The Office of Ulysses T.
Ware
123 Linden Blvd., Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]
VIA EMAIL ONLY (READ RECEIPT REQUESTED)
Wednesday, May 7, 2025, 11:36:28 AM
To:
Alexander H. Southwell, Esq.
Email:
[email protected]Jeffrey B. Norris, Esq. (a/k/a J. Blair Norris)
Email:
[email protected]Subject: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1-4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 NOTICE
Regarding Suppressed August 2004 Southwell-Norris Email Communications and
Concealed "Jeremy Jones" Perjury Contracts/§5k1.1 Materials; Violations of Brady Orders
in 05cr1115 (SDNY) & 04cr1224 (SDNY); Demand for Reasonable Inquiry and Verified
Response. See Ex. 1-6, infra.
Dear Messrs. Southwell and Norris:
This correspondence constitutes formal notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(b)(1)-(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. As attorneys admitted to practice, you are acutely aware of the
mandatory, personal, and non-delegable duties imposed by these authorities, requiring a
reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal bases of any position taken before a court. See
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 548, 551 (1991); Pavelic
& LeFlore v. Marvel Entm't Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 125-27 (1989).
Our ongoing pre-filing investigation into the predicate acts supporting an imminent Civil
RICO action against you and other Unindicted Coconspirators has uncovered specific evidence
demanding your immediate attention and reasonable inquiry. This evidence relates directly to your
alleged participation in the suppression and concealment of critical evidence in violation of federal
Page 1 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
criminal statutes and specific court orders, forming part of the pattern of racketeering activity
alleged.
I. Specific Factual Predicates Requiring Your Reasonable Inquiry:
Your reasonable inquiry under Rule 11(b) must now confront the following specific
factual predicates:
A. The Suppressed August 2004 Southwell-Norris Email Communications:
1. The Emails: We refer specifically to the email communications exchanged between
yourselves (Alexander H. Southwell, then AUSA-SDNY, and Jeffrey B. Norris, then SEC
Enforcement Attorney) on or about August 16, 18, and 30, 2004. Evidence of these emails
and their content (demonstrating, inter alia, coordination regarding the use of allegedly
void orders from 02cv2219 (SDNY) LBS, to fabricate predicates for SEC action 03cv0831
(D. Nev.)) is documented, for example, in Appendices A, B, and C to Dkt. 39, 40 filed
April 28, 2025, in Case No. 1:25-cv-00613-MLB (N.D. Ga.), incorporating material from
the certified Joint Stipulated Appellate Record (JSAR Dkt. 5-13, pp. 43-60).
2. Suppression & Concealment (18 U.S.C. § 2071(a),(b); § 1503; § 371): We allege that
you knowingly and willfully suppressed, concealed, removed, and/or caused the removal
or theft of these specific August 2004 emails from official United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) litigation files pertinent to
subsequent criminal proceedings against Ulysses T. Ware, specifically U.S. v. Ware,
05cr1115 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY).
3. Brady Material: These suppressed August 2004 emails constitute material, actual innocent
Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)).
They demonstrate improper government coordination, abuse of process, reliance on void
civil orders, and provide evidence of bias and motive relevant to impeaching government
witnesses and challenging the foundations of the prosecutions in both 05cr1115 and
04cr1224.
4. Violation of Specific Brady Court Orders (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)): Your alleged
suppression and concealment of these emails directly violated specific, written court orders
requiring the disclosure of all Brady material:
Page 2 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
a) In 05cr1115 (SDNY): The Order dated May 19, 2006 (Dkt. 17), issued by the
Hon. William H. Pauley III (deceased), explicitly mandated the government's
continuing duty to disclose Brady and Giglio material of which you, Alexander H.
Southwell, in open court, acknowledged. (See Exhibit 7, Motion filed Mar. 31,
2024, 05cr1115).
b) In 04cr1224 (SDNY): The Order dated August 10, 2007 (Dkt. 32), issued by the
presiding judge, Sweet, J. (deceased), similarly mandated Brady disclosures.
Your failure to disclose the August 2004 emails, despite these explicit orders,
constitutes contempt of court and further evidence of obstruction of justice (18
U.S.C. § 1503) and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).
5. RICO Predicates (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a-d)): These acts of suppression, concealment,
obstruction, contempt, and the underlying fraudulent coordination evidenced by the emails,
constitute multiple predicate acts (including violations of §§ 1503, 2071, potentially §§
1341/1343 via deprivation of honest services and concealment) committed in furtherance
of the RICO Enterprise and Conspiracy detailed in our previous Comprehensive Notice.
B. The Concealed "Jeremy Jones" Rule 11 / USSG §5k1.1 "Perjury Contracts":
1. The Alleged Proceeding: We refer to the purported Rule 11 plea proceeding and related
USSG §5k1.1 agreement ("Perjury Contracts") allegedly involving an individual claimed
by the government to be "Jeremy Jones," purportedly occurring on September 22, 2006,
in connection with U.S. v. Ware and Jones, 05cr1115 (SDNY).
2. Evidence of Concealment/Fabrication: Evidence submitted in 05cr1115 (see Exhibits 1,
2, and 3 to Motion filed Mar. 31, 2024) demonstrates significant discrepancies and strongly
suggests that either: (a) the docket entry referencing this proceeding (purported Dkt. 24
referenced in Ex. 1 transcript excerpt) is fabricated or does not correspond to an actual
official judicial proceeding, as official docket sheets (Ex. 2, Ex. 3) do not reflect such a
proceeding or filing on that date; or (b) the records of such a proceeding, including the Rule
11 plea colloquy, the plea agreement, and any §5k1.1 agreement/letter, were conducted
covertly and/or have been subsequently suppressed, concealed, or removed from the
official public docket, potentially constituting "secret," fabricated dockets in violation of
Page 3 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
18 USC § 2071(a), (b). (See Ex. 8, Motion filed Mar. 31, 2024, alleging secret docket and
suppression by Judge Ramos).
3. Brady/Giglio/Jencks Material: Any such Rule 11 plea agreement, §5k1.1 cooperation
agreement, or related proceedings concerning a government witness ("Jeremy Jones") in
05cr1115 constitute critical Brady (exculpatory/impeachment), Giglio (impeachment
regarding deals/bias), and potentially Jencks Act (witness statements) material that the
government was obligated to disclose fully and accurately to the defense pursuant to the
court's Brady Order (05cr1115, Dkt. 17) and constitutional mandates.
4. Statutory Violations & RICO Predicates: The alleged concealment, suppression, or
fabrication of these judicial records and related agreements constitutes violations of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 401(3), 1503, 2071(a),(b), potentially §§ 1341/1343, and forms part of
the pattern of racketeering activity (§1962(a-d)) designed to obstruct justice and secure a
wrongful conviction.
II. Rule 11(b) and § 1927 Implications for You:
Your mandatory "reasonable inquiry" must now directly address these specific, documented
allegations. Asserting any future denial, defense, or legal position that ignores, contradicts, or fails
to account for this evidence without objective, verifiable proof would, on its face, violate your
duties under Rule 11(b) and potentially § 1927:
a) Rule 11(b)(1) (Improper Purpose): Ignoring this evidence suggests an intent to delay,
harass, increase litigation costs, or perpetuate the prior obstruction of justice.
b) Rule 11(b)(2) (Not Warranted by Law): Asserting legal defenses without acknowledging
or addressing dispositive, contradictory evidence (like the emails or Brady violations) is
unwarranted.
c) Rule 11(b)(3) (Lacking Factual Support): Asserting facts contrary to the content of the
emails or the evidence of suppression/concealment of the Jones materials, without
verifiable proof, lacks factual support.
d) Rule 11(b)(4) (Unwarranted Denials): Issuing general or specific denials of these
documented allegations without conducting a thorough inquiry would be objectively
unreasonable and unwarranted.
Page 4 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
e) 28 U.S.C. § 1927: Continuing to litigate in a manner that ignores these specific allegations
of evidence suppression and Brady violations would unreasonably and vexatiously
multiply the proceedings.
III. Demand for Reasonable Inquiry and Verified Response:
Pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927, you (Southwell and Norris) are required to
conduct a reasonable inquiry now into these specific matters. To demonstrate compliance, you
must provide, by Wednesday, May 14, 2025, at 10:00 AM EST, time is of the essence, separate,
sworn/verified responses addressing AT MINIMUM the following:
Regarding the August 2004 Emails:
1. Confirm or deny your participation in the August 16, 18, and 30, 2004 email
communications referenced above.
2. Confirm or deny that these emails were withheld from disclosure to the defense in
05cr1115 and 04cr1224.
3. State whether you were aware of the Brady Orders (05cr1115 Dkt. 17; 04cr1224 Dkt. 32)
at the time they were in effect.
4. Provide a verified explanation for why these emails, if withheld, were not considered
Brady/Giglio material subject to disclosure under those orders.
5. Provide any evidence demonstrating that these specific emails were timely disclosed to
defense counsel for Ulysses T. Ware in 05cr1115 and 04cr1224.
Regarding the "Jeremy Jones" Materials (05cr1115):
6. Confirm or deny the existence of an official judicial proceeding (Rule 11 plea) involving
"Jeremy Jones" on September 22, 2006. Ex. 2, infra.
7. Confirm or deny the existence of a written plea agreement and/or USSG §5k1.1
agreement/letter related to "Jeremy Jones" in 05cr1115. Ex. 5, infra.
8. If such proceedings/documents exist, provide a verified explanation for their absence from
the public docket (ref: Ex. 2 & 3, Motion filed Mar. 31, 2024, 05cr1115) and confirm
whether they were maintained on a separate, non-public docket. Ex. 4, infra.
9. Provide any evidence demonstrating that the complete plea agreement, §5k1.1 materials,
Page 5 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
and transcript of the Sept 22, 2006, proceeding were timely disclosed to defense counsel for
Ulysses T. Ware pursuant to the May 19, 2006, Brady Order (Dkt. 17).
10. Provide a verified explanation reconciling the transcript excerpt referencing a Sept. 22,
2006, proceeding (Ex. 1) with the official docket sheets showing no such proceeding (Ex. 2,
3).
Your responses must be specific, address each point, and be supported by any available
non-privileged documentary evidence. Conclusory statements or refusals to address these points
will be deemed non-responsive and evidence of a failure to conduct the required reasonable
inquiry.
IV. Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Failure to provide a complete, timely, specific, and substantively responsive submission
addressing the results of your reasonable inquiry into these specific factual predicates by May 14,
2025, will constitute an irrevocable default on your Rule 11 and §1927 obligations. This default
will serve as conclusive evidence, a voluntary stipulation, and an irrefutable presumption that
no non-frivolous factual or legal basis exists for you to contest these specific allegations of
suppression, concealment, Brady violations, and obstruction. We will rely upon such default as
dispositive proof justifying immediate and severe sanctions in the anticipated RICO litigation.
V. Preservation of Evidence:
This Notice incorporates by reference the comprehensive Demand for Preservation of
Evidence detailed in our prior correspondence. Ensure all materials related to the August 2004
emails and the "Jeremy Jones" matter are immediately and securely preserved.
VI. Conclusion:
The evidence regarding the suppressed August 2004 emails and the concealed/fabricated
"Jeremy Jones" materials points to serious violations of court orders (civil and criminal contempt)
(see Ex. 7, infra), constitutional duties, and federal criminal statutes, forming key predicate acts in
the RICO Enterprise. Your mandatory reasonable inquiry must confront this evidence directly.
Page 6 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Govern yourselves accordingly.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Ulysses T. Ware
Individually, and on behalf of
Silver Screen Studios, Inc.
Group Management (Chapter 11 Debtor)
Putative Plaintiffs
Page 7 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibits
Page 8 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 1—Southwell, Pauley, Kirton, and Jones’ conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Page 9 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 2—Alleged Sept. 22, 2006, fake and fabricated Rule 11 proceedings
regarding a paid and bribed impersonator of “Jeremy Jones.”
Page 10 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 3—Alleged Sept. 2006, Rule 11 proceedings regarding a paid and bribed
impersonator of “Jeremy Jones. All Rule 11 and USSG 5k1.1 perjury contracts have
been deliberately removed and destroyed as overt and predicate act of the
conspiracy to obstruct justice and falsely imprison Ulysses T. Ware, Esq. as a Jim
Crow racially-motivated hate crime.
Page 11 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 4—05cr1115 (SDNY) 2009 docket, Dkt. 20, 23, and 24, Ex. 2, supra, are
missing, were deliberately and intentionally removed, concealed, suppressed, and
stolen from the files of the District Clerk by Southwell, Feldman, Goldin, Pauley,
Dolinger, Douvas, Fish, et al.—actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence.
Page 12 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 5—Kirton’s letter dated April 30, 2008.
Page 13 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 6—Kirton’s letter dated Dec. 20, 2005.
Page 14 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Exhibit 7—May 19, 2006, 05cr1115 (SDNY) Brady court order—acknowledged by
AUSA Southwell.
Page 15 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
Page 16 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
[End of document]
Page 17 of 17
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
(02) re Plaintiffs’ 2d Rule 11(b)(1-4) and 28 USC 1927 Racketeering Investigation Inquiry
