictive,
retaliatory, and punitive purported orders entered enter after the Dec. 20, 2007, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2)
dismissal with prejudice which unequivocally terminated McMahon’s Article III jurisdiction over the
02cv2219 moot proceedings, see A.B. Dick, 197 F.2d at 501-02, to enter any ultra vires Jim Crow racially-
motivated retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive leave to file sanction (see 02cv2219 Dkt. 137, 141, and 151)
to violate Mr. Ware’s (a Prevailing Party in 02cv2219) to enforce via civil and criminal contempt the Dec.
20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment entered in his and GPMT’s favor.

Page 53 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
trading in GPMT’s equity securities, and (ii) Sand’s and Zitter’s ex parte Rule 41(a)(2) voluntarily

dismissing the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit post-trial with prejudice on Dec. 20, 2007, see Ex. 1,

supra, while relying on its evidence during the 04cr1224 Nov. 2007 trial exemplifies a blatant

disregard for ethical responsibilities. Zitter's actions contributed to presenting a compromised

case against Mr. Ware.

Implications:

• Compromised Testimony: Zitter’s known perjurious testimony suborned by the

Government’s prosecutors and the District Court (Sweet, J.) (deceased), and the Court of

Appeals (09-0851cr) (Katzmann (deceased), Hall (deceased), and Jones, J.), based on

evidence from a dismissed with prejudice case (02cv2219), lacked credibility,

fundamentally undermining the prosecution's case.

• Ethical Violations: By participating in this deception, Zitter and the federal courts, and the

State Bar of Georgia knowingly, recklessly, and in bad faith execrably and egregiously

breached lawyer and judicial ethical obligations to ensure justice and fairness in legal

proceedings.

Misconduct by the State Bar of Georgia

The State Bar of Georgia’s involvement in proceedings against Mr. Ware, based on

nullified evidence from the abrogated and vitiated 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, reflects a disturbing

misuse of legal authority. The State Bar’s actions were racially-motivated, vindictive, punitive,

and retaliatory, lacking a basis in credible evidence, and predicated on the fabricated and forgery

of the purported Affidavit of Service.

Page 54 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Implications:

• Abuse of Authority: The State Bar's actions represent a complete and epic corruptive

abuse of legal authority, racially profiling and targeting Mr. Ware based on

compromised evidence to commit an overt act in furtherance of the violent and racially-

motivated 18 USC 1951 armed Hobbs Act conspiracy to steal Mr. Ware’s personal and

business property his license to practice law and other business opportunities.

• Unethical Conduct: Such criminal and illegal misconduct violates ethical standards,

demonstrating a willingness by the State Bar of Georgia to pursue disciplinary actions

without regard for fairness or justice.

Misconduct by the USAO

The USAO’s reliance on Nullified Evidence (GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34) from the

02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, even after its dismissal, constitutes a severe violation of prosecutorial

ethics. The USAO’s actions undermined the defendant's right to a fair trial, revealing a

prosecutorial strategy driven more by securing convictions than ensuring justice.

Implications:

• Prosecutorial Misconduct: The USAO’s fraudulent and bad faith actions—that USAO

either knew, or were negligent in not knowing that its 04cr1224 trial witness, Zitter,

planned to immediately after the 04cr1224 trial ended in Nov. 2007, on Dec. 20, 2007, to

dismiss 02cv2219 with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), in ignoring the complete

nullification of the USAO’s 04cr1224 trial evidence, highlights a disregard for due process

and the Brady rule, the August 10, 2007, Dkt. 32 (Sweet, J.) (deceased) Brady court order.

Page 55 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 • Integrity of Prosecution: Such misconduct questions the integrity of the prosecution,

revealing ethical lapses that compromise the legal system's fairness.

Overall Impact on Mr. Ware's Case

The collective and cumulative criminal misconduct by the courts, Zitter, the State Bar of

Georgia, the USAO, KTS, McMahon (see Appx. 2, Ex. 1-3, infra), and Hagenau, (see Appx 2, Ex. 4,

infra) had a compound effect on Mr. Ware's case. The reliance on nullified evidence from the

02cv2219 (SDNY)—the criminal usury subject matter, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, GX 4, and GX 5, taken

from the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit and deliberately and intentionally used by the USAO in

04cr1224/09-0851 not only undermined the integrity of the trial/appeal but also violated Mr.

Ware's constitutional rights. The prosecutorial and judicial failures in this case highlight systemic

issues that require immediate redress.

Legal and Ethical Failures:

• Failure to Disclose: The Brady rule violations and the USAO, McMahon, Hagenau, KTS,

Zitter, and the State Bar of Georgia’s complete and abject suppression, concealment,

cover-up, and failure to disclose the nullification of evidence critically impacted Mr.

Ware’s defense and subsequent appeals in 09-0851, 11-4181, 11-2151, 17-2214, and 23-

865/23-869 (2d Cir.) collectively, (the “Moot Appeals”), see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-94.

• Lack of Fair Trial: The ethical breaches by multiple parties compromised Mr. Ware’s right

to a fair trial, necessitating a complete re-evaluation of the charges and the conduct of

the involved parties.

Conclusion

Page 56 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 The legal ramifications of the unprecedented and criminal misconduct and civil and

criminal contempt of the Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment by the courts, Sand,

Sweet, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Laura Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Damian Williams,

Kenneth A. Zitter, the State Bar of Georgia, Hagenau, McMahon, KTS, Ramos, Cabranes, the Court

of Appeals, and the USAO in relying on nullified evidence from the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit are

profound. These actions represent a severe breach of legal and ethical standards, undermining

the integrity of the judicial process and compromising Mr. Ware's right to a fair trial. The

collective failures necessitate a thorough investigation and appropriate legal remedies to restore

justice and uphold the principles of fairness and due process.

Page 57 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 2—Overt Act--moot orders 2022 McMahon, J. (02cv2219) Jim
Crow racially-motivated ultra vires retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive
leave to file sanctions entered to suppress and conceal Brady exculpatory
and impeachment evidence, and to violate Mr. Ware’s and GPMT’s legal
right to enforce the Rule 41(a)(2) final order/judgment via civil and
criminal contempt processes against McMahon, Hagenau, Ramos,
Cabranes, DeArcy-Hall, KTS, the State Bar of GA, Sweet, the U.S. Probation
Office, Barbara S. Jones, Zitter, Rabinowitz, LH Financial, the 02cv2219
plaintiffs, the USAO, and others who aided, abetted, and enabled the civil
and/or criminal contempt of the Dec. 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final
order/judgment.

Page 58 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
1—Overt Act-- 02cv2219 Dkt 120--Page 1. Moot Dkt 120(1), 02cv2219 (SDNY): Bogus and
moot Order (McMahon, C.J.), entered as an overt act in the conspiracy to obstruct justice
and enable the continued 18 USC 1961(B)(6) unlawful debt collection. On May 17, 2019,
Judge McMahon knew 02cv2219 on 12/20/2007, see Ex. 1, supra, had been voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by the plaintiffs, cf., Ex. 1, supra.

Page 59 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Page 2.

Page 60 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Page 3.

Page 61 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Page 4.

Page 62 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
2 02cv2219 Dkt. 137—Overt Act--McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, void ab initio
vindictive, Jim Crow racially-motivated punitive and defective leave to file sanction show
cause order. Note that McMahon tailored her ultra vires, moot, null and void ab initio,
bogus and fraudulent leave to file show cause order on the Court of Appeals moot, ultra
vires, vindictive and punitive Nov. 5, 2010, 07-5222cr, defective show cause order and
sanction.

Page 63 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Page 64 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
3 02cv2219 Dkt. 141—Overt Act--McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, void ab initio cryptic
and mentally delusional purported order

Page 65 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
4 02cv2219 Dkt. 151—Overt Act--McMahon’s lies, perjury, and fraudulent order
entered in conspiracy and collusion with Atlanta, GA Chief Bankruptcy Judge Wendy L.
Hagenau (03-93031 BC NDGA), see Dkt. 258, 274, and 275, cf., Ex. 5, infra, to cover up
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence regarding the unregistered broker-dealer
status of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs. Note McMahon’s use of Jim Crow racially-coded
language to disparage Mr. Ware’s arguments based on circuit precedents, L-3 Comm’cs
and A.B.Dick., cf., Appx. 3, infra.

Page 66 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Page 67 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
5—Oct. 2022, Gitner, McMahon and Hagenau’s—Overt Act--Collusion, conspiracy, and
coordination of Jim Crow racially-motivated retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive moot void
ab initio leave to file sanctions initiated in concert and by judicial collusion of Wendy L.
Hagenau and Colleen McMahon as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud, Hobbs Act attempted armed robbery, armed aggravated assault and
battery, conspiracy, and other crimes, 18 USC 2, 156-157, 371, 924(c),1951, 1956-57,
1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d). See In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.)
re: Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct (Pending).

Page 68 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 3—Mr. Ware’s Dec. 22, 2022, response submitted to and filed
with District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon regarding her moot, ultra
vires, and void ab initio Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151, see Appx. 2, supra,
retaliatory, vindictive, and punitive Jim Crow racially-motivated ultra vires
leave to file sanction, Dkt. 151, which McMahon, J. refused to file on the
docket and has suppressed and concealed the same in violation of 18 USC
2, 156-57, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1201, 1202, 1512, 1519,
1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b).

Page 69 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]

December 25, 2022

Via regular U.S. mail on December 25, 2022

The Hon. District Judge Colleen McMahon
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Sq.
New York, NY 10007

Re: Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219 (SDNY),
(“2219”) Re: Dkt. 151.
Administrative Matters Letter Brief Application to (1) clarify, Rule 59(e), Dkt. 151,
(2) permission to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(4) motion to vacate Dkt. 151, Order
for (i) mootness, and (ii) lack of due process of law; and (3) application for a stay
of Dkt. 151 (Order) pending the United States Attorney (SDNY) appearance herein
and filing its litigation position with respect to GX 1-4, GX 5, (jointly, (the “Criminal
Usury Subject Matter”); and GX 7 (Dkt. 54), GX 11 (Dkt. 58), and GX 24 (Dkt. 65).

Judge McMahon:
Ulysses T. Ware, the Prevailing Party with respect to the 2219 proceedings—see
12/20/2007, Dkt. 90, superseding Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”),
the Petitioner herein, respectfully for good cause shown, applies to the Honorable District Court
to clarify outstanding issues with respect to Dkt. 151, Order, matters predicated on “hornbook
law” legal precedents of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal appeals courts.
See L-3 Comm’cs, 921 F.3d at 18-19, infra.

Page 70 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Administrative Issue #1: A transcript of the required due process hearing apropos the leave to
file sanction does not exist.
Judge McMahon, on December 23, 2022, Petitioner was informed by the District Court
(SDNY) personnel that “no transcript exists for any hearings conducted prior to December 22,
2022,” the entry date of Dkt. 151, regarding the required due process hearing required by Second
Circuit precedents to have been conducted “prior to” entry of Dkt. 151.30

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully seeks instruction from the District Court regarding the
administrative process to obtain a copy of the due process hearing’s transcript vis-à-vis Dkt. 137
and Dkt. 151 to perfect the appellate record.

Administrative Issue #2: Request for Clarification.

Petitioner submits this letter brief, (the “Letter Brief”), and respectfully applies to the
Court for (I) clarification of Dkt. 151, and (II) for permission for (1) an order authorizing the filing
of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate Dkt. 50, 54, 58, 65, 80, 102, 120, 137, 141, and 151, (the
“Moot Orders”); (2) to vacate 102, 120, 137, 141, and 151 for lack of due process of law—the
required due process hearing was not conducted by the Court prior to entry of the leave to file
orders (Dkt. 102, Dkt. 137, 141, and 151); and (3) for an order directed to the parties in interest,
the 2219 plaintiffs, and the United States, to immediately appear and show cause why 2219 is
not moot for lack of Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) subject matter jurisdiction over the Criminal
Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4 (the “GPMT’s criminal usury convertible promissory notes”), and
GX 5 (the “2219 plaintiffs’ criminal usury underwriting contract”), jointly, (the “Criminal Usury
Subject Matter”).31

30
“The unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the [02cv2219, 05cr1115, or 04cr1224] distinct court[s] may
not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua sponte without providing the litigant [Ulysses T. Ware] with
notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998). “Indeed, we
strictly enforced this rule when a district court in our circuit had earlier imposed a filing ban on this very
litigant without providing him with notice or a hearing.” See Moates v. Rademacher, 86 F.3d at 15.
(emphasis added); also see Board of Managers of 2900 Ocean Avenue Condominium v. Bronkovic, 83
F.3d 44 (1996) (2d Cir. 1996) (“Because the court enjoined farther filings and removals to the Eastern
District sua sponte without giving defendants [Ulysses T. Ware] notice or an opportunity to be heard, our
precedent requires that we reverse and remand so that the district court may conduct such a
hearing.”). (emphasis added).

31
Petitioner respectfully requests that if the Court is inclined to grant permission to file the requested
Rule 60(b)(4) motion, the Court accepts this letter brief, (the “Letter Brief”), as the application for the
requested stay, the Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate Dkt. 151, and the Rule 12(h)(3) motion challenge to

Page 71 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Judge McMahon, respectfully, Petitioner in compliance with the Court’s Order, Dkt. 151
(12/22/22), Petitioner is not seeking to “prolong” the 2219 matter. Rather, Petitioner is bringing
to the Court’s attention relevant on-point binding Second Circuit precedent and authority for
Petitioner’s position that the 2219 proceedings, orders, and judgments went moot, were vitiated,
and annulled on 12/20/2007, Dkt. 90. That is the sole purpose for Petitioner’s communication
with the Court, and to perfect the record for subsequent appellate review—which requires
Petitioner to first present the argument to the District Court. Petitioner has no intentions or
desires to “prolong” the proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
Honorable District Court accept this Letter Brief Application in good faith based on the prevailing
Second Circuit’s binding precedents, and the indisputable fact of the Rule 41 Final Judgment.

Good Cause Shown.

Petitioner for good cause, (a) based in Circuit authority, the law, L-3 Comm’cs, infra, and
(b) based in fact, the 12/20/2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41 Final Judgment, seeks the Court’s permission
to file this Rule 60(b)(4) Letter Brief motion for the following reasons:

1. because former District Judge Sand on 12/20/2007, Dkt. 90, after the statute of limitation
had run on all claims in the 2219 complaint, on ex parte motion by the 2219 plaintiffs,
vacated, set aside, reversed, vitiated, and annulled all aspects of the proceedings,
annulled all prior orders and judgments, rendered the 2219 proceedings moot, and
terminated the Court jurisdiction over the Criminal Usury Subject Matter.32

the Court’s Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) jurisdiction over the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and
GX 5. If the Court is not inclined to grant permission to clarify Dkt. 151 and permission to file the Rule
60(b)(4) application, Petitioner respectfully requests the District Court to enter an order on the docket
that denies the requested relief that enables meaningful appellate review—that is, with findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and citations to the records regarding all factual findings.

32
United States v. L-3 Comm’cs EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d 11, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2019). (Kearse, Katzmann, and
Pooler) (“it is hornbook law that "a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) leaves the
situation as if the action never had been filed," Wright & Miller § 2367, at 559 (emphasis added); see, e.g.,
8 Moore's Federal Practice § 41.34[6][d] (2018) (stipulation for dismissal "without prejudice terminates
the action as if it were never filed" (emphasis added)). This long-established principle has been
recognized by this Circuit and most others. See, e.g., A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 502 (2d Cir.
1952) ("voluntary dismissal of a suit leaves the situation so far as procedures therein are concerned the
same as though the suit had never been brought"), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 878, 73 S.Ct. 169, 97 L.Ed. 680
(1952); Bomer v. Ribicof, 304 F.2d 427, 428 (6th Cir. 1962) (dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves
the situation the same as if the suit had never been brought); In re Piper Aircraft Distribution System
Antitrust Litigation, 551 F.2d 213, 219 (8th Cir. 1977) (same); Beck v. Caterpillar, Inc., 50 F.3d 405, 407
(7th Cir. 1995) (same); EEOC v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003) (same); In re
Matthews, 395 F.3d 477, 480 (4th Cir. 2005) (same); Harvey Specialty & Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline
Equipment, Inc., 434 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); City of South Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d

Page 72 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 2. Accordingly, applying Second Circuit binding precedent and reasoning in L-3 Comm’cs, Id.
at 18-19, the law, to the fact of the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s legal and preclusive effect,
as of 12/20/2007 the 2219 proceedings went moot; and all prior orders, proceedings, and
judgments therein were vitiated and annulled.33
3. The Court in L-3 Comm’cs, Id. observed that the law is not in doubt or debate regarding
the legal effect of the 12/20/2007, Dkt. 90, “voluntary [Rule 41(a)(2)] dismissal,” noting
that “it is hornbook law” that all prior orders, proceedings, and judgments entered in
2219 have been annulled, and vitiated, and the 2219 court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter “as if the [2219 lawsuit] had never been filed.”

Rule 60(b)(4) re Lack of Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction
over the Criminal Usury Subject Matter, GX 1-4, and GX 5, and Dkt. 50 (GX 7), 54, 58 (GX 11),
65 (GX 24), 80, 102, 120, 137, 141, and 151.

(I) The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s legal standard for Rule 60(b)(4) relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4) authorizes a federal court to vacate a judgment where (i) the
entering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, or (ii) the court violated due process of law in
entering its judgment.

A judgment is void if it is "so affected by a fundamental infirmity [the exercise of Article

III jurisdiction over the Criminal Usury Subject Matter—the lack of an Article III justiciable

1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (same; "any future lawsuit based on the same claim [is] an entirely new lawsuit"
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Sandstrom v. ChemLawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1990) (same;
"the page is once again pristine").

33
See A.B. Dick, 197 F.2d 501-02 (“And this action of the court—granting the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss
the lawsuit [cf., Dkt. 90 in 2219, the Rule 41 Final Judgment], was the equivalent of vacation of the
judgment theretofore entered [see 02cv2219 orders and judgments that were vacated—that is, Dkt. 50
and Dkt. 54 (GX 7), Dkt. 58 (GX 11), Dkt. 65 (GX 24), Dkt. 80] and the subsequent, Dkt. 102, Dkt. 120, Dkt.
137, Dkt. 141, and Dkt. 151], (the “Moot Orders”)], in the case [02cv2219] in the plaintiff's favor, so that,
perhaps, the [2219] court would have been well advised to have entered on its own motion an order
vacating that judgment. See Ericson v. Slomer, 7 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 437, 439. The reason for this is that
voluntary dismissal of [the 2219 lawsuit] suit leaves the situation so far as procedures therein are
concerned the same as though the suit had never been brought, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Latham, 5
Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 312, 313, thus vitiating and annulling all prior proceedings and orders in the case, and
terminating jurisdiction over it for the reason that the case has become moot. Bryan v. Smith, 7 Cir.,
1949, 174 F.2d 212, 214, 215.” (emphasis added).

Page 73 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
controversy] that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final." United
Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010). Accordingly, for purposes
of Rule 60(b)(4), "jurisdiction" refers to the court's adjudicatory authority. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 160-61 (2010); see also Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir.
1985); 12 Moore's Federal Practice § 60.44[2][a] (2019).

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction precedents all hold that the federal courts’
authority—the “power to declare the law,” is the “threshold matter” that every federal court is
required to “sua sponte” determine for itself, even in not noticed by the parties, “prior to”
addressing the merits of the claims, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,
89, 93-95 (1998) (“subject-matter jurisdiction” refers to “the courts' statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case” (emphasis in original)); Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274 (1994) (“[J]urisdictional statutes ‘speak to the power of the court
rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties' ” (quoting Republic Nat. Bank of Miami v.
United States, 506 U.S. 80, 100 (1992) (THOMAS, J., concurring))).”).

In fact, for all intents and purposes, a motion to vacate a default judgment as void `may
be brought at any time.'" Beller Keller v. Tyler 120 F.3d 21, 24 (2d Cir. 1997), (quoting 12 James
Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.44[5][c] (3d ed. 2003)). McLearn v. Cowen
Co., 660 F.2d 845, 848 (2d Cir. 1981); Crosby v. The Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir.
1963) (judgment vacated as void thirty (30) years after entry).

Conclusion.

Judge McMahon, Petitioner, the Prevailing Party to the Rule 41 Final Judgment, has but
one legitimate purpose in this litigation—that is, to vindicate his legal rights vis-à-vis Judge Sand’s
12/20/2007 Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal of the 2219 lawsuit, after the statute of limitation
had run on all claims in the 2219 lawsuit, which Second Circuit precedents, L-3 Comm’cs, Id. and
A.B. Dick, Id., support the good faith legal basis for Petitioner’s requested relief apropos this
Letter Brief and the prior filings made in 2219.

If the Court would take a few moments of its busy schedule to address and clarify the
issues raised herein, the parties in interest—Petitioner, the 2219 plaintiffs, and the United States
(GX 1-4, and GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24), the appellate Courts will have a perfected record to enable

Page 74 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
meaningful appellate review, if necessary, without delays of a remand to the District Court
required by an incomplete record.34

Accordingly, respectfully, Petitioner requests:

(1) that the District Court stay Dkt. 137 (show cause order) and Dkt. 151 (Order) pending a written
response from the United States Attorney (SDNY) and the 2219 plaintiffs—the alleged Article III
adverse party-plaintiffs, regarding their positions on the mootness (“concrete adverseness”), and
(“concrete injury in facts”) apropos the 2219 proceedings, orders, and judgments per Second
Circuit binding authority,35 and/or

(2) sua sponte vacate all proceedings, orders, and judgments entered in 2219, nunc pro tunc,
March 20, 2002, the filing date of the 2219 complaint per Second Circuit binding authority L-3
Comm’cs, Id. at 18-19; A.B. Dick, Id. at 501-02; and Adar Bays LLC v. GeneSys ID, Inc., 28 F.4d
379 (2d Cir. 2022); the entry of the Rule 41 Final Judgment, Dkt. 90 (December 20, 2007), and
FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each 2219 plaintiff
on February 2, 2001 (the formation of the Criminal Usury Subject Matter), March 20, 2002 (the
filing date of the 2219 complaint), and May 19, 2019, (the entry of Dkt. 120); and/or

(3) pursuant to the DOJ’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3 (a), (b), and (c), Duty of Candor
to the Tribunal, order Andre Damian Williams, Jr., the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), to file a Declaration
into the Court regarding the matters raised herein this Letter Brief, in Dkt. 145, and in Dkt. 148.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

34
Petitioner is unaware of any filing(s) made by the adverse party-plaintiffs (the 2219 plaintiffs and the
United States) in regard to Petitioner’s Rule 12(h)(3) motion, Dkt. 144 (Notice of Rule 12(h)(3) motion),
and Dkt. 145 (Rule 12(h)(3) motion). Petitioner is respectfully requesting that the District Court direct
Petitioner to the adverse party-plaintiffs’ filings in opposition to the Rule 12(h)(3) motion, Dkt. 145.

35
See Adar Bays LLC v. GeneSys ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022); L-3 Comm’cs, Id., and A.B. Dick, Id.

Page 75 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ulysses T. Ware and Group Management served the individuals listed below via email
with a copy of this Letter Brief on December 26, 2022.

cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

Office of the Director of the FBI
Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Judicial Congress of the United
States
Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY)
Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY), Laura Taylor-Swain, personally.
District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY), personally
Office of the U.S. Attorney General
Office of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge (NDGA), Wendy L. Hagenau, personally
The State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel
Office of the United States Attorney (EDNY)
U.S. Bureau of Prisons (Warden, MDC, Brooklyn, NY)
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
J. Henry Walker, IV (representative of the 02cv2219 plaintiffs)
John W. Mills, III
Edward T. M. Garland for Garland, Samuel, & Loeb, P.C., and Michael F. Bachner, Esq.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
The Conviction Integrity Committee of the Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY).
Daniel Gitner, and Margaret M. Garnett, personally
Andre Damian Williams, Jr, personally
Colleen McMahon, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Debra Ann Livingston, personally via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Office of the Solicitor General of the United States (via U.S. mail).
Law Office of Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq. (via U.S. mail)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Page 76 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Supplemental
Appendices
#1.0

Page 77 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 1—U.S. Marshals’ note given to Ulysses T. Ware on Sept. 12, 2024, in Brooklyn,
NY at 10:17 AM, during the unlawful, armed, forced entry into Mr. Ware’s residence while
the Marshals lacked a lawful search warrant, arrest warrant, or lawful legal process; aided,
abetted, assisted, enabled, and facilitated by the property manager.

Page 78 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
A. Overt Act-- Sept. 12, 2024, 10:17 AM, Brooklyn, NY alleged U.S. Marshals (SDNY) Plummer,
Morton, and Belriz outside of Mr. Ware’s residence regarding a fraudulent referral by former
(SDNY) magistrate Judge Michel H. Dolinger and Colleen McMahon regarding a lawful Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1-4) Prefiling Investigation concerning imminent RICO and 18 USC
1961(6)(B) unlawful, armed debt collection activities, related to U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY),04cr1224, and 02cv2219 (SDNY); and In re Group Management Corp.., 03-93031 (BC
NDGA), to wit: GX 1, GX 2, GX, 3, and GX 4—the NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, criminal
usury unlawful debts.

Page 79 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
A-1a—Overt Act--U.S. Marshals’ Hobbs Act Vindictive Jim Crow Hate Crime Conspiracy
murder for hire order (02cv2219)(SDNY), Sand, J. authorized the U.S. Marshals (SDNY) in
knowing violation of 18 USC §§ 2, 371, 241, 242, 924(c), 1201-02, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,
1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d) to use deadly force to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts, GX
1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4, cf., McMahon’s ultra vires, moot, manifestly bogus, and fraudulent
order, Dkt. 120 (02cv2219 (SDNY), see Ex. 1, supra.

Page 80 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
A-1b (con’t)—02cv2219 (SDNY), Sand, J. (deceased).

Page 81 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
B.--Overt Act--Sept. 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA armed, forced, unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s law
office—Hobbs Act conspiracy to collect the criminal usury unlawful debts, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3,
and GX 4—government trial exhibits in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), and plaintiffs’ exhibits
in 02cv2219 (SDNY), and in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11.

Page 82 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
C.—Overt Act--Actual innocent dispositive Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence
deliberately, intentionally, and in bad faith suppressed and currently being concealed by U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr., AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D.
Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, David N.
Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Robert W. Sweet, (deceased), Colleen McMahon, Leonard B. Sand,
(deceased), William H. Pauley, III (deceased), Robert A. Katzmann (deceased), Jose A. Cabranes,
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Talor-Swain, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Damian Williams, Daniel
Gitner, Won Shin, Andrea Griswold, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Jun Xiang, Michael H.
Dolinger, and other Unindicted Coconspirators.

Page 83 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
D.—Overt Act--September 1, 2004 (Atlanta, GA) and September 12, 2024
(Brooklyn, NY) Armed, Forced, and Unlawful Entries and Kidnappings of Mr.
Ware—A Systematic Pattern of Violent Racially-Motivated Jim Crow Hobbs Act
Coercion.

The September 1, 2004, armed entry into Mr. Ulysses T. Ware’s law office in Atlanta, GA,

by four heavily armed white men impersonating U.S. Marshals is an extreme manifestation of

the criminal enterprise’s reliance on racial violence, coercion, and intimidation to further its

objectives. This incident was designed to forcibly collect unlawful debts arising from criminal

usury transactions tied to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) case. The perpetrators, operating under the

direction of the Putative Defendants and their Unindicted Coconspirators, committed a racially

motivated, violent crime with the clear intent to obstruct justice, extort financial assets, and

intimidate Mr. Ware into abandoning his legal and constitutional rights.

The September 12, 2024, unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s Brooklyn residence by

individuals posing as U.S. Marshals (Morton, Plummer, and Belviz), was a continuation of the

same criminal enterprise’s pattern of racial intimidation and violence. This time, the intent was to

terrorize Mr. Ware into surrendering his ongoing legal challenges and obstruct his access to justice.

This racially motivated act also sought to violate Mr. Ware’s Fourth Amendment rights while

instilling psychological trauma through fear, intimidation, and threats of further violence. These

incidents collectively represent the criminal enterprise’s strategy of using racially motivated,

violent tactics to enforce unlawful financial schemes and silence opposition.

Page 84 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
E.—Overt Acts’--Detailed Damages Calculations for the
Atlanta, GA September 1, 2004, and Brooklyn, NY
September 12, 2024, Hobbs Act Armed, Forced, Unlawful,
Vindictive, and Retaliatory Racially-motivated Jim Crow
Hate Crime Conspiracy Crimes:
1. Destruction to Property:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

The damage to Mr. Ware’s law office during the September 1, 2004, forced entry totaled
$750,000. This includes damage to physical property, legal files, and electronic
equipment necessary for running his legal practice.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The September 12, 2024, unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s residence caused physical
damage to his home, security system, and other personal property. The valuation of this
destruction is $3.5 million.

Total Destruction to Property: $4.25 million

2. Psychological Trauma:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

Mr. Ware endured severe psychological trauma from the armed entry, which included
being threatened with murder, handcuffed, and kidnapped by men posing as U.S.
Marshals. The racial animus underlying the attack exacerbated the psychological toll,
leading to long-term PTSD, anxiety, and emotional distress. The psychological trauma
from this incident is valued at $15 million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The 2024 unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s residence was similarly racially motivated and
designed to induce extreme psychological distress. The impersonation of law

Page 85 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 enforcement, armed threats, and intimidation tactics have had lasting effects on Mr.
Ware’s mental health, which are valued at $10 million.

Total Psychological Trauma: $25 million

3. Fourth Amendment Violations:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

The September 1, 2004, incident involved an egregious violation of Mr. Ware’s Fourth
Amendment rights, including the illegal forced entry into his law office, unlawful seizure,
and detention without due process. This flagrant abuse of his civil rights is valued at $10
million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The September 12, 2024, unlawful entry into Mr. Ware’s residence, carried out by
impersonators of U.S. Marshals, constituted another blatant Fourth Amendment violation.
The forced entry into his private home, without any lawful basis, caused severe civil
rights damage, valued at $4.5 million.

Total Fourth Amendment Violations: $14.5 million

4. Obstruction of Justice:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

The armed kidnapping and threats were clear attempts to obstruct Mr. Ware’s legal
actions, particularly his challenges to the criminal usury debts tied to the 02cv2219 case.
The obstruction of justice in this incident is valued at $10 million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The September 12, 2024, entry was also designed to obstruct justice by terrorizing Mr.
Ware into abandoning his legal battles. The enterprise aimed to prevent him from
pursuing legitimate legal claims, further obstructing his right to a fair process. This
obstruction of justice is valued at $5 million.

Page 86 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Total Obstruction of Justice: $15 million

5. Intimidation and Threats:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

Mr. Ware was subjected to armed threats, racial slurs, and violent intimidation during the
2004 kidnapping. The specific threat to his life was calculated to coerce him into giving
up valuable assets and legal positions. The value of these intimidation tactics is $7
million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The 2024 unlawful entry also involved armed threats and intimidation. The psychological
impact of this racially motivated attack, designed to instill fear and silence Mr. Ware, is
valued at $3 million.

Total Intimidation and Threats: $10 million

6. Compensatory Damages for Lost Business Opportunities:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

As a result of the kidnapping and subsequent interference with his legal practice, Mr.
Ware lost significant business opportunities. Clients and potential contracts were
disrupted by the criminal enterprise’s actions, causing substantial financial losses. The
compensatory damages for lost business opportunities are valued at $50 million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
The ongoing intimidation, coupled with the 2024 unlawful entry, caused further
disruption to Mr. Ware’s business operations. The fear instilled by these acts and the
ongoing interference with his legal work have resulted in significant financial harm,
valued at $10 million.

Total Compensatory Damages: $60 million

Page 87 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
7. Punitive Damages:

• 2004 Incident (Atlanta, GA):

The brazen nature of the armed robbery, impersonation of federal officers, and racially
motivated kidnapping requires significant punitive damages to deter future misconduct.
The punitive damages for this incident are valued at $60 million.
• 2024 Incident (Brooklyn, NY):
Similarly, the 2024 racially motivated intimidation and impersonation of U.S. Marshals
warrant substantial punitive damages. The calculation for punitive damages in this
instance is $30 million.

Total Punitive Damages: $90 million

F. Final Calculations:

1. Destruction to Property:

o Total: $4.25 million

2. Psychological Trauma:

o Total: $25 million

3. Fourth Amendment Violations:

o Total: $14.5 million

4. Obstruction of Justice:

o Total: $15 million

5. Intimidation and Threats:

o Total: $10 million

6. Compensatory Damages for Lost Business Opportunities:

Page 88 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 o Total: $60 million

7. Punitive Damages:

o Total: $90 million

Grand Total Damages: $225 million USD (Joint and Several Liability)

G. RICO Joint and Several Liability: Holding the Unindicted Coconspirators

Accountable

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO), each of the Unindicted Coconspirators and Putative

Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the total $225 million in damages. This liability is

based on their direct and/or indirect aiding, abetting, and/or participation in the ongoing criminal

enterprise that has been engaged in a continuous pattern of racketeering activities, including

extortion, obstruction of justice, impersonation of federal officers, racial intimidation, and

financial crimes.

• Joint and several liability under RICO permits holding each member of the criminal

enterprise fully responsible for the totality of the damages caused by the group’s illegal

activities. In this case, the coordinated and concerted overt actions of Colleen

McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, Michael Bertisch, and other

Unindicted Coconspirators contributed to the harm suffered by Mr. Ware in both the 2004

and 2024 incidents.

• Each member of the enterprise is liable for the full extent of the harm, even if their

individual participation in a specific incident was indirect. RICO’s broad reach ensures that

Page 89 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 all participants in the enterprise, regardless of their direct involvement in a specific act,

are held accountable for the cumulative damage caused by the group’s continuous illegal

activities.

This $225 million award reflects not only the economic and non-economic losses suffered

by Mr. Ware but also the need for significant punitive damages to deter the enterprise from

continuing its violent and racially motivated acts of intimidation and obstruction of justice.

Respectfully Submitted by:

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260

Ulysses T. Ware

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, attorney in fact for the putative plaintiffs.

September 17, 2024

Page 90 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 2—Overt Acts--McMahon’s, Sica’s, Tailwind’s, Ramos, Taylor-Swain,
DeArcy-Hall, Livingston, Cabranes, Kearse, Sack’s, Gitner’s, and Hagenau’s coordinated
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and obstruct justice regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY),
03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)—the Hobbs Act
Unlawful Debt Collection Proceedings, to wit: 18 USC §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1201-
02, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and
2071(a), (b), a pattern of racketeering activities—conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud,
conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to collect criminal usury unlawful debts, and
racketeering conspiracy to enable the investment of money laundering and criminal usury
profits and proceeds.

Page 91 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 2-1—Overt Act-- (con’t)—Money laundering vehicle formed from the Hobbs Act
money laundering and criminal usury unlawful debt collection activities profits and proceeds
fraudulently obtained by Unindicted Coconspirators Arie Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services,
Alpha Capital, AG, et al.

Page 92 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Appendix 2-2—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiff—that is, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment
evidence in the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) extrajudicial and moot criminal proceeding,
suppressed and concealed by Unindicted Coconspirators Southwell, Kelley, Zitter, KTS, Meir,
Mills, Walker, Garland, Samuel, Arora, Singer, Bachner, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services,
Sweet, Katzmann, Hall, Barbara S. Jones, Garcia, Dolinger, Bharara, Damian Williams, Gitner,
Won Shin, Jun Xiang, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Melissa Childs, McMahon, Goldin,
Douvas, Polk-Failla, Garnett, Ramos, Cabranes, Sack, Kearse, Livingston, Taylor-Swain, DeArcy-
Hall, Hagenau, and other Unindicted Coconspirators.

Page 93 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Exhibits—
RICO Overt
Acts: A
pattern of
racketeering
activities.

Page 94 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1—(RICO Overt Act #1) FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer
certification for each KTS’ clients, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs and fraudulent
creditors in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11—that
is, actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) extrajudicial and moot criminal proceeding, suppressed and concealed
by Unindicted Coconspirators Southwell, Kelley, Zitter, KTS, Meir, Mills, Walker,
Garland, Samuel, Arora, Singer, Bachner, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Sweet,
Katzmann, Hall, Barbara S. Jones, Garcia, Dolinger, Bharara, Damian Williams, Gitner,
Won Shin, Jun Xiang, Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, Melissa Childs, McMahon,
Goldin, Douvas, Polk-Failla, Garnett, Ramos, Cabranes, Sack, Kearse, Livingston, Taylor-
Swain, DeArcy-Hall, Hagenau, and other Unindicted Coconspirators.

Page 95 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2—(RICO Overt Act #2) McMahon’s, Sica’s, Tailwind’s, Ramos, Taylor-Swain,
DeArcy-Hall, Livingston, Cabranes, Kearse, Sack’s, Gitner’s, and Hagenau’s coordinated
conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and obstruct justice regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY),
03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY)—the Hobbs Act
Unlawful Debt Collection Proceedings, to wit: 18 USC §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c), 1201-
02, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and
2071(a), (b), a pattern of racketeering activities.

Page 96 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3—(RICO Overt Act #3)—“a pattern of racketeering activities” Atlanta, GA
bankruptcy court’s employees willful resistance to the Court Orders.

Page 97 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3-1--(RICO Overt Act #4)

Page 98 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3-2--(RICO Overt Act #5)

Page 99 of 165
Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3-3--(RICO Overt Act #6)

Page 100 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3-4--(RICO Overt Act #7)

Page 101 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3-5--(RICO Overt Act #8)

Page 102 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit

Page 103 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Supplemental
Appendices
#2.0—RICO
Overt Acts

Page 104 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Case NO. 07-5222cr (L) and 07-5670 (XAP)(02)
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
_____
Filed on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, 12:22:25 PM

United States of America,

Respondent-Cross Appellant36
v.
Ulysses T. Ware,
Appellant-Cross Respondent.
__________
Supplement #1.0 to May 6, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion: Appellant-Cross Appellee Ulysses T. Ware’s
Third Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1994) Fraud on the Court
Inquiry Directed to Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse and Robert D. Sack regarding: (1) the 07-
5222(L) August 18, 2009, Mandate Pursuant to Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc. 37, (2)
the Government’s Duty of Candor to the Court regarding Jeremy Jones its “Principal Witness”
in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY); (3) the Chain of Custody of the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule

36
The Government, see Ex. 1C, infra, via the U.S. Attorney General notified the Court that it had on Nov.
7, 2008, pursuant to Article II, 18 USC 3742, and Rule 42(b) invoked its prosecutorial authority, made an
Article II appellate political decision, abandoned, terminated, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice
its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670 (XAP), Gov-I, cross-appeal. That is, a post-trial actual innocent Article II
affirmative defense which acquitted Ulysses T. Ware of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) which
rendered the 05cr1115 proceedings as a matter of law and fact moot subject to the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s absolute finality.

37
75 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Our power to recall a mandate is unquestioned. See generally 16 Charles
A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper & Eugene Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3938
(1977). The power “apparently originated in the inherent power of all federal courts to set aside any
judgment during the term of court at which it was entered.” Id. at 276. It “exists as part of the court's
power to protect the integrity of its own processes,” Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
Cir.1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on district courts by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Amendments
to the federal judicial code in 1948 extended this power beyond the current term of court, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 452, and we thus have the power to reopen a case at any time [to correct a fundamental miscarriage
of justice, i.e., egregious prosecutorial misconduct, the civil and criminal contempt of the May 19, 2006,
Brady court order, Pauley, J., see Ex. 1A, 1B, infra]. Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50,
53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 826, 106 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed.2d 70 (1985); Patterson v. Crabb, 904 F.2d
1179, 1180 (7th Cir.1990).”) (emphasis added).

Page 105 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
11 Proceedings regarding Jeremy Jones; and (4) the Government’s Civil and Criminal Contempt
of the District Court’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order (Pauley, J.) (deceased).

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Enclosures:

• Supporting Exhibits and Legal Authorities

For immediate delivery to the Offices

of: Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse and
Robert D. Sack, time is of the essence.

Page 106 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
A Third Inquiry to Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Offices of the Circuit Judges

The Hon. Amalya L. Kearse and Robert D. Sack
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Re: U.S. v. Ware, No. 07-5222cr (L) Pursuant to Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.,
Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, and Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944).

Dear Circuit Judges Kearse and Sack:

I, Ulysses T. Ware, the defendant in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) and the appellant-cross-
appellee in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (L)/075670cr (XAP) (2d Cir.) hereby this 7th day of May 2024,
under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant
to 28 USC 1746, in Brooklyn, NY makes this declaration of material facts in support of the Court
of Appeals and the District Court (SDNY) conducting a fraud on the court inquest regarding
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon,38 Ruby Krajick, John M. McEnany, Wendy
L. Hagenau, Damian Williams, and the individual named in section ten (10) below.

I. The alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings regarding the

government’s “principal witness” in 1115 a person claimed to be Jeremy
Jones.

38
See Ex. D, infra, May 1, 2024, In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.) complaint of criminal
judicial misconduct regarding her and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica’s, personal and business
ownership in +$22 million in NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, 18
USC 1961(6)(B) RICO criminal usury unlawful convertible promissory debt notes and other unregistered
securities while not registered with FINRA, the SEC, and NYS as lawful broker-dealers, and investment
advisers.

Page 107 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Mr. Ware writes to the court as the defendant in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (1115)

and the appellant in U.S. v. Ware, 07-5222cr (2d Cir.) (5222) reported at U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d

442 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.), (Ware-I).

Page 108 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Ulysses T. Ware’s May 7, 2024, Declaration of Undisputed Material Facts.

First, it has come to my attention via an intensive 36 months investigation by private

investigators and other resources that (1) allegedly on or about Sept. 22, 2006, a person whom

this court has characterized as “the government’s principal witness”39 in 1115 a person claimed

to be “Jeremy Jones” (see Ex. 3G, Ware-I, 577 F.3d at 445) purportedly entered into a lawful and

valid with the nonconflicted, competent, and effective assistance of Sixth Amendment CJA legal

counsel, Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., a Rule 11 plea contract of guilty to the 1115 superseding

indictment (S1), and (2) the person claimed to be Jeremy Jones also on Sept. 22, 2006,

purportedly, there is no official record of the act, also entered into a USSG 5k1.1 substantial

cooperation contract with the government, jointly, (the “Perjury Contracts”), judicial court

records protected by 18 USC 2071(a), (b). See Ex. 2A-2D, infra.

Second, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware traveled to the District Court (SDNY) records

department located in the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Peart St., 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10007. Mr.

Ware then checked out and was granted access to what was represented as “the complete [1115]

case file” then in the possession of the custodian of records David Ng.

Third, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware conducted a complete, thorough, and comprehensive

review of the 1115 docket then on file with the District Court (SDNY) custodian of records, and

Mr. Ware also purchased a certified copy of the alleged complete, true and correct 1115

docket.40

39
See Ex. 3G, infra.

40
The June 5, 2023, certified 1115 docket has no reference of the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule
11 proceeding, or any record of the Perjury Contracts, and other judicial court records associated with

Page 109 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Fourth, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware while reviewing the 1115 case file noticed that (i) the

alleged Sept. 22, 2006, purported Rule 11 proceeding that allegedly involved a person claimed

to be “Jeremy Jones” was not noted on the official 1115 docket, (cf., Ex. 2A-2D, infra) and (ii) the

required written judicial court records, (a) the Rule 11 plea contract and (b) the USSG 5k1.1

cooperation contracts, (the Perjury Contracts or the alleged “5k letter”) were not located in the

alleged “complete [1115] case file” which was a cause for alarm, cf., Ex. 2D, infra.

Fifth, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware after noticing the 1115 alleged official docket and the

alleged “complete [1115] case file” had no record of the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11

proceedings or the Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts Mr. Ware requested to speak with the

supervisor, David Ng, of the District Court (SDNY) records department, (the “Custodian of

Records”).

Sixth, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware was granted access to Mr. Ng, the Custodian of Records,

and inquired to him regarding the location and chain of custody of the alleged Jeremy Jones’

Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 plea and USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contracts, the Perjury Contracts. Cf., Ex.

2A-2D, infra, judicial court records subject to 18 USC 2071(a), (b).

Seventh, on June 5, 2023, Mr. Ng responded as follows to Mr. Ware’s inquiry regarding

the location and chain of custody of the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Perjury Contracts, judicial court

records subject to 18 USC 2071(a), (b)41 and actual innocent Brady exculpatory and

Jeremy Jones, or other government agents (Lenard A. Churn, Barry G. Corker, Vanessa G. Beckett, Bridgett
R. Hallman, Elrico Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, Myron Williams, Carlton Epps, and others) who entered into
secret off the books unlawful cooperation and non-prosecute agreements with the government in
exchange for bribes and other illegal gratuities.
41
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or
attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book,

Page 110 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
impeachment evidence required to have been disclosed and produced to Mr. Ware by the

government “prior to trial” as ordered by the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order (Pauley,

J. (deceased), see Ex. 1A and 1B, infra:

“That is everything that we have in the file … if it is not in the file then we don’t have it
… we don’t have the Rule 11 plea or cooperation agreement … they are not in the file …
if we had then I would give them to you but we don’t have them, you will have to get
them from the judge [Ramos] he has them in his Chambers or get them from the
government [Damian Williams, et al.] … we don’t have them and I cannot give them to
you, you will have to contact the judge or the government to get them … they should be
in the file I don’t understand why they are not … but we don’t have them …..” (emphasis
added).

Eighth, before and again since June 5, 2023, Mr. Ware has made numerous requests to

the District Court (Ramos, J.) (see Ex. C1 and C2, infra), the government via U.S. Attorney (SDNY)

Damian Williams (see Ex. C3, infra) and the USAG Merrick B. Garland to disclose and produce the

alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts and all related judicial court records

(including all ex parte pleadings, sentencing memorandums, sentencing transcripts, ex parte

proceedings transcripts, sealing orders, etc.), and Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and Rule 16 evidence

associated with the government’s principal witness “Jeremy Jones” and other witnesses,

paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United
States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other
thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and [Edgardo Ramos and
Damian Williams] shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United
States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a
retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Page 111 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
proceedings,42 or persons having information favorable to Mr. Ware43—that is, actual innocent

Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence subject to the May 19, 2006, 1115 Brady court

order, and subject to enforcement via civil and 18 USC 401(2), 401(3) criminal contempt, and

other remedies and sanctions.44

Ninth, as of today May 7, 2024, the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams,

and the 1115 district court (Ramos, J.) both acting in concert and in willful and bad faith criminal

resistance to the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order, (Pauley, J.), see Ex. 1A, 1B, infra, both

42
See In re Group Management Corp. (GPMT), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), Chapter 11 proceedings of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) defendant GPMT attempts to disgorge 18 USC 1961(6)(B) criminal usury unlawful debt
collection profits and proceeds (+$500,000,000); cf., 02cv2219 (SDNY) (McMahon, J.) conspiracy to enable
the continuation of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers, to violate 18 USC
1961(6)(B), and 18 USC 2, 156-57, 371, 880, 924(c), 1431, 1343, 1344, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B),
and 1962(a-d); cf., In re District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon, case no. 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.)
complaint of criminal judicial misconduct regarding her undisclosed and concealed actual ownership of
+$22 million of RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) and NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class
E felony, criminal usury convertible promissory notes, and +$100 million unregistered securities, see
02cv2219 (SDNY) Dkt. 139, 139-1, and 139-2—McMahon and her alleged spouse Frank V. Sica are
unregistered broker-dealers, dealing and transacting in RICO loan sharking debts, money laundering, and
trafficking in and the collection of predatory loan sharking debts in violation of 18 USC 1961(6)(B).

43
See Ex. 3A-3D, the DOJ’s EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907, FOIA responses which confessed and admitted
the USAO (SDNY) had never searched for, disclosed, or produced to Mr. Ware “all” Brady evidence as
ordered by the May 19, 2006, Brady court orders, Ex. 1A, 1B, ipso facto an admission of civil and criminal
contempt of the 1115 Brady court order.

44
However, Ramos, J., subject to the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and Andre Damian Williams,
officers of the court, subject to the DOJ’s and the District Court’s (SDNY) Rules on Lawyer Professional
Conduct and Ethics, respectively, both have denied all attempts to gain access to the Brady actual innocent
exculpatory and impeachment evidence, see (1) In re Edgardo Ramos, 02-22-90049jm (2d Cir.), complaint
of criminal judicial misconduct fraudulent and frivolously summarily denied by acting chief circuit judge
Jose A. Cabranes, and also see (2) Ramos, J. Dec. 12, 2022, Dkt. 126, and Dkt. 314 summary denial of Mr.
Ware’s Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, and Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY) actual innocent 2241 habeas
corpus petition while Ramos, J. and Damian Williams, officers of the court, had actual and/or constructive
possession of the Jeremy Jones’ Perjury Contracts and other actual innocent exculpatory and
impeachment evidence subject to the May 19, 2006, Brady court order.

Page 112 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
have colluded, conspired, and acted in concert as officers of the court, and both have refused

Mr. Ware all access to the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Perjury Contracts and related judicial court

records associated with the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones—that is, (i) ipso facto

civil and criminal contempt of the May 19, 2006, Brady court order, (Pauley, J.), see Ex. 1A, 1B,

infra, and (ii) a fraud on this court and the district court (SDNY).45

Tenth, as of today May 7, 2024, Damian Williams (see Ex. 3A-3D, infra), Andrea Griswold,

Won Shin, Hagan Scotten, Danielle Sassoon, Melissa Childs, Daniel Gitner, Jun Xiang, Breon

Peace, Nina Gupta, Merrick B. Garland, Margaret M. Garnett, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D.

Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas (see Ex. 4A1-A5, infra), Andrew L. Fish, Michael J.

Garcia, Preet Bharara, Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt,

Janice Singer, Gary G. Becker, Marlon G. Kirton, Laura Taylor-Swain, Baker & McKenzie, LLP,

Thomas A. Leghorn, Lawrence B. Mandala, M. Regina Thomas, Patricia Sinback, Kilpatrick,

Townsend, Stockton, LLP, Mason P. Ashe, Michael A. Battle, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Wendy L.

Hagenau, the State Bar of Georgia, Office of the General Counsel employees and agents, Kent J.

Dawson, Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C. Barasch, Joan McKown, Steve R. Peikin, David Makol, Maria

45
The record before this court is crystal clear and convincing, District Judges (SDNY) Edgardo Ramos and
Laura Taylor-Swain, and LaShann DeArcy-Hall (EDNY) have knowingly, in bad faith, and in violation of
federal law have conspired, colluded, acted in concert, coordinated, and assisted, aided, abetted,
enabled, and facilitated the government’s (USAO-SDNY and EDNY) prosecutors to violated the May 19,
2006, Brady court order’s written commands and directives to the government with respect to the
disclosure and production of the concealed and suppressed actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence currently in the actual and/or constructive possession of Damian Williams and
District Judge Edgardo Ramos and by extension Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain, see Ex. 3A-3D,
infra (the DOJ’s EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 FOIA responses). Indisputable violations of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges Canons 1, 2, 3, and 4, and federal criminal laws.

Page 113 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
A. Font, Ruby Krajick, Colleen McMahon, Edgardo Ramos, and Michael F. Bachner have

collectively, jointly, and individually aided, abetted, assisted, enabled, and facilitated the civil and

willful criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), resistance to and violation of, the May 19, 2006,

Dkt. 17, Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra, and the August 18, 2009, Gov-I final judgment, Ex.

1D, infra.

Eleventh, the 1115 record, Dkt. 288, shows that in July 2021, Chief District Judge (SDNY)

Laura Taylor-Swain personally assigned U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) to District Judge Edgardo

Ramos46, and therefore, as of July 2021, Judge Ramos had and currently has actual and/or

constructive possession and knowledge of the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1

Perjury Contracts, actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence in the 1115 case file that had not

then been docketed—that is, the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11/USSG5k1.1 Perjury Contracts

and related judicial court records.

Twelfth, the record before the district court and this court are clear, convincing, and

without dispute or opposition by the government. The U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Damian Williams,

and his surrogates all have breached and violated the District Court (SDNY) and DOJ’s Rules of

Professional Conduct and Ethics Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 8.4, and duty of complete candor the court—

that is, all have knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith committed a fraud on the court, by (1) failing

to notify and inform the court completely regarding the alleged discrepancies concerning the

Sept. 22, 2006, affair regarding the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones; (2) Damian

46
Dkt. 288 (1115) shows that Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain personally assigned the 1115
case file, its contents, and related proceedings to District Judge Edgardo Ramos after the July 2021
untimely death of former District Judge William H. Pauley, III.

Page 114 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Williams, et al., DOJ prosecutors, officers of the court, have failed to rectify, supplement, and

correct the record, and (3) all have failed to disclose and product to Mr. Ware and inform the

courts regarding the Sept. 22, 2006, Perjury Contracts, all related judicial court records, and

disclose and produce all Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and Rule 16 materials as ordered by the May

19, 2006, Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B.

Thirteenth, finally, on June 5, 2023, the District Court (SDNY) Custodian of Records, David Ng,

confirmed there were no government expert trial witness testimony transcripts, government expert

reports, or government expert exhibits entered into the 1115 official record on the government’s trial

element of proof, (i) “artificial inflation” of the (ii) “prices” of INZS and SVSY’s stocks (iii) “caused by” (iv)

“press releases” in the 1115 trial record then in the possession of the District Court (SDNY)—that is, ipso

facto as a matter of law and fact an acquittal on the merits of Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. for insufficient

government evidence on all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).

Signed this 7th day of May 2024, under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal

knowledge of the facts, and pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

May 7, 2024,

Brooklyn, NY

Page 115 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
II. Discussion and analysis regarding the Government’s and District
Judges Ramos, Taylor-Swain, and DeArcy-Hall’s fraud on the court and
aiding, abetting, assisting, and enabling the civil and criminal contempt of
the May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Brady court order, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra—a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Legal Standard:

In Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the U.S. Supreme

Court defined fraud on the court as a deliberate and carefully executed scheme by officers of the

court (lawyers and judges) that corrupts the integrity of the judicial process itself—contaminated

the judicial machinery so that the judicial process was not able to function properly. Such

prosecutorial or judicial misconduct is not confined to isolated errors but extends to conduct that

severely undermines the proceedings' fairness.

1. Government's Non-Disclosure, Concealment, and Suppression of Brady Exculpatory and

Impeachment Evidence.

The government’s non-compliance, suppression, concealment, and resistance to the 1115

May 19, 2006 Brady court order’s written commands, Ex. 1A, 1B, infra, which required

comprehensive pre-trial disclosure of “all” exculpatory and impeachment evidence, constitutes

a fundamental constitutional due process violation of first-order magnitude. Specifically, the

USAO-SDNY and the district court (Pauley, J. and Ramos, J.) knowingly, in bad faith, and

maliciously withheld, suppressed, concealed, and covered up Jeremy Jones' alleged September

22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5K1.1 plea and cooperation agreements ("Perjury Contracts") and

related judicial records. The absence during trial of this crucial actual innocent Brady exculpatory

and impeachment evidence undermined defendant Ulysses T. Ware’s ability to impeach Jones’

Page 116 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
credibility properly and completely before the trial jury, as Jones served as the “government's

principal witness” (see Ex. 3G, infra) in the 1115 prosecution against Ware.

Moreover, the fabricated and fraudulent official court docket provided by the District

Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick (Ex. 2C, infra) shows no record of the alleged September 22, 2006,

proceedings. This egregious manipulation concealed the missing Perjury Contracts during the

1115 trial and subsequent appeals (07-5222cr), and further deprived Ware of evidence necessary

for his defense.

2. Judges' Failure to Enforce the Brady Order:

District Judges Ramos, Taylor-Swain, and DeArcy-Hall (EDNY) all played a crucial, critical,

material, and direct role in enabling and coordinating this miscarriage of justice by failing to

enforce Judge Pauley’s May 19, 2006, Dkt. 17, Ex. 1a, 1B, infra, Brady order. Despite repeated

requests for access to Jones' plea and cooperation agreements and related Brady materials (see

Ex. C1, C2, and C3, infra), these judges knowingly aided, abetted, and enabled the government's

ongoing suppression and concealment of the Perjury Contracts by not compelling the USAO-

SDNY to comply. They were ostensibly, actually and/or constructively aware47 of the

47
Which begs the question if there was any doubt or uncertainty as to the government’s full and complete
compliance with the Brady court order’s disclosure and production requirements: Why did the judges not
order the government to fulfill its duty of complete candor to the court and make a full report concerning
its Brady disclosure and production to Mr. Ware? For obvious reasons—the judges were aiding, abetting,
assisting, enabling, and coordinating the manipulating of: (i) the Ware v. USA, Garland, Ramos, Taylor-
Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 actual innocent habeas corpus proceedings, the (ii) In re Edgardo Ramos,
02-22-90049jm (2d Cir.) (Cabranes, J), complaint of criminal judicial misconduct, (iii) In re Group
Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), see Dkt. 256, 274, and 275 (Hagenau, C.J.), (iv) and 02cv2219
(SDNY) (McMahon, J.), see Dkt. 102, 120, 137, 141, and 151, to cover up the obvious criminal (18 USC 2,
156-57, 242, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, and 2071(a), (b)) Brady violations
by the government.

Page 117 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
government’s refusal to disclose the Perjury Contracts and the fraudulent docket manipulation

but did not take corrective actions.

3. Impact of the Judges’ and Prosecutors’ Fraud on the Court:

The deliberate and concerted actions by the government and district judges, as well as

the submission of perjured declarations (Ex. 4A1-4A5) by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria E. Douvas,

amount to a carefully orchestrated scheme to defraud this and the district court, ultimately

corrupting the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. The false and unsupported findings48 in

the Second Circuit opinion (U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 444-46 (2d Cir. 2009)) perfectly illustrate

how deeply this judicial and prosecutorial fraud affected the trial.

4. Legal Implications:

• Double Jeopardy Protection: The government’s failure to provide sufficient evidence at

trial and the subsequent Article II, actual innocent, affirmative defense acquittal on the

Gov-I cross-appeal (Ex. 1D) triggered the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause,

prohibiting further prosecution or inconsistent fact-finding on the same charges. This

finality was undermined by the government’s and District Judges’ Ramos, Taylor-Swain,

DeArcy-Hall, and McMahon’s intentional criminal judicial misconduct.

• Civil and Criminal Contempt: The government's intentional suppression and concealment

of the Perjury Contracts, compounded by Judges Ramos, McMahon, Hagenau, and Taylor-

48
On June 5, 2023, the District Court (SDNY) Custodian of Records, David Ng, confirmed there was no
government expert trial witness testimony, export reports, or export exhibits entered into the 1115
records on the government’s element of proof, (i) “artificial inflation” of the (ii) “prices” of INZS and
SVSY’s stocks (iii) “caused by” (iv) “press releases.”

Page 118 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Swain’s failure to act, constitutes civil and criminal contempt of the May 19, 2006, Brady

court order.

• Violation of Due Process: Ware was denied a fair trial in U.S. v .Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY)

due to the fraudulent concealment and suppression of crucial actual innocent Brady

exculpatory and impeachment evidence and judicial cooperation and complicity in this

misconduct.

5. Conclusion:

The deliberate actions of the USAO-SDNY, alongside the enabling by District Judges

Ramos, Taylor-Swain, Hagenau, McMahon, and DeArcy-Hall, represent a fundamental

miscarriage of justice. The government's manipulation of evidence and the proceedings, and the

judiciary's failure to enforce the May 19, 2006, Brady court order corrupted the entire judicial

process, warranting immediate remedial measures. Ware’s May 6, 2024, Rule 27-1 Motion to

Recall the Mandate seeks to correct this egregious violation and restore the integrity of the

judicial system.

III. Requested reliefs

In light of the government’s and District Judges Ramos, Taylor-Swain, McMahon,

Hagenau, and DeArcy-Hall’s involvement in enabling and perpetuating a fraud on the court, and

pursuant to the Court’s inherent Article III supervisory authority and the standard set forth in

Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), Applicant Ulysses T. Ware

respectfully requests that the Court order the following reliefs to root out this fundamental

miscarriage of justice:

Page 119 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 1. Disclosure of the Perjury Contracts and Brady Materials:

• Compel the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY) to immediately disclose and produce all

missing judicial court records related to the alleged September 22, 2006 Rule 11

and USSG 5K1.1 plea and cooperation agreements involving Jeremy Jones

("Perjury Contracts"), including any ex parte communications, transcripts, and

exhibits, or other judicial court records not previously disclosed and produced.

• Order the disclosure of all Brady, Jencks, Giglio, and Rule 16 materials previously

withheld by the USAO-SDNY, specifically including exculpatory and impeachment

evidence about Jones and other cooperating witnesses.

2. Judicial Review of Fabricated Dockets:

• Direct a comprehensive judicial review of all records supplied by the SDNY District

Clerk Ruby Krajick, particularly any fabricated or fraudulent dockets that

concealed the proceedings involving Jones' Perjury Contracts.

• Impose sanctions against individuals involved in fabricating the court docket and

withholding crucial evidence from the official record.

3. Civil and Criminal Contempt Proceedings:

• Initiate civil and criminal contempt proceedings against the government’s

prosecutors, and District Judges Ramos, Taylor-Swain, Hagenau, McMahon,

Dawson, and DeArcy-Hall for aiding, abetting, and enabling the government's

suppression of exculpatory evidence in direct violation of the May 19, 2006, Brady

court order.

Page 120 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 • Hold Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria E. Douvas accountable by referring Douvas to

the DOJ’s Criminal Division, and Division on Public Integrity, and any other

government attorneys accountable for submitting perjured declarations,

fabrication of evidence, bribery, suborning perjury, larceny, theft, embezzlement

of +$500,000 in retainer legal fees (GSL, Atlanta, GA), and withholding evidence.

4. Independent Investigation:

• Appoint a special master or an independent investigator to conduct a thorough

inquiry into the government’s and district judges’ actions, including collusion in

violating the Brady court order, fabricating records, and concealing the Perjury

Contracts.

5. Recall and Vacate the Mandate:

• Recall the August 18, 2009, mandate and vacate all prior findings of guilt nunc pro

tunc to prevent a continued miscarriage of justice.

• Remand the case to a new judge and panel for a de novo review of the evidence

in light of the fraud and suppression that occurred.

6. Protective Order:

• Issue a protective order to ensure all remaining evidence and relevant records are

preserved and secured from further manipulation or destruction.

7. Costs and Fees:

Page 121 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 • Award costs, damages, and reasonable attorney fees to Applicant Ware, given the

significant monetary and liberty interests at stake and the extent of the

government’s fraud.

8. Individual declarations:

• Order each of the following individuals to file under oath, subject to the penalty

of perjury sworn public declarations into the Court and serve a copy of the same

on Ulysses T. Ware at [email protected] regarding their role in, and their

knowledge of the allegations herein, to wit: Jeremy Jones, and other government

agents (Lenard A. Churn, Barry G. Corker, Vanessa G. Beckett, Bridgett R. Hallman,

Elrico Sadler, Charles H. Jackson, Myron Williams, David Makol, Maria E. Font,

Carlton Epps); and

• Damian Williams (see Ex. 3A-3D, infra), Andrea Griswold, Won Shin, Hagan

Scotten, Danielle Sassoon, Melissa Childs, Daniel Gitner, Jun Xiang, Breon Peace,

Nina Gupta, Merrick B. Garland, Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Margaret M. Garnett,

Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Maria E. Douvas (see Ex. 4A1-A5,

infra), Andrew L. Fish, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Edward T.M. Garland,

Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt, Janice Singer, Gary G. Becker,

Marlon G. Kirton, Laura Taylor-Swain, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Wendy L. Hagenau,

Kent J. Dawson, M. Regna Thomas, Patricia Sinback, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce

Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Kenneth A. Zitter, Michael H. Dolinger, Ruby Krajick,

Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Arie Rabinowitz, Kenneth A.

Page 122 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Zitter, Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Jose A. Cabranes, David Ng,

Melissa Childs, John M. McEnany, David Mulcahy, Jeffrey B. Norris, Spencer C.

Barasch, Joan E. McKown, J. Henry Walker, IV, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III,

Margaret H. Murphy, Marlon G. Kirton, Steve R. Peikin, and Michael F. Bachner.

These requested reliefs are critical to restoring the integrity of the judicial proceedings

and preventing further fraud and contempt from undermining the Court’s processes.

Respectfully submitted by:

Ulysses T. Ware (Defendant-Appellant-Applicant)
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
May 7, 2024

Page 123 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
IV. Exhibits—RICO Overt Acts

Page 124 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit A—May 6, 2024 Rule 27-1 filing memorandum.

This memorandum addresses the filing of Applicant Ware’s Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall

the Mandate in U.S. v. Ware, No. 07-5222cr (L). I respectfully inform your office that this

application is authorized under the Second Circuit's precedents in Sargent v. Columbia Forest

Products, Inc., 75 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996), read together with Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876 F.2d

307 (2d Cir. 1989).

Legal Basis for Authorization:

1. Precedent in Sargent: In Sargent, the Second Circuit reaffirmed its inherent authority to

recall its mandates at any time to correct fundamental miscarriages of justice and prevent

egregious prosecutorial misconduct. The court noted that this authority serves to protect

the integrity of the appellate court's own proceedings.

2. Precedent in Martin-Trigona: In Martin-Trigona, the Second Circuit emphasized the right

of a sanctioned litigant to file an application to recall a mandate where "substantial

monetary and liberty interest sanctions" are involved, particularly when the applicant was

the defendant in the underlying proceeding. Despite leave-to-file sanctions, such

applications are permitted due to the significant interests at stake.

Application in U.S. v. Ware:

In this case, I, Ulysses T. Ware, the defendant in U.S. v. Ware, No. 05cr1115 (SDNY), have

significant liberty and monetary interests at stake (+$253,388) due to the underlying criminal

sanctions imposed in the district court proceedings. My application seeks the recall of the court’s

August 18, 2009, mandate to ensure access to critical documents and evidence (the alleged Sept.

Page 125 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
22, 2006, Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts of the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy

Jones, that the United States Attorney’s Office (SDNY) failed to disclose in violation of a May 19,

2006, Dkt. 17 (Pauley, J.) (deceased) 05cr1115 Brady court order. The government's misconduct

includes withholding the alleged September 22, 2006 Rule 11 and USSG 5K1.1 plea and

cooperation agreements of Jeremy Jones, the government's principal witness, along with other

exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

Pursuant to Sargent and Martin-Trigona, this application meets the necessary legal

criteria for filing, as the undisclosed evidence directly relates to my substantial liberty and

monetary interests. The integrity of the judicial process requires immediate review and

reconsideration of the mandate to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

I respectfully request the Office of the Chief Judge to acknowledge the authorization of

this Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall the Mandate and to ensure proper adjudication of this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Enclosures:

• Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall Mandate

• Supporting Exhibits and Legal Authorities

Page 126 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit B—May 6, 2024, Rule 27-1 motion cover page

Case NO. 07-5222cr (L) and 07-5670 (XAP)

United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
_____
Filed on Monday, May 6, 2024, 01:22:25 PM

United States of America,

Respondent-Cross Appellant49
v.
Ulysses T. Ware,
Appellant-Cross Respondent.
__________
Applicant Ulysses T. Ware’s Rule 27-1 Motion to Recall 07-5222(L) August 18, 2009, Mandate
Pursuant to Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.50

49
The Government, see Ex. 1C, infra, via the U.S. Attorney General notified the Court that it had on Nov.
7, 2008, pursuant to Article II, 18 USC 3742, and Rule 42(b) invoked its prosecutorial authority, made an
Article II appellate political decision, abandoned, terminated, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice
its U.S. v. Ware, 07-5670 (XAP), Gov-I, cross-appeal. That is, a post-trial actual innocent Article II
affirmative defense which acquitted Ulysses T. Ware of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) which
rendered the 05cr1115 proceedings as a matter of law and fact moot subject to the Double Jeopardy
Clause’s absolute finality.

50
75 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Our power to recall a mandate is unquestioned. See generally 16 Charles
A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper & Eugene Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3938
(1977). The power “apparently originated in the inherent power of all federal courts to set aside any
judgment during the term of court at which it was entered.” Id. at 276. It “exists as part of the court's
power to protect the integrity of its own processes,” Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
Cir.1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on district courts by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Amendments
to the federal judicial code in 1948 extended this power beyond the current term of court, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 452, and we thus have the power to reopen a case at any time [to correct a fundamental miscarriage
of justice, i.e., egregious prosecutorial misconduct, the civil and criminal contempt of the May 19, 2006,
Brady court order, Pauley, J., see Ex. 1A, 1B, infra]. Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50,
53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 826, 106 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed.2d 70 (1985); Patterson v. Crabb, 904 F.2d
1179, 1180 (7th Cir.1990).”) (emphasis added).

Page 127 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit C1—Brady demand to District Judge (SDNY) Edgardo Ramos regarding U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY).

Page 128 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit C2—Sept. 7, 2022, Brady demand on the District Court (SDNY), Ramos, J. regarding
Sept. 22, 2006, alleged Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts.

Page 129 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit C3—Brady demand served on the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), Damian
Williams regarding alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Jeremy Jones’ Rule 11/USSG 5k1.1 Perjury
Contracts and related judicial court records.

Page 130 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit D—In re Colleen McMahon, 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.) investigation into the personal
and business ownership of +$22 million in RICO criminal usury and other unregistered
securities while not registered as a broker-dealer, or investment advisor as required by
federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1).

Page 131 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1A—05cr1115 (SDNY), Brady court order, May 19, 2006, Pauley, J.

Page 132 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1B—con’t

Page 133 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1C—the USAO’s Nov. 7, 2008, voluntary dismissal with prejudice of its U.S. v. Ware,
07-5670cr (XAP), Gov-I, cross-appeal which triggered the absolute finality of the Double
Jeopardy Clause’s protection for the defendant Ulysses T. Ware, terminated the Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction over 05cr1115, and terminated the Court’s Article III and
appellate jurisdiction over 07-5222cr, acquitted the defendant Ulysses T. Ware of all
charges in 05cr1115 for insufficient evidence which is binding on the Court in all
subsequent proceedings, and constituted a voluntary actual innocent Article II affirmative
defense to all charges in 05cr1115 (SDNY).

Page 134 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 1D—the Court of Appeals Aug. 18, 2009, entry of final judgment on Gov-I (07-5670)
in favor of the defendant Ulysses T. Ware, an acquittal of all charges in U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY), which triggered the absolute finality of the Double Jeopardy Clause and
res judicata in favor of Ulysses T. Ware, subject to enforcement by civil and criminal
contempt of this court order and final judgment.

Page 135 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2A—Alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceedings involving a person claimed to be
without any record proof to be the government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 (SDNY)
according to Judge Kearse to be “Jeremy Jones.” See U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 444 (2d
Cir. 2009). (Kearse, J.). Note that Doc. #24 does not appear on the 05cr1115 docket
during the trial or appeal of the proceedings, cf., Ex. 2C, infra.

Page 136 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2B—Alleged Rule 11 transcript, Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 plea proceedings of a
person alleged to be Jeremy Jones of which there is no official record of the Rule 11
proceeding according to the custodian of records David Ng on June 5, 2023.

Page 137 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2C—05cr1115 docket--fabricated, fraudulent, and counterfeit 05cr1115 (SDNY)
docket supplied by the District Clerk (SDNY) Ruby Krajick regarding the alleged Sept. 22,
2006, Rule 11 proceeding of Jeremy Jones—there is no record on the official docket of any
such alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 proceeding.

Page 138 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2D—CJA lawyer Marlon G. Kirton, Esq., letter to the district court (Pauley, J.)
confirming that the government’s “principal witness” Jeremy Jones “cooperated” with the
government and “received a 5k letter” for his substantial assistance, perjured testimony,
to the government during the 05cr1115 proceedings.

Page 139 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Exhibit 2E1—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115, Tr. 31 L 18-25, Oct. 2007, post-trial Rule 29 proceedings
Pauley, J., market inefficiency ruling—accepted Plaintiff Ware’s arguments and ruled
against the government, ruled the government’s trial proof was insufficient on “efficiency
of the market” and ordered a “Fatico [evidentiary] hearing.”
On the gov’t Nov. 7, 2008, see Ex. 16, supra, voluntarily dismissed of the Gov-I cross-appeal
of the Oct. 2007 Fatico hearing ruling, the Court of Appeals, the district court, and all courts
and agencies jurisdiction and authority terminated over the 05cr1115 proceedings.

Ipso facto as a matter of law the district court’s ruling acquitted Appellant of all charges—market efficiency is a jury issue.
Accordingly, once the district court ordered the Fatico hearing for insufficient evidence Double Jeopardy was triggered on the issue.

Page 140 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2E2—Dkt. 99, 05cr1115 (SDNY), S. Tr, 35-36, Oct. 12, 2007, post-trial Rule 29
rulings/acquittal verdicts by the trial judge William H. Pauley, III (deceased) the CCE’s de
facto agents in fact trial proof regarding market efficiency was insufficient.

Page 141 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2E3—Dkt 99, S. Tr. 36 (con’t). Cf. Ex. 34-3, and 34-3.1 infra, Unindicted
Coconspirator, de facto agent in fact Steven D. Feldman was and is totally incompetent in
advanced securities laws, and depends in whole on the CCE’s corrupt kickback, bribery, and
payoff patronage for his professional advancements.

Page 142 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 2E4-- Dkt. 99, S. Tr. 73-79 (con’t).

Page 143 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3A—March 20, 2023, EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 FOIA responses concerning the
production of Brady materials regarding the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 and U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings: the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and criminal contempt, of
the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra

Page 144 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3B—Nov. 9, 2023, EOUSA’s FOIA Response-- the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and
criminal contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra

Page 145 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3C—Nov. 17, 2023, EOUSA FOIA response— the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and
criminal contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra

Page 146 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3D—Dec. 14, 2023, EOUSA’s FOIA response—the DOJ’s willful resistance, civil and
criminal contempt, of the May 19, 2006, Pauley, J., Brdy court order, see Ex. 1, supra.

Page 147 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3E—Missing, stolen, destroyed, concealed, and suppressed alleged “5k letter”
granted to Jeremy Jones, the government’s “principal witness” in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115
(SDNY), cf., Ex. 2D, supra.

Missing, 18 USC 2071(a), (b), alleged

government’s “5k letter”, judicial court
records, Brady evidence.

Page 148 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3F—Missing, stolen, destroyed, concealed, and suppressed alleged Rule 11 plea
contract, and (2) USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contract, jointly, (the “Perjury Contracts”)
entered into by Jeremy Jones and the government’s “principal witness” in U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY), cf., Ex. 2A, supra.

Missing, 18 USC 2071(a), (b), alleged

government’s Rule 11 plea contract and
USSG 5k1.1 cooperation contract, judicial
court records, actual innocent Brady
evidence.

Page 149 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3G—U.S. v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 2009) (Kearse, J.) opinion finding
“The government’s principal witness was [Jeremy] Jones ….” (emphasis added).

Page 150 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3H—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 151 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3H—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 152 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3I—03-0831 (D. NV) SEC-DOJ July 14, 2003, Article II actual innocent affirmative
defenses that 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.

Page 153 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3J1—RICO overt—03-0831 D. NV act to intimidate Mr. Ware during the 2003 Las
Vegas bootleg grand jury proceedings official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and
concealed by AUSA Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew
L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B.
Garland, Edgardo Ramos, and others.

Page 154 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3J2—official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and concealed by AUSA Alexander
H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas,
Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos,
and others.

Page 155 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 3J3—official DOJ-SEC Brady emails suppressed and concealed by AUSA Alexander
H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Andrew L. Fish, Maria E. Douvas,
Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Damian Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Edgardo Ramos,
and others.

Page 156 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 4A1—AUSA Maria E. Douvas’ Perjured Declaration regarding Brady evidence, cf.,
EOUSA’s In re Ware, 000907 responses, Ex. 3A-3D, and Ex. 2A-2D, supra.

Page 157 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 4A2—con’t

Page 158 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 4A3—con’t

Page 159 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 4A4—con’t—deliberate and intentional perjury of AUSA Maria E. Douvas—Douvas
knew that the alleged Sept. 22, 2006, Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 Perjury Contracts, related
judicial court records had not been disclosed and were not properly filed and docketed
into the district court’s records by the government and Pauley, J., as an over act in
furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Page 160 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Exhibit 4A5—con’t

Page 161 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 Supplemental
Appendix
#3.0—RICO
Overt Acts

Page 162 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Ex. 1A—RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura
Taylor-Swain and 05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones, Marlon G.
Kirton, Esq.’s CJA bribery, kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy.

Page 163 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
Ex. 1B (con’t)—RICO Overt Act—irrefutable evidence of Chief District Judge (SDNY)
Laura Taylor-Swain and 05cr1115 (SDNY court-appointed lawyer for Jeremy Jones,
Marlon G. Kirton, Esq.’s CJA bribery, kickback, pay off, illegal gratuity conspiracy.

Page 164 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.
 End of document

Page 165 of 165

Sunday, September 22, 2024
(01) re Claimants’ Rule 11(b)(1-4) Preliminary Draft Judicial Review, evaluation and draft memo
opinion, final order and judgment of the Putative Defendants’ RICO liability.