Part 19 Doc. 02-E.

3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)

THE OFFICE OF ULYSSES T. WARE

123 Linden Boulevard, Suite 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
[email protected]

Date: June 30, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Mr. Patrick N. Arndt, Esq.

Nall & Miller, LLP
235 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30303-1418
[email protected]

Mr. William D. NeSmith, III, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel
The State Bar of Georgia
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30303
[email protected] (and any other known valid email)

QBE Insurance Corporation

Attn: James "Ted" Turner, Esq.
Senior Lead – Financial Lines Claims
55 Water Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10041
[email protected]

AND TO: THE STATE BAR OF GEORGIA APPELLEES ("SBGA Appellees")

(Served via counsel Patrick N. Arndt, Esq. and William D. NeSmith, III, Esq.)

RE: AGENDA FOR MEET-AND-CONFER (JUNE 30, 2025, 10:00-11:00 AM EDT) –

DISCUSSION OF ATTACHED ADJUDICATIVE FACT #11 (DOC. 02-E.3) REGARDING
VIOLATIONS OF GA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 3.3 & 8.4 AND FRAUD
ON THE COURT IN CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00613-MLB (N.D. GA.)

Counsel and Representatives:

Page 1 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
 Please be formally advised that the attached document, Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A, detailing

Adjudicative Fact #11, will be a primary and important topic of discussion during the mandatory

meet-and-confer conference scheduled for TODAY, Monday, June 30, 2025, between 10:00 AM

and 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time. This conference is conducted pursuant to the District

Court's Standing Order (Dkt. 2, ¶ (m)).

The attached Fact #11, infra, outlines, in painstaking detail, what Appellants contend is a

knowing and willful violation of the duty of complete candor to this Court by the SBGA Appellees

and their counsels, Mr. Arndt and Mr. NeSmith, as well as Mr. Turner as counsel for the implicated

insurer, QBE. These actions represent a profound breach of the District Court (NDGA) and the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal)

and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct), and constitute a fraud upon the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia.

Specifically, "Fact #11", infra, establishes that the "Special Appearance Brief" (Dkt. 45) and

the "Motion for Sanctions" (Dkt. 46) are characterized by:

1. Affirmative Misrepresentation: The knowing presentation of two mutually exclusive and

self-contradictory legal positions—that your clients are simultaneously "non-parties" over

whom the Court lacks jurisdiction (Dkt. 45), while also being "appellees" entitled to seek

affirmative relief under Rule 8020(a) (Dkt. 46).

2. Material Omissions Intended to Deceive, Misrepresent, Fraud, and Conspiracy: The

deliberate failure to disclose to the Court dispositive, record-based facts establishing your

Page 2 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
 clients’ comprehensive actual notice of these proceedings (e.g., Dkt. 180 (03-93031), Dkt.

284 (03-93031), and your own admissions in Dkt. 45).

3. A Pattern of Bad Faith: A litigation strategy designed not to present a legitimate legal

argument, but to harass Appellants, vexatiously multiply the proceedings, and perpetrate a

fraud on the Court regarding the true jurisdictional and notice posture of this case.

During today's conference, Appellants expect you, as officers of the court, to be prepared

to provide a substantive, good-faith explanation for this conduct. Be prepared to address how the

simultaneous filing of Dkts. 45 and 46 does not constitute a per se violation of your duty of candor

under Rule 3.3 and your ethical obligations under Rule 8.4.

Failure to provide a credible explanation or to resolve this matter by immediately

withdrawing the fraudulent filings (Dkts. 45 and 46) will compel Appellants to present

"Adjudicative Fact #11" and its supporting evidence to the District Court as a principal basis for

seeking severe sanctions. This includes sanctions against the SBGA Appellees, their counsel,

Patrick N. Arndt, Esq., and Nall & Miller, LLP, personally, for what Appellants contend is a

deliberate and sanctionable abuse of the judicial process.

We trust you will give this grave matter the immediate attention it warrants.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Ulysses T. Ware
Attorney in fact for the Appellants

Attachment: Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3 (Detailing Adjudicative Fact #11 re: Violations of
Professional Conduct).

cc: All Appellees have been served via their public email account.

Page 3 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
Fact #11: The Knowing and Willful Violation of the Duty of Candor
to the Tribunal by the SBGA Appellees, Mr. Arndt, Mr. NeSmith,
and Mr. Turner (as counsel for QBE Insurance Corp.) in Direct
Contravention of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 and 8.4
and this Court's Standards of Professionalism.
This ultimate adjudicative fact is established by the following subsidiary facts, which are

all verifiable from the face of Dkts. 45 and 46, and the official court records. The SBGA Appellees

and their counsels, an illegal association in fact, a continuing criminal enterprise as defined in 18

USC 1961(4), since 2008, have knowingly and willfully engaged in a pattern of conduct

constituting a Hobbs Act racketeering conspiracy to defraud the Appellants, extortion, conspiracy,

predatory, criminal usury unlawful debt collection, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, mail

and wire frauds, money laundering, perjury, and fraud on this Court, characterized by numerous

affirmative misrepresentations, material omissions, and the advancement of legal arguments for

an improper purpose, all in violation of their duty of complete candor.

a) Affirmative Misrepresentation Through Knowingly Filing Mutually Exclusive and Self-

Contradictory Pleadings:

The SBGA Appellees and their counsel, Mr. Arndt, simultaneously filed two bogus and

fraudulent legal pleadings—Dkt. 45 and Dkt. 46—that are predicated upon diametrically

opposed and legally irreconcilable premises. Dkt. 45, the "Special Appearance Brief," is

founded entirely on the assertion that the SBGA Appellees are "non-parties" over whom

this Court lacks personal jurisdiction. Conversely, Dkt. 46, the "Motion for Sanctions,"

explicitly invokes Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8020(a), a rule that, by its plain

text, exclusively grants the remedy of damages "to the appellee." It is a legal and logical

Page 4 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
 impossibility for the SBGA Appellees to be both a "non-party" and an "appellee" at the

same moment in the same proceeding. The knowing presentation of these two mutually

exclusive positions is not a mere tactical error; it constitutes a false statement of their legal

and factual position to this tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) ("A lawyer shall not

knowingly: make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal..."). The assertion

of "non-party" status in Dkt. 45 is rendered unequivocally false by their own action of

seeking relief that requires "appellee" status in Dkt. 46.

b) Material Omissions Intended to Deceive the Tribunal Regarding Actual Notice:

In arguing that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction due to alleged defects in notice and

service (Dkt. 45), the SBGA Appellees and their counsel had an ethical duty to present this

argument with complete candor. This duty required them to disclose to the Court all known,

dispositive facts that would bear on the issue. They have instead engaged in a profound and

misleading omission of material facts, including:

o (i) Their failure to disclose or address the legal significance of Dkt. 180 (filed

August 4, 2022, in Case No. 03-93031), which explicitly designated "The State Bar

of Georgia" as an "interested party" in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings.

o (ii) Their failure to disclose or address the legal significance of Dkt. 284 (filed Feb.

10, 2025, in Case No. 03-93031), the Bankruptcy Court's official "Imaged

Certificate of Notice" which explicitly listed each SBGA Appellee and their current

counsel, Nall & Miller, LLP, and Patrick N. Arndt, Esq., as "Appellees" in this

appeal.

Page 5 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
 o (iii) Their failure to candidly address their own judicial admission within Dkt. 45

(page 15) of receiving "several dozen emails from Appellant’s counsel," thereby

conceding extensive actual notice.

o (iv) By omitting these crucial, record-based facts, they have presented a skewed

and deceptive narrative to the Court, creating the false impression that they are

strangers to these proceedings. This conduct constitutes "conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" in violation of Rule 8.4(c).

c) Direct Violation of Rules 3.3 (Candor) and 8.4 (Misconduct):

The collective conduct detailed above constitutes a flagrant violation of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct, which are adopted by this Court. By filing Dkts. 45 and 46, counsel and

their clients have: (i) made false and self-contradictory statements of their legal status (violating

Rule 3.3(a)(1)); (ii) engaged in conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation by omitting

dispositive facts regarding actual notice (violating Rule 8.4(c)); and (iii) engaged in conduct that

is "prejudicial to the administration of justice" (violating Rule 8.4(d)) by forcing this Court and

Appellants to expend significant resources to unravel a frivolous and bad-faith jurisdictional

charade.

d) The Adjudicative Effect: A Sanctionable Bad-Faith Litigation Strategy:

The pattern of affirmative misrepresentation and material omission is not accidental; it is

evidence of a willful, bad-faith litigation strategy designed to abuse the judicial process, harass

Appellants, and delay the resolution of this appeal on its merits. This conduct is sanctionable under

this Court's inherent power (Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)), personally against

Page 6 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)
counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for vexatiously multiplying the proceedings, and against both

counsel and the SBGA Appellees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for presenting

pleadings for an improper purpose and without a good-faith basis in law or fact. The frivolousness

is not debatable; it is confessed by the very documents they have filed.

[End of document]

Page 7 of 7
Monday, June 30, 2025
Part 19 Doc. 02-E.3A (Adjudicative Fact #11)