IRNewswires Investigative Reports: 

Opinion and Editorial.

Blatant Racially-Motivated Judicial and Governmental Corruption in the New York Federal Courts and Prosecutor's Office.

New York Federal Judge (SDNY)
William H. Pauley, III implicated in Judicial Bribery Conspiracy.

By: Harold Morey, Executive Editor and Alan Reitman, JD, Ph.D., Esq., Public Corruption Investigative Reporter.
October 22, 2020
New York, NY

RE: What should be the charges, fines, punishments, and consequences for New York federal judges William H. Pauley, III, et al.,  and the SEC's Enforcement Division's officials and lawyers, and its Chief Counsel, Joan E. McKown's, for their knowing, intentional, willful, and deliberate conspiracy to fabricate evidence, perjury, grand jury frauds and perjury, kidnapping, mail and wire frauds, bankruptcy frauds, securities frauds, insider-trading, money laundering, racketeering, conspiracy, civil right violations, Hobbs Act extortion; and the concealment and suppression of Rule 16 and Brady exculpatory, exonerating, and impeachment evidence in United States v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY), (the "Ware cases")?

For more than 50 years the law has not been in doubt, and is well-settled in regard to the disclosure duties and obligations of prosecutors in criminal proceedings. In 1963 the Supreme Court of the United States decided Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and announced the rule of law in regard to the prosecutor's disclosure obligations and duties to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The Court explained that the government's withholding of evidence from the defendant that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant's [Ulysses T. Ware, Esq.'s] constitutional right to due process of law. Brady's progenies have further expanded the concept and scope of due process to the police, or other government agencies that were involved in the investigation, i.e., in the Ware cases, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement Division's lawyers, employees, and officials, to wit, Joan E McKown, Spencer C. Barasch, Jeffrey B. Norris, Steve Korotash, Steve Webster, John C. Martin, Robert Hannan, Rebecca Fairchild, Stephen M. Cutler, Rose Romero, Julie D. Draper, Mark Pennington, William Smith-Grieg, and others, jointly and severally, (the "SEC Employees").

SEC lawyers Spencer C. Barasch and Jeffrey B. 
Norris

The Court's Brady doctrine absolutely bound and required the SEC, its lawyers, officials, and employees to turn over to the DOJ's New York criminal prosecutors, AUSAs Alexander H. Southwell, David Kelley, Steve R. Peikin, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Steven D. Feldman, Michael J. Garcia, et al., all evidence favorable to the defendant, Ulysses T. Ware, Esq..; and Brady, furthermore, absolutely bound and required the DOJ's prosecutors to turn over to Mr. Ware, all favorable evidence that could have, 

1. undermined and discredited the Government's theory of prosecution that press releases "artificially inflated the prices of INZS and SVSY's stocks" and Jeremy Jones and the Ware "employees" were not involved in a conspiracy with Mr. Ware;  
2. any and all evidence in regard to the SEC's litigation position in the Las Vegas commingled and illegal 03-0831 (D. NV) proceedings not to included Jeremy Jones, Myron Williams, Rick Sadler, Carlton Epps, and Charles H. Jackson as defendants in the Las Vegas Litigation;
3. all emails and other communications between the SEC and DOJ discussing the litigation positions of the SEC or DOJ inconsistent with the litigation position of the SEC in the Las Vegas Litigation, or the DOJ's lawyers' in their application for arrest warrants, positions taken before any grand jury, taken at trial, or argued on appeal;
4. all internal SEC communications that discredited, impeached, or in any way called into question the integrity or credibility of SEC employees (witnesses) that Mr. Ware intended to invoke the Sixth Amendment constitutional right to compel to testify at trial (i.e., Spencer C. Barasch, Steve Korotash, Jeffrey B. Norris, John C. Martin, Steve Webster, Julie D. Draper, and Robert Hannan),  regarding issues of fraud, bribery, illegal gratuities, favors, conflicts of interests, SEC and DOJ conspiracy, collusion, the conduct of the Las Vegas Proceedings, the bribery of District Judge William H. Pauley, III;
5. witness tampering, kidnapping of Mr. Ware on September 1, 2004, fraudulent subpoenas issued by the SEC's Enforcement Division, frauds committed on the District Clerk's Office (D. NV) regarding submission of the unsigned 03-0831 complaint to the District Court (D. NV) and the issuance of the null and void, invalid summons in 03-0831 (D. NV) litigation;
6. all internal and external SEC communications that were consistent with Mr. Ware's defense of SEC and DOJ collusion, conspiracy, frauds on the court, fabrication of evidence,  perjury, mail and wire frauds, racial profiling, racially-motivated hate crimes, racism, bigotry, bias, prejudice, conflicts of interests, and other favorable circumstances;
7. all communications of Steve Cutler, Joan E. McKown, SEC's chief counsel, Spencer C. Barasch, or other SEC employees' evaluations and recommendations to initiate enforcement proceedings and the weaknesses of the SEC's litigation positions;
8. all evidence regarding the inefficiency of the markets for INZS and SVSY's securities;
9. the reports of all experts the government intended to testify at trial regarding the inefficiency of the markets for INZS and SVSY's securities;
10. the alleged Rule 11 plea proceeding's documents and transcripts of government witness Jeremy Jones; 
11. all FINRA reports and communications regarding the broker-dealer registration status of the plaintiffs in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) litigation, to with, Alpha Capital, AG, Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd, Amro International, S.A., LH Financial, Ari Rabinowitz, and Ari Kluger, and convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, and 
12. all other favorable evidence.

B.   THE SEC'S ENFORCEMENT DIVISION'S LAWYERS AND OFFICIALS' EXCULPATORY LITIGATION POSITION TO PLEAD PARAGRAPH 33 IN THE 03-0831 UNSIGNED COMPLAINT EXONERATED MR. WARE OF ALL CHARGES IN United States v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY).

The court records are indisputable. On or about July 14, 2003 on behalf of the United States and its privies, according to SEC lawyer, William Smith-Greig, Esq., unknown person(s) irrevocably pleaded the United States and its privies (i.e., the DOJ, FBI, SEC, BOP, Admin, Office of the U.S. Courts, etc.) out of the federal and state courts and agencies resulting from and made by and thorough the judicial admissions and confessions pleaded at paragraph 33 of the 03-0831 unsigned complaint.

IRN's lawyers and investigators obtained the complete case file in the 03-0831 Las Vegas litigation including the unsigned July 14, 2003 complaint fraudulently submitted to the District Court (D. NV) in violation of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(a) and 11(b)(1-4), i.e., submitted without the proper (actual) signature of an admitted SEC lawyer; and submitted lacking any objectively reasonable basis in law, in fact, submitted for an improper purpose, frivolous, and submitted in bad faith, as a pretextual conspiratorial agreement with the DOJ to frame Mr. Ware for his refusal to criminally violate Sections 5, 77x, and 78ff of the federal securities law and sign and issue fraudulent and null and void ab initio Rule 144 legal opinions to Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters and unregistered broker-dealers. Ergo,  the refusal to criminally enable convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., clients, the plaintiffs in Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v. Internet Venture Group, a/k/a Group Management Corp. ("GPMT"), et al., case no. 02cv2219 (SDNY) (LBS), ("Alpha 2219") -- Section 2(a)(11) statutory underwriters and unregistered broker-dealers ineligible for Rule 144 exemption from Section 5 strict liability registration requirements -- criminal conspiracy to conduct unregistered public offerings of GPMT's securities while lacking a valid effective registration statement in effect approved by the SEC in violation of Sections 5, 77x, and 78ff. Criminal offenses.

Thus, we are perplexed, and very concerned that a federal agency and its officials knowingly and willingly deceived a federal court -- knowingly committed a fraud on a federal court -- and submitted fraudulent pleadings to initiate a bogus and moot lawsuit; and continued to litigate the moot Las Vegas litigation while knowing the proceedings were null and void ab initio. To ensure the public trust and to eradicate government corruption against citizens, Joan E. McKown, et al., the SEC's chief counsel of its Enforcement Division, Stephen M. Cutler, the Director of the Enforcement Division, and Spencer C. Barasch, the regional director of enforcement (Ft. Worth, TX) all must be held accountable for their criminal fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice. This is the only way the public can be assured that this nefarious and perfidious prosecutorial misconduct is eliminated, and if caught the penalty will be very severe.

IRN's lawyers and retained experts with years of experience in federal securities law litigation have thus far been unable to come up with a rational and logical basis in law and fact regarding what exactly motivated the SEC and DOJ to initiate the 03-0831 Las Vegas litigation? What motivate and what informed the reasoning the SEC's officials (Spencer C. Barasch, Joan E. McKown, Stephen M. Cutler, et al.) used to have the Commissioners approve a frivolous and fraudulent enforcement proceeding in federal court where the SEC's own Enforcement Division's chief counsel, Joan E. McKown, and its Director, Stephen M. Cutler, had agreed, implicitly, the alleged offending press releases were immaterial, and therefore, not actionable as an Article III live case or controversy?

In other words the SEC's officials on or before July 14, 2003 knew the 03-0831 Las Vegas litigation was moot, and dead on arrival in the federal court on July 14, 2003. The law is  not in rational debate. A United States federal court lacked statutory and Article III subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings; and lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants given the SEC conceded the compliant was unsigned. Accordingly, what were the circumstances and motivations that informed the decision to initiate and submit a frivolous, bad faith, fraudulent, and filed for an improper purpose unsigned complaint in a federal court? Those questions now must be addressed and answered by the current SEC general counsel, Joan E. McKown, Stephen M. Cutler, Spencer C. Barasch, Jeffrey B. Norris, and the DOJ's lawyers (i.e., David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Andrew L. Fish, et al.) whose 05cr1115 and 04cr1224 SDNY criminal proceedings depended in whole and/or in part on the fraudulent and moot 03-0831 Las Vegas litigation.

A fundamental miscarriage of justice occurred in regard to the Ware Cases. The proceedings were contaminated by judicial and prosecutorial frauds, corruption, bribery, perjury, conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, Brady evidence concealment and suppressions, money laundering, kidnapping, witness tampering, insider-trading, conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud,  and other crimes. The persons who executed this criminal conspiracy as a matter of law fit the federal criminal enterprise statutory definition, 18 USC 1961(4), and taken cumulatively, the Ware Cases fit the definition of a statutory pattern of racketeering activities, Id. at Section 1961(5).

CONCEALED AND SUPPRESSED BRADY EVIDENCE