Dkt. 157-1 Re Ex. G (Pet'n For Review, in Re Ramos, 02-22-90049-Lm (2d Cir.) )

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 157-1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 11
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Exhibit G
[email protected]
Monday, January 9, 2023
Office of the Circuit Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
40 Foley Sq.
New York, NY 10007
Re: Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct regarding District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY).
In re Edgardo Ramos: No. 02-22-90049-jm (2d Cir.)
Review of November 30, 2022, Order of the Chief Judge pursuant to 28 USC 352(c).
Dear Ms. Wolfe:

Please docket and file this “review of the Chief Judge’s order” dated November 30, 2022,
regarding criminal judicial misconduct matters concerning District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY)
for his ongoing and past commission of civil and criminal contempt of multiple court orders and
judgments, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable offenses, and
his ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice while aiding and abetting the Government to suppress
and conceal actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 (SDNY) and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Please notify the undersigned once this matter is docketed and confirm your file number
regarding this complaint.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 1 of 11
Re: Petition to the Judicial Council for review of the Chief Judge’s order entered on November 30, 2022,
regarding Edgardo Ramos, File #02-22-90049-jm
Table of Contents
Preliminary Statement. ................................................................................................................................ 3

A. Reckless, Negligent, Irresponsible, Deliberate, and Intentional Errors and Frauds committed and
made by the Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston as a fraud on the court, and an overt act in the
conspiracy to suppress and conceal actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in
the November 30, 2022, order, in refusing to conduct any investigation into the facts and evidence
submitted to the Court of Appeals, or have the Judge, Edgardo Ramos, deny the charges under oath. . 6
B. Federal law, 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1-5), and the Constitution required the Judge (Edgardo Ramos)
to have recused himself from 1224, 1115, and the pending 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 habeas corpus
proceedings. ................................................................................................................................................. 9
C. The Chief Judge negligently and recklessly refused to investigate whether the government has
fully and completely produced and disclosed “all” Brady actual innocent exculpatory and/or
impeachment evidence required by the Brady Court Orders. ................................................................... 9
D. Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................................... 10
E. Requested relief. ................................................................................................................................ 10
Page 2 of 11
Office of the Clerk of the Court:

January 8, 2023
Dear Clerk:
Pursuant to 28 USC 252(c), I, Ulysses T. Ware petition the Judicial Council for review of
the Chief Judge’s order dated November 30, 2022, which (i) without conducting any investigation
into the allegations, or (ii) having the subject Judge, Edgardo Ramos, deny the allegations under
oath, purported to deny the facts, allegations, and claims in the Complaint without conducting
any investigation into the facts that supported the claims—a reckless, disgraceful, biased,
partial, and criminal fundamental miscarriage of justice.
The Chief Judge, Debra Ann Livingston, egregious and execrably violated her oath of
office, violated the constitutional due process rights of Ulysses T. Ware, violated the Codes of
Conduct for Federal Judges, and did nothing more than rubber-stamp and deny the fully
supported by the records, the facts presented, and allegations claims and allegation of criminal
judicial misconduct—18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(3), 1519, and 2071 perpetrated and willfully
committed by Edgardo Ramos while he knowingly colluded, conspired, and acted in concert with
the U.S. Department of Justice to conceal and suppress actual innocent Brady exculpatory and/or
impeachment evidence required to be disclosed and produced by the Brady Court Orders.
That is why the Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston ipso facto committed clear error of
fact and herself committed criminal judicial misconduct.
Preliminary Statement.1
1
See Dkt. 155, 22cv3409 (SDNY), Rule 5(f) Brady motion for the government and the Judge, Edgardo
Ramos, to certify that “all” actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence has been
produced as ordered by the Brady Court Orders entered in the sub judice 1224 and 1115 criminal
proceedings. The Judge, Edgardo Ramos, has refused to enforce the Brady Court Orders for a favor, a
bribe, a kick back, a gift, an illegal gratuity, a thing of value—a fraud on the court, to the government to
cover up and conceal the numerous Brady violations, and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(3), of the Brady
Court Orders committed by the U.S. DOJ and its prosecutors, and Edgardo Ramos. To date, Edgardo Ramos
has deliberately and intentionally conspired and colluded with the government in violation of the Codes
of Conduct for Federal Judges, and federal criminal law, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(3), 1519, and 2071,
and deliberately blocked, impeded, and obstructed all attempts by the Complainant to have the
Page 3 of 11
The Complainant contends that the Chief Judge, Debra Ann Livingston, knowingly,
deliberately, intentionally, with malice aforethought, with an evil and callous mind, to obstruct
justice, criminally rigged and fixed the outcome of the Complaint in favor of the Judge, Edgardo
Ramos; and conspired, colluded, and acted in concert with the Judge, Edgardo Ramos, and the
government, as an overt act in furtherance of the ongoing DOJ criminal enterprise to hide,
conceal, suppress, and cover up actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in
the actual and/or constructive possession of the United States Department of Justice, (the
“DOJ”). Brady evidence the government was ordered to have produced and disclosed “prior to
trial” in 2007.
A competent, unbiased, and impartial investigation into the facts and the claims would
have shown that to this day the government and Edgardo Ramos have continued to suppress
and conceal Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and have never
produced or disclosed that:
1. The plaintiffs in the 02cv2219(SDNY), (“2219”), lawsuit have at all times since February
1, 2001, according to Brady exculpatory evidence obtained by the Complainant in 2021,
from the SEC and FINRA have never been lawfully registered as broker-dealers as
required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1).2
2. The plaintiffs in the 2219 lawsuit lacked Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) standing to have
filed the 2219 lawsuit.
3. The 2219 district court lacked Article III and Section 1332(a) subject matter jurisdiction
over the 2219 lawsuit, and accordingly, ipso facto, all orders, judgments, and proceedings
therein are null and void ab initio, and moot.
4. The SEC and the DOJ in 2003 conducted an illegal and unconstitutional bootleg grand jury
in the bogus Las Vegas commingled 03-0831 (D. NV) proceedings; used as a ruse—the
Bootleg Grand Jury to circumvent the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, violated
Complainant’s right to remain silent, and illegally used to gather inadmissible evidence
government produce and disclose Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence in its
possession regarding the 04cr1224 (SDNY) and 05cr1115 (SDNY) criminal proceedings.
2
On May 17, 2021, fifteen (15) years after trial in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) in 2007 FINRA certified
that neither of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs had never lawfully registered as broker-dealers as required
by federal, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and NYS law; and therefore lacked Article III standing to have filed the
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, and the government lacked probable cause, and an 18 USC 3231 “offense” with
respect to the 2219 lawsuit’s null and void ab initio, and moot orders (GX 11, GX 24), judgments (GX 7),
and proceedings.
Page 4 of 11
for illegal and unconstitutional use in the imminent criminal proceedings, U.S. v. Ware,
04cr1224 and U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).
5. The government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 a person who claimed to be “Jeremy

Jones” allegedly on September 22, 2006, entered an alleged Rule 11 guilty plea to the
05cr1115 superseding indictment (S1); allegedly entered into an alleged USSG 5k1.1
cooperation agreement; at sentencing received an alleged USSG 5k1.1 substantial
assistance letter from the government, yet there is no record anywhere in any court of
the alleged September 22, 2006, purported Rule 11 plea contract of any person by the
name of “Jeremy Jones.” Either the government lied and committed perjury regarding the
September 22, 2006, alleged event, or the government, the Judge, Ramos, the U.S.
Attorney (SDNY), Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and Merrick B. Garland are currently
suppressing and concealing the judicial public records—with the assistance and enabling
of the Judge, Ramos, required to have been disclosed “prior to trial” in 2007.
6. The government deliberately and intentionally violated the 04cr1224 Brady Court order
and refused to disclose “prior to trial” its FRE 404(b) ‘bad acts’ witness, disgraced former
SEC lawyer Jeffrey B. Norris’ professional “bad acts”—while Norris testified for the
government during the 04cr1224 trial in 2007 the government was in actual possession
of Norris’ SEC disciplinary file that showed that Norris had been sanctioned twice by the
SEC for “professional misconduct” “associated with his government email account” and
Norris was subsequently fired by the SEC for his professional misconduct, which the
government is currently in possession of the Brady impeachment evidence, and in
possession of Norris’ medical records that showed that while Norris testified for the
government during the 04cr1224 trial in 2007, Norris was then suffering from mental
illness, and was under the care of a psychiatrist—Giglio impeachment evidence the
government was required to have disclosed “prior to trial” pursuant to the Brady Court
Order’s written commands.
7. The government, the trial judge, William H. Pauley, III (deceased), and the Judge, Edgardo
Ramos, since being assigned 05cr1115 in 2021 after the death of Judge Pauley, during
the 05cr1115 trial in 2007 deliberately and intentionally suppressed and concealed
actual innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the
SEC and DOJ that established (1) there was no alleged “artificial” “inflation” of the
“prices” of the INZS and SVSY stock—the subject matter of the (i) September 2005
perjured affidavit for the arrest warrant for the Complainant, and (ii) the subject matter
of the 05cr1115 superseding (S1) indictment; (iii) the government suppressed and
concealed Brady actual innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence there was no
alleged conspiracy between the Complainant and the government’s trial witnesses; (iv)
Page 5 of 11
the government’s 05cr1115 trial witnesses all testified pursuant to “cooperation

agreements” which the government has never disclosed as required by the Brady Court
Orders.
8. Concealed and suppressed that in December 20, 2007, in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Dkt. 90, after
the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, the plaintiffs moved the
district court (Sand, J.), ex parte, and voluntarily pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) to
vacate, set aside, moot, vitiate and annul all orders, judgments, and all proceedings in
02cv2219 (SDNY), and by necessary implication the same in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY)—that is, the orders and judgments (GX 7, GX 11, and GX 24) used by the
government in its 04cr1224 indictment, and admitted at trial, were annulled on
December 20, 2007. See A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952)
(voluntary dismissal of law by plaintiff annulled and vitiated all prior orders, judgments,
and proceedings as “if the lawsuit had never been filed” and left the proceedings moot,
and terminated the court jurisdiction over the matter). (emphasis added).
A. Reckless, Negligent, Irresponsible, Deliberate, and Intentional

Errors and Frauds committed and made by the Chief Judge Debra Ann
Livingston as a fraud on the court, and an overt act in the conspiracy to
suppress and conceal actual innocent Brady exculpatory and
impeachment evidence in the November 30, 2022, order, in refusing to
conduct any investigation into the facts and evidence submitted to the
Court of Appeals, or have the Judge, Edgardo Ramos, deny the charges
under oath.
First, in the November 30, 2022, order, (the “Order”) at 3, the Chief Judge claimed, “The
misconduct complaint is difficult to understand, …, the Complainant alleged that the Judge is an
unindicted co-conspirator who, among other things, [aided, abetted, assisted, and enabled the
Government to continue to violate two (2) Brady Court Orders entered on the sub judice criminal
proceedings, to wit, (1) U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (“1115”), Dkt. 17, May 19, 2006, Tr. 5-10,
Pauley, J. (deceased); and (2) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), (“1224”), Dkt. 32, August 10, 2007,
Sweet, J. (deceased), jointly, (the “Brady Court Orders”)]. Which all are true statements of fact,
which are undenied and unopposed.
Page 6 of 11
There is nothing in the record where the subject actually denied the allegations, the facts,
and the claims under oath. Thus, the submitted facts remain true, and undenied. The Chief Judge
is not lawfully permitted to respond on behalf of the subject judge where and if the facts are in
dispute. Only the subject judge is permitted to deny or admit the facts, not the Chief Judge.
Conversely, the Chief Judge is not permitted to admit the facts for the subject judge.
Clearly, a procedural irregularity has occurred that impaired the proceeding’s integrity and
fidelity.
As of today, January 9, 2023, it is an undisputed material fact the Government has yet to
confirm in writing on the record that “all” Brady actual innocent exculpatory and/or
impeachment evidence, Rule 5(f), Rule 16, U.S. Attorney’s Manual, and Giglio materials have
been disclosed and produced to the Complainant despite being ordered to produce and disclose
“all” Brady evidence “prior to trial” scheduled for 2007. Accordingly, the Chief Judge is not in any
credible position to make any binding determination with respect to the facts presented in the
Complaint—any alleged unsupported and contrived purported fact-finding is in violation of the
Act, 28 USC 351-364.
Moreover, exactly what methodology was used by the Chief Judge to make a binding
determination the facts submitted, without any denial from the subject judge, were not credible
is an obvious biased, partial, and conflicted personal conjecture, rather than a finding of facts.
There is nothing, not one word, in the sardonic November 30, 2022, purported order, that
supports the conclusion reached by the Chief Judge. Nothing whatsoever, other than a personal
bias and prejudice regarding what the Chief Judge thinks, in her personal opinion is true, rather
than what the record and the evidence—see Dkt. 155 (22cv3409 (SDNY)) says is true.
Second, the dockets, the records, in the sub judice criminal proceedings, 1224, 1115, and
the pending 28 USC 2241(c)(3) actual innocent habeas corpus petition Ware v. USA, Garland,
Ramos, and Taylor-Swain, 22cv3409 (SDNY), named in the sworn declaration of fact numerous
frauds, and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(2), of the outstanding Brady Court Orders
committed by the Judge, Edgardo Ramos.
The record and the evidence supplied to the Chief Judge, who refused to conduct any
credible “review”—how was the alleged “review” conducted was not stated in the November 30,
2022, purported order, of the records in 1224 and 1115, or to competently review the Brady
Court Orders’ written commands, which alone supports the undisputed fact the Government was
and has been aided, abetted, assisted, and enabled by Edgardo Ramos; has deliberately,
intentionally, in bad faith, and as a fraud on the court, suppressed and concealed Brady actual
innocent exculpatory and impeachment evidence before, during and after the 2007 trials in 1224
and 1115; and since the Judge, Ramos, has been assigned to the 1224 and 1115 cases he has
deliberately, intentionally, with an evil and callous mind impeded, obstructed, and refused all
Page 7 of 11
attempts made by the Complainant to enforce the Brady Court Orders and have the Government
certify pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), 16, the Brady Court Orders, and the U.S. Attorney’s
Manual that all Brady evidence has been disclosed to the Complainant. See Dkt. 155 in
22cv3409(SDNY), Rule 5(f) Brady certification motion (pending).
Thus, at bottom the claim is that the Judge, Edgardo Ramos, has breached the Codes of
Conduct for Federal Judges by aiding, abetting, assisting, and enabling the Government to be in
civil and criminal contempt, 18 USC 401(2), 401(3), of the two Brady Court Orders entered in the
1224 and 1115 sub judice criminal proceedings since he was assigned in 2021; violated federal
law, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(3), 1519, and 2071; and violated the Constitution’s Due Process
Clause. That is what the Complaint alleged supported by citations to the records, and supported
with submission of a Declaration of fact which has not been denied by the subject Judge, Edgardo
Ramos.
The Chief Judge is not lawfully permitted to deny and oppose, or admit the “facts” in
the Complaint in place of a written and sworn denial or admission from the subject judge,
Edgardo Ramos; and thus, the “facts” remain undenied for the purpose of this “review.”3
3
The sworn undisputed or opposed “facts” and the records established a prima facie case of egregious
violations of the federal criminal laws, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 1519, and 2071—the concealment
and suppression of judicial public records of the person the government claimed, without any proof in the
record, on September 22, 2006, entered a Rule 11 plea of guilty in U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), S1,
pursuant to a USSG 5k1.1 cooperation agreement. There is no record on any docket in the federal courts
of the alleged September 22, 2006, Rule 11 plea contract. This should be a cause for great concern by a
federal judge—if “Jeremy Jones” actually entered a Rule 11 plea to S1 where is the Rule 11 plea contract?
If Jones “cooperated” pursuant to USSG 5k1.1 where is the cooperation agreement? Who has the judicial
public records if the events actually occurred on September 22, 2006, as claimed by the government?
Obviously, the district court and the government are required to have copies of all judicial public records
regarding any alleged Rule 11 plea and USSG 5k1.1 cooperation by a government witness. So why have
the district court (Ramos, J.), and the government not produced the judicial public records? What are their
motivations? Who benefited? Who was harmed by the suppression and concealment of judicial public
records? Those are issues the Chief Judge, Debra Ann Livingston, was required to have thoroughly
investigated and referred the Complaint to the Director of the FBI and the DOJ’s Division of Public Integrity
with a judicial request to open a criminal investigation into the conduct of Edgardo Ramos, William H.
Pauley, III, Robert W. Sweet, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, Barbara S. Jones, Michael H. Dolinger,
Leonard B. Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, Debra Ann Livingston, and Colleen McMahon. That
was not done.
Page 8 of 11
B. Federal law, 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1-5), and the Constitution

required the Judge (Edgardo Ramos) to have recused himself from 1224,
1115, and the pending 22cv3409 (SDNY) 2241 habeas corpus
proceedings.
Federal law and the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges required the Judge to recuse
and remove himself from all judicial involvement in the pending matters because, (I) he has been
named as a hostile, adverse, material fact witness in the proceedings, (II) named as an adverse
party-respondent, and (III) named an unindicted coconspirator in the sworn and verified
declaration of facts filed in support of the pending 22cv3409(SDNY) 2241 actual innocent habeas
corpus petition—the Judge knew, or was reckless and negligent in not knowing he was judicially
disqualified from any judicial participation in matters where he will be a material fact witness,
and the Judge has continued to interfere, conceal, and cover up his criminal contempts of the
Brady Court Orders by his knowing, and willful aiding, abetting, assisting, and/or enabling the
government to willfully violate and resist the Brady Court Orders’ disclosure and production
obligations.
C. The Chief Judge negligently and recklessly refused to investigate

whether the government has fully and completely produced and
disclosed “all” Brady actual innocent exculpatory and/or impeachment
evidence required by the Brady Court Orders.
Thus, to properly resolve the claims and ensure the public due process was delivered the
Chief Judge was required to have conducted a thorough and complete investigation, (1)
confirmed whether or not the Brady Court Orders have been fully complied with by the
government by having the government provide written proof of complete production and
disclosure; (2) have the subject judge, Edgardo Ramos, under oath admit or deny the allegations
and provide an explanation for his judicial misconduct. That was deliberately not done by the
Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston. Not done as a deliberate and intentional omission, an overt
act, in furtherance of Edgardo Ramos and the DOJ’s conspiracy to suppress and conceal actual
innocent Brady exculpatory and impeachment evidence—an execrably and criminal fundamental
miscarriage of justice. An “unconscionable plan and scheme to commit a fraud on the court” and
to impede and obstruct the “judicial machinery from performing as designed.”
Page 9 of 11
The Chief Judge negligently failed the public and the rule of law and with bias, prejudice,
and gross negligence refused and deliberately failed to conduct any credible “review” of the
records and the evidence submitted to the Chief Judge.
D. Conclusion.
The Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, and 28 USC 351-364 required the Chief Judge
to order the subject judge, Edgardo Ramos, to file a sworn response that admitted or denied the
facts and allegations within the Complaint. That was not done. The Chief Judge illegally,
unethically, criminally, 18 USC 2, 241, 242, and with bias, prejudice, and partiality substituted her
own biased and prejudicial personal conjectures and views as fact. That was not lawfully proper
or permissible according to the Act.
The records, the facts, and the evidence submitted with the Complaint fully supported all
claims and allegations made against the subject judge, Edgardo Ramos, cf., Dkt. 155, 22cv3409
(SDNY) (Rule 5(f) Brady Disclosure and Production motion pending in the 2241 habeas corpus
proceedings, where Ramos was named as an adverse party-respondent, yet has refused to recuse
himself, and has entered a trivially frivolous and fraudulent order, Dkt. 126, to relieve himself of
responding to the claims in the 2241 petition).
The Chief Judge, Debra Ann Livingston, violated the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges
by her reckless, negligent, and judicially irresponsible purported processing of the Complaint—
the facts or allegations have not been denied by Ramos, and Ramos has not filed any sworn
response in denial of the fact or claims, which are deemed true until Ramos responds.
The Chief Judge, Debra Ann Livingston, acted deliberately, intentionally, with reckless
disregard for the truth, the facts, and the law; and rigged, fixed, impeded, obstructed, and has
egregiously delayed justice, and the application of the rule of law to the criminal judicial
misconduct perpetrated by Edgardo Ramos, William H. Pauley, III, Robert W. Sweet, Debra Ann
Livingston, the government’s prosecutors, and others.
E. Requested relief.
The Complainant is requesting that the November 30, 2022, purported order entered by
the Chief Judge be vacated, set aside, and voided, and the Complaint be referred to the full
Judicial Council;
Page 10 of 11
Edgardo Ramos be ordered to not later than January 16, 2023, to file a sworn admission
or denial to all facts, allegations, and claims in the Complaint and serve a copy of his response on
the Complainant;
Complainant shall have 30 days from receipt of the response of Edgardo Ramos to file a
reply;
The Judicial Council shall conduct a full and complete public investigation of the facts,
allegations, and claims in the Complaint; and
The Judicial Council shall resolve all disputed facts or allegations by public evidentiary
hearings and make a public report of the findings regarding this matter.
Submitted by:
Ulysses T. Ware
January 9, 2023
I Ulysses T. Ware under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge
of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746, have this 9th day of January 2023, made this Petition for
Review.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 11 of 11

Dkt. 157-1 Re Ex. G (Pet'n For Review, in Re Ramos, 02-22-90049-Lm (2d Cir.) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dkt. 157-1 Re Ex. G (Pet'n For Review, in Re Ramos, 02-22-90049-Lm (2d Cir.) )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dkt. 157-1 Re Ex. G (Pet'n For Review, in Re Ramos, 02-22-90049-Lm (2d Cir.) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-03409-ER Document 157-1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 11

The Office of Ulysses T. Ware

Monday, January 9, 2023

Office of the Circuit Clerk

Dear Ms. Wolfe:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Preliminary Statement. ................................................................................................................................ 3

Office of the Clerk of the Court:

5. The government’s “principal witness” in 05cr1115 a person who claimed to be “Jeremy

the government’s 05cr1115 trial witnesses all testified pursuant to “cooperation

A. Reckless, Negligent, Irresponsible, Deliberate, and Intentional

B. Federal law, 28 USC 455(a), 455(b)(1-5), and the Constitution

C. The Chief Judge negligently and recklessly refused to investigate

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

You might also like