11.07.23 Re District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon's Criminal Judicial Misconduct and Corruption

No.
23-865/23-869(46)
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
Ware v. United States, et al.
Filed on Wednesday, November 8, 2023, 09:52:25 PM
_____________
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste. 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Via email to the Office of the Chief Circuit Judge for filing (Debra Ann Livington)1
Office of the Chief Circuit Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Sq.
New York, NY 10007
Criminal Judicial Misconduct Indictment re:

District Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY) and Appx. 61-6.
1
On June 15, 2023, at 11:05 AM an overt act in furtherance of the Hobbs Act murder-for-hire conspiracy
was perpetrated by court employee Richard Dessources, the purported “supervisor of the case intake
section” of the Court of Appeal (2d Cir.)—that is, Dessources called Mr. Ware from a court telephone and
threaten Mr. Ware “ … we [a conspiracy] are not going to file any of your pleadings, no one will see them,
they are just piling up here, ….” A per se violation of federal criminal law, 18 USC 2071, and a felony
violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Employees. See Canon 2(B)(6), infra.
Page 1 of 102
(46) re Colleen McMahon’s Criminal judicial misconduct, corruption, and violation of the Code of
Conduct for Federal Judges, impeachable conduct.
Indictment (Judicial Complaint) for Criminal Judicial
Misconduct Committed by Defendants District Judge
(SDNY) Colleen McMahon Appendix 61-6.
__________________
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware’s Letter of Inquiry and Notification (the “Notification”), to Chief
Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston of violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, and
impeachable criminal conduct re: Criminal and impeachable judicial misconduct of Judges
Debra Ann Livingston, Jose A. Cabranes, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Edgardo Ramos,
Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau, Kent J. Dawson, Thomas W. Thrash,
Jr., Katherine Polk-Failla, and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, jointly, (the “Judges”).
Re: Ware v. USA, et al., 23-865 and 23-869 (2d Cir.)—Omnibus L.R. 27-1 Leave to File
Motion.
Appellant requests that this matter be made public and does not request that
confidentiality be maintained regarding this matter.
Submitted by:
Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Page 2 of 102
Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct Second Circuit, Nov. 8, 2023.
Page 3 of 102
Page 4 of 102
In the United States Court of Appeals
Ulysses T. Ware, :
Appellant-Complainant, :
:
: Case No.: __________________
vs :
District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon, :
Defendant-Unindicted Coconspirator. :
_______________________________________:
Criminal Judicial Misconduct Indictment-Complaint.
Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

on November 8, 2023, pursuant to Canon 2(B)(6).
Filed under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, and
pursuant to 28 USC 1746.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Complainant-Appellant

November 8, 2023.
Page 5 of 102
Table of Contents
Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct Second Circuit, Nov. 8, 2023. ..................................................... 3

I Introduction—Racketeering Hobbs Act violent Crimes of Colleen McMahon. ................................ 11
II Indictment—Colleen McMahon’s Criminal judicial misconduct....................................................... 12
Indictment (Declaration) of Charges and Accusations Presented by Ulysses T. Ware. ............................ 12
Fact 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Fact 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Fact 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Fact 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Fact 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Fact 6 ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Fact 7 ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Fact 8 ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Fact 9 ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
III Summary of Colleen McMahon’s criminal charges. ......................................................................... 22
1 Allegation A: Judge McMahon's business and personal investments in unlawful criminal usury
convertible promissory notes, (“CPNs”), and other unregistered securities. ......................................... 23
2 Allegation B: Violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges. .............................................. 24
3 Allegation C: Violation of federal law, 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(1-5); and 18 USC 2, 157, 241, 242,
371, 1341, 1343, 1519, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), 1962)a-d), and 2071........................................................ 25
4 Indisputable and ipso facto, and per se Judicial admissions and confession of District Judge
Colleen McMahon made in filings before the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts records. .......... 27
IV Why this Indictment (Judicial Complaint) was filed: the Doctrine of Judicial Accountability. ........ 28
1 The Doctrine, Principles, and Philosophy of Judicial Accountability. .............................................. 28
2 Why it is important to immediately indict, arrest, criminally prosecute, convict, and impose a life
sentence on violent and dangerous criminals, Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, David N. Kelley,
Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Alexander H. Southwell, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine
Polk-Failla, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, Andrew L. Fish, Preet Bharara, David N. Kelley,
Merrick B. Garland, Barbara S. Jones, Damian Williams, Wendy L. Hagenau, Edgardo Ramos, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Debra Ann Livingston, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, LaShann DeArcy Hall, and
Page 6 of 102
others involved in this vicious, dangerous, and violent Hobbs Act murder-for-hire, 18 USC 1958,
conspiracy. .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Exhibits in support of the Indictment (Judicial Complaint) ...................................................................... 33
Exhibit 1—McMahon, J., Dkt. 151 (02cv2219 (SDNY) re Null and void ab initio, moot purported order
entered “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” in the personal capacity of the private individual
Colleen McMahon which created 18 USC 2, 157, 371, 1951, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b),
personal civil monetary liability for McMahon, in the sum certain amount of $2.2225 billion, jointly
and severally, with violent and dangerous criminals Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Kilpatrick,
Townsend, Stockton, LLP (Atl), (“KTS”), Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Mob Boss Ari
Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, Esq., deputy judicial Mob Boss Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), David N.
Kelley, Alexander H. Southwell, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-
Failla, Preet Bharara, Robert W. Sweet, Robert A. Katzmann, Charles Ellis Schumer, Peter W. Hall,
Barbara S. Jones, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Patricia Sinback, the State
Bar of Georgia, its employees, and agents in their personal and individual capacity, and others. ...... 34
Exhibit 1 (con’t) re Dkt. 151 (02cv2219), fraudulent, bogus, moot, and void ab initio purported court
order making Hobbs Act threats against a prevailing party, Ulysses T. Ware in violation of 42 USC 1983,
1985(2), and 1985(3) to aid, abet, assist, and enable the criminal collection of the unlawful debts, GX
1-4, in violation of 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B),
1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b). .................................................................................................................... 35
Exhibit 2—Dkt 141—Fake, fraudulent, and counterfeit, null and void ab initio purported court order,
(McMahon, J.), entered as an overt act to facilitate, aid, abet, and enable the violent and dangerous
mafia Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, criminal enterprise LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG, et al.,
and herself to continue to violate 18 USC 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B) by the collection of
unlawful debts, GX 1-4, and see Ex. 8, McMahon’s and Frank V. Sica’s RICO CPN unlawful debts. .... 36
Exhibit 3—Dkt. 137-- Fake, fraudulent, and counterfeit, null and void ab initio purported court order,
(McMahon, J.), entered as an overt act to facilitate, aid, abet, and enable the violent and dangerous
mafia Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, criminal enterprise LH Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG, et al.,
and herself to continue to violate 18 USC 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B) by the collection of
unlawful debts, GX 1-4, and see Ex. 8, McMahon’s and Frank V. Sica’s RICO CPN unlawful debts. .... 37
Exhibit 4-1—Dkt. 120, 02cv2219 (SDNY), McMahon, C.J. (void ab initio, and moot). ......................... 39
Exhibit 4 -2(con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) ....................................................................................... 40
Exhibit 4-3 (con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) (05/17/2019) bogus, void, fake, and fraudulent order. 41
Exhibit 4-4 (con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) ....................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 5—Omitted. Once authenticated to be filed under seal (Sensitive personal financial
documents of Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau, Amalya L.
Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, convicted felon Edward M.
Grushko--concrete, clear, and convincing evidence of judicial conspiracy and bribery). .................... 43
Page 7 of 102
Exhibit 6—Collusion and conspiracy between Wendy L. Hagenau, Colleen McMahon, and the USAO
(SDNY), Damian Williams—RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activities. ...................... 44
Exhibit 7—District Judge (NGDA) Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt
collection activities re GX 1-4 (04cr1224)(SDNY)/02cv2219 (SDNY). ...................................................... 45
Exhibit 8—Crimes and frauds of Colleen McMahon’s and Frank V. Sica’s under oath admission of
personal ownership in RICO criminal usury CPNs--+$22,000,000 personal ownership interest in illicit,
unlawful debts. ....................................................................................................................................... 46
I. .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
A. Request for Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court, Civil Contempt, and Rule 42 Criminal Contempt
Enforcement Proceeding Status conference. .......................................................................................... 49
II................................................................................................................................................................... 51
A. Article III subject matter jurisdictional pending issues in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ................................... 51
III.................................................................................................................................................................. 52
A. As a matter of law the 02cv2219 lawsuit has been and is currently moot. ..................................... 52
B. The Adar Bays’ March 15, 2022, decision rendered the 02cv2219 lawsuit null and void ab initio as
of February 2001, and moot. .................................................................................................................. 53
C. The Court’s May 17, 2019, Order, Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) is null and void ab initio, and GPMT’s
counterclaim, Dkt. 31, is required to be reinstated immediately. ........................................................... 54
D. District Judge Colleen McMahon, her spouse, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, and Tailwind
Capital Management LLC, jointly, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), criminal usury convertible
promissory note investments, (the “Criminal Usury Notes”). ................................................................. 56
E. Conclusion and requested reliefs. ................................................................................................... 57
Certificate of Service .............................................................................................................................. 60
Exhibits: ................................................................................................................................................... 61
Brady exculpatory evidence and Colleen McMahon’s Criminal Usury Investments................................ 61
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) Voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment ................................................... 62
Exhibit 2: FINRA’s unregistered broker-dealer certification. ............................................................... 63
Exhibit 3: Testimony of Ari Rabinowitz: admission of broker-dealer status. ....................................... 64
Exhibit 4(1): Lending Front Inc’s Form D re No results in the SEC’s EDGAR registration system.
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. ................... 65
Exhibit 4(2): Relationship Capital Partners Inc. Form D re No results in the SEC’s EDGAR registration
system. Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. ..... 66
Exhibit 4(3): Acredo Cloud Corp. Form D re No results in the SEC’s EDGAR registration system.
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. ................... 67
Page 8 of 102
Exhibit 4(4-1): TG&L Holdings LLC re 2017 Reg. D, Rule 506 $500k offering of convertible promissory
notes. Of an alleged unregistered $500k offering of convertible promissory notes, Judge McMahon
purchased between $250k and $500k of the unregistered offering. .................................................. 68
Exhibit 4(4-2): TG&L Holdings LLC’s Form D which confirmed the offering of $500k of unregistered
convertible promissory notes. ............................................................................................................. 69
End of Document ................................................................................................................................ 70
Exhibit 9—02cv2219 (SDNY), Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, after the statute of
limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice of
the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, and the annulment and vitiation of all orders [GX 11, 24, and 34], and
judgments [GX 7], and proceedings in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ...................................................................... 71
Exhibit 10—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each 02cv2219 plaintiff
required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and New York state law. ...................................................... 72
Exhibit 15--RICO criminal usury, loan sharking, CPN investments personally owned by Colleen McMahon
and Frank V. Sica. ........................................................................................................................................ 73
Exhibit 2: Judge McMahon’s and convicted felon Edward M. Grushko’s money laundering that involved
unregistered broker-dealer and RICO unlawful debt creator and collector Alpha Capital, AG. What is
Judge McMahon and her spouse, Frank V. Sica’s relationship to Alpha Capital, AG, Kenneth A. Zitter
(Harvard Law), Dennis S. Meir (Harvard Law), Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (Harvard Law), LH Financial
Services, Inc., and Ari Rabinowitz? .......................................................................................................... 73
Exhibit 3: Money laundering by Edward M. Grushko, Alpha Capital, AG, and Judge Colleen McMahon in
the Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. litigation. ............................................................................................ 74
Exhibit 4: Reported 2020 income of Frank V. Sica. .................................................................................. 75
Exhibit 5: #103 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,000 and $1,000,000. ............ 76
Exhibit 6: #113 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $100,001 - $250,000. .................... 77
Exhibit 8: #204 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 - $1,000,000. ................. 79
Exhibit 10: #220 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $15,001 - $50,000. ...................... 81
Exhibit 11: #244 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 - $1,000,000. .............. 82
Exhibit 14: #276, 277, and 279 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $500,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 85
Exhibit 15: ##297, 300, 302, and 304 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $50,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 86
Page 9 of 102
Exhibit 16: #323 2020 convertible promissory note valued between 100,001 - $250,000. .................... 87
Exhibit 17: ##327, 334, 336, 337, and 339 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between 50,001 -
$500,000. ................................................................................................................................................ 88
Exhibit 18: #376 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $250,001 - $500,000. .................. 89
Exhibit 19: #387 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $15,001 - $50,000. ...................... 90
Exhibit 22: #520 2020 convertible promissory note valued between (not valued). ................................ 93
Appendix 61-6—Unfiled and docketed Prevailing Party Ulysses T. Ware’s 12/22/22 Request to District
Judge Colleen McMahon to clarify her moot, counterfeit, fake, fraudulent, and void ab initio order, Dkt.
151, Ex. 1, supra. McMahon refused to file and docket this judicial pleading and therefore violated 18
USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1512, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b), and 42
USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3). ................................................................................................................ 94
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.................................................................................................................... 98
Conclusion. ............................................................................................................................................. 99
End of Document ...................................................................................................................................... 102
Page 10 of 102
I Introduction—Racketeering Hobbs Act violent Crimes of Colleen
McMahon.
In 18 USC 1961(6)(B),2 as the public policy of the United States Congress outlawed and
criminalized3 Judge McMahon’s (and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica’s) criminal judicial
misconduct—that is, the knowingly and willful aiding, abetting, assisting, facilitating, and
enabling any collection activities associated with or relating to the NYS Penal Law, section 190.40,
the Criminal Usury Law, a class E felony, convertible promissory notes (CPNs) which contained the
criminal floating price, conversion option (FPCO), to wit: (i) the CPNs referenced in the 02cv2219
(SDNY) complaint, (ii) the CPNs referenced in the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment, GX
1-4, issued pursuant to GX 5, jointly, (the “RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt Contracts”), and
(iii) the CPNs referenced in Judge McMahon’s sworn personal financial statements filed with the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AOC”). See Ex. 8, infra.
2
18 USC 1961(b)(6) “unlawful debt” means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which
was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is
unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws
relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of
the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or
a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice
the enforceable rate.
3
Criminal conduct is per se, ipso facto, high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable conduct, and
violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, Canons, 1, 2, and 3; is conduct detrimental to the
orderly and effective administration of justice in the federal courts, and brings disrepute and dishonor to
the federal judiciary. Judge Colleen McMahon is guilty as charged. See Ex. 1-4, infra.
Page 11 of 102
II Indictment—Colleen McMahon’s Criminal judicial misconduct.
Indictment (Declaration) of Charges and

Accusations Presented by Ulysses T. Ware.
Ulysses T. Ware, the Appellant, hereby this 7th day of November 2023, under oath, subject
to the penalty of perjury, having personal knowledge of the facts, pursuant to 28 USC 1746 makes
this declaration of fact, (the “Declaration” or “Indictment”), (1) in support of the pending Rule
27-1 Emergency Motions, and (2) as the factual basis to make the Court aware of and bring to the
Court’s attention facts—clear and convincing evidence, regarding indisputable and numerous
instances of criminal violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges, (the “Canons”), and
the judicial misconduct “engaged in” by federal judges Amalya L. Kearse and Robert D. Sack—that
is, the Judges Kearse and Sack, (the “Judges”), directly or indirectly, recklessly, irresponsibly, and
negligently with a depraved mind and corrupt mental state, and with gross indifference to the law
and the rights of Appellant the Judges have knowingly conspired, colluded, aided, abetted,
assisted, or enabled (A) the violation of Titles 11, 15, 18, and 42 of the United States Code, (the
“Federal Laws”), (B) the Constitution of the United States by the Judges’ families, friends,
associates, and their unindicted coconspirators, and (C) the Canons, (the “Crimes” or
“Impeachable Conduct”).
Page 12 of 102
Fact 1
Appellant Ulysses T. Ware files into the Court for inclusion in the record of No. 23-865 and
23-869, (the “Moot Appeals”), Appx. 61-6 filed in support of (1) the L.R. Rule 27-1 pending
Emergency Motions, and (2) in support of and to make the Judicial Conference of the United
States Courts, the Chief Circuit Judge, and the Court of Appeals aware of numerous instances of
criminal racketeering activities, criminal prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct.
Pursuant to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980,
28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1), 372(c)(9)(A) (the “Act"), and Canon 2(B)(6) Appellant makes the following
factual notification to the Chief Circuit Judge and the Judicial Conference of the United States of
criminal impeachable judicial conduct “engaged in” by District Judges (SDNY) Colleen McMahon,
or Bankruptcy Judges (NDGA), Wendy L. Hagenau,4 Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, and
Coleman Ray Mullins, directly and/or indirectly while sitting as an Article III or Article I federal
judge, respectively:
(i) criminal conduct that is adverse and antithetical to her/his continued position as
an Article III federal judge,
4
See Ex. 6, infra, the USAO (SDNY), Colleen McMahon, and Wendy L. Hagenau’s Oct. 2022, willful and
intentional 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3), 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) racketeering conspiracy,
collusion, acting in concert, agreement, confederation, and illegal association-in-fact,
Page 13 of 102
(ii) criminal conduct which she/he “engaged in” that is prejudicial and antithetical to
the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and
violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges,
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States,5 and;
(iii) Judge McMahon and her spouse, Frank V. Sica, personal investments in RICO
unlawful, criminal usury CPNs, see Ex. 15, infra, (a) their knowing and willful,
covert operation an unregistered brokers, dealers, and investment advisers in
RICO unlawful debt instrument, Ex. Id., and (b) McMahon’s criminal interference
with pending judicial proceedings, 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), and
23cv3409 (SDNY), see Ex. 6, infra, that aided, abetted, facilitated, and enabled the
5
Pursuant to Canon 2(B)(6), see infra--A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable
information indicating the likelihood [based on the “allegations of impeachable conduct” presented]
that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s [Richard Dessources, Court of
Appeals purported “in take supervisor”] conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
[Ruby Krajick, M. Regina Thomas], or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct [i.e.,
Thomas A. Leghorn, Lawrence Mandala, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP,
Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, Mitchell Nussbaum, J. Henry Walker, IV, John W. Mills, III, Dennis
S. Meir, James Morawetz, M. Regina Thomas, Ruby Krajick, Edward T. M. Garland, Donald F. Samuel,
Manibur S. Arora, David B. Levitt, Michael F. Bachner, Gary G. Becker, Marlon G. Kirton, David N. Kelley,
Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, Joon Kim, John M. McEnany, Audrey Strauss, Andrew L. Fish, Damian
Williams, Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, Won Shin,
Jun Xiang, Alexander H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul,
Katherine Polk-Failla, and Melissa Childs, (the “Foot Soldiers”), the infantry. Appellant requests the Chief
Circuit Judge to “take appropriate action” regarding the sworn allegations in the Declaration and appoint
a Special Committee to investigate the allegations in the Declaration. “Appropriate action depends on the
circumstances, but the overarching goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those [Ulysses T. Ware
has and continues to suffer irreparable harms, injuries, and damages in the sum certain amount of +$2.225
billion] affected by the misconduct and to prevent recurrence.” (emphasis added).
Page 14 of 102
civil and criminal contempt of court orders—that is, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Dec.
20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final order, see Ex. 9, infra.
Fact 2
It is a fact, supported by clear and indisputable evidence, see Ex. 9, Dkt. 90, 02cv2219
(SDNY), infra, on Dec. 20, 2007, violent and dangerous loan sharking and money laundering
criminal Kenneth A. Zitter Esq., on behalf of RICO criminal enterprises LH Financial Services, Alpha
Capital, AG, Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, and the 02cv2219 (SDNY), (“2219”), plaintiffs (the
“Plaintiffs”), ex parte, in secret, without notice to the defendants,6 moved the 2219 district court
(Sand, J.) (deceased), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2). Zitter on Dec. 20, 2007, ratified by
6
As of June 5, 2023, the District Court (SDNY) records department had no written record in the 02cv2219
(SDNY) case file of Zitter’s purported (1) Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) motion, and (2) the required
certificate of service, judicial public records which have been removed, stolen, suppressed, concealed, or
destroyed in violation of 18 USC 2071(a), (b).
Page 15 of 102
Sand, J., Dkt. 90, Ex. Id., vacated, set aside, annulled,7 vitiated, and voided the 2219 orders,
judgments, and proceedings,8 (the “Annulled Orders” or “Annulled Proceedings”).9
Fact 3
It is a fact supported by indisputable evidence, Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, infra, fake, bogus, and
fraudulent moot, risible, void ab initio court orders, (the “Fraudulent and Fake Court Orders”),
7
verb (used with object),an·nulled, an·nul·ling.
1. (especially of laws or other established rules, usages, etc.) to make void or null; abolish; cancel;
invalidate: to annul a marriage.
2. to reduce to nothing; obliterate.

8
On Dec. 20, 2007, see Ex. 9, Sand, J., ipso facto triggered res judicata, collateral estoppel, established the
‘law of the case’ apropos GX 1-4, GX 5, GX 7, GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34 (the “Moot Subject Matter”), and
(ii) conveyed prevailing party status on GPMT, the Landers, and Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., whom are
authorized by law to enforce the Rule 41(a)(2) final order via the civil and criminal contempt processes of
the District Court (SDNY) against Colleen McMahon, Barbara S. Jones, the USPO, the AOC, the BOP,
Edgardo Ramos, Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS, J. Henry Walker, IV, Rabinowitz, Zitter, LH Financial Services, Alpha
Capital, AG, Laura Taylor-Swain, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk—Failla,
Preet Bharara, Merrick B. Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Damian Williams, Won Shin, Jun Xiang,
Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, John M. McEnany, Audrey Strauss, Geoffrey Berman, Joon Kim, LaShan
DeArcy Hall, M. Regina Thomas, Coleman Ray Mullins, Joyce Bihary, Margaret H. Murphy, Patricia Sinback,
the State Bar of Georgia, its employees and agents, and others.
9
See binding circuit precedents, A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1952) (“voluntary
dismissal of law annulled and vitiated all orders, judgments, and proceedings, rendered the proceedings
moot and the proceedings should be treated accordingly.”) (paraphrased) (emphasis added), and U.S. v.
L-3 Comm’cs EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d 11, 18-19 (2d Cir. 2019) (It is “hornbook law” that voluntary dismissal
of the lawsuit by plaintiff leaves the matter “as if the lawsuit had never been filed.”). (emphasis added).
Obviously, if the 2219 lawsuit “had never been filed” there is no lawful extant judgment [GX 7] or lawful
extant orders [GX 11, GX 24, and GX 34], (the “Annulled Subject Matter”), over which McMahon in
02cv2219, Hagenau in In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031 (BC NDGA), David N. Kelley in U.S. v.
Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), Ramos in 22cv10566 (SDNY), the Court of Appeals in 09-0851cr, 11-4181, and 23-
865 (2d Cir.), and the Supreme Court of Georgia, In re Ware (2008) fabricated, moot, and void ab initio
disbarment) are lawfully authorized to exercise standing, Article III, appellate jurisdiction, or state law
over moot and Annulled Subject Matter, void ab initio subject matter.
Page 16 of 102
entered by McMahon, in her personal and individual capacities, entered by McMahon in “the
clear absence of all jurisdiction” over the 2219 proceedings,; (ii) entered as overt acts to aid, abet,
assist, facilitate, further, and enable the continued 18 USC 1961(6)(B) collection activities related
to or associated with GX 1-4 (the “RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debts”); and (iii) entered as a
fraud on the court, collectively impeachable conduct which violated the Codes of Conduct for
Federal Judges, Canons 1, 2, and 3.
Fact 4
It is an indisputable fact supported by McMahon’s own personal financial statements,
signed under oath, filed with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, see Ex. 8, infra, that
prove Judge McMahon and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, have since before or about 2010
personally owned +$22,000,000 in RICO criminal usury CPN investments, see Ex. 15, infra, in
violation of NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the Criminal Usury Law, a class E felony; and (2) neither
have ever lawfully registered with FINRA or the SEC as required by New York state and federal
law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), as registered brokers or dealers, or investment advisers. Those are facts
that Judge McMahon cannot and will not deny under oath unless she wants to commit perjury.
Therefore, Judge McMahon is guilty as charged and committed impeachable conduct.
Fact 5
It is a fact that Judge McMahon knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and directly, in her
personal and individual capacity—that is, in “the clear absence of all jurisdiction” over the
Page 17 of 102
02cv2219 proceedings, personally criminally violated 18 USC 401(2), and 401(3), criminal
contempt of the Rule 41(a)(2) final order, Ex. 5, infra, by her willful resistance to the Rule 41(a)(2)
order, willfully done by her intentional and negligent entry of the Fraudulent and Fake Orders;
which criminal conduct ipso facto violated the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges Canons 1, 2,
and 3, impeachable conduct. See Appx. 61-6, infra.
Fact 6
It is a fact supported by the record evidence, Ex. 3, infra, that on October 27, 2022, Judge
McMahon knew, or was willfully negligent of the fact that on Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 9, infra,
Judge Sand (deceased), dismissed 02cv2219 with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); and (2)
Judge McMahon, an Article III federal judge, presumptively knowledgeable in the law, is charged
with knowing and comprehending the legal consequences which resulted from the Dec. 20, 2007,
voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of 02cv2219—that is, (A) on the one hand either Judge
McMahon is extremely ignorant of the law, and/or corrupt, or both; or (b) on the other hand
Judge McMahon was criminally negligently willfully blind to the legal consequences of the Rule
41(a)(2) final order, Ex. Id.,
It is incredible, and not credible that Judge McMahon on Oct. 27, 2022, did not know the
02cv2219 lawsuit had been dismissed on Dec. 20, 2007, was moot, and Judge McMahon clearly
knew Rule 41(a)(2) annulled, vitiated, voided, and set aside all orders, judgments, and
proceedings in the 02cv2219 proceedings, which legally implied and can be inferred that Judge
McMahon knew she lacked all lawful jurisdiction over a moot proceeding. That she knew, but
Page 18 of 102
completely disregarded and covered up this material and critical fact to protect her personal
penal and pecuniary interest.
Based on the factual record presented herein, cf., Ex. 15, infra,10 it can be reasonably
concluded that Judge Colleen McMahon is a complete fraud, a dangerous and violent criminal,
and a phony.
Fact 7
It is a fact that on Oct. 27, 2022, cf., Ex. 3, had Judge McMahon competently applied the
binding circuit precedents, the rule of law, regarding Rule 41(a)(2) legal consequences to the fact
of the Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, see Ex. 9, infra, Rule 41(a)(2) final order, it is indefensible that a
competent Article III federal judge would not have known the 02cv2219 lawsuit was annulled by
the plaintiffs’ lawyer, and vitiated by the district judge (Sand, J.)—that is, the 02cv2219 lawsuit
had been dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs, all orders, judgments, and proceedings
therein had been abrogated, vitiated, and annulled as a matter of law, and most importantly
Judge McMahon lacked all jurisdiction over the proceedings other than to enforce the Rule
41(a)(2) final order by civil and/or criminal contempt proceedings.11
10
Judge McMahon has already admitted her guilt by filing sworn financial statements with the AOC, see
Ex. 15, infra, which are admissions of criminal conduct that violated federal law, and is impeachable
conduct.
11
It is palpable that Judge McMahon had no intentions of ever holding her white friends, colleagues, and
unindicted coconspirators in civil and/or criminal contempt of the Rule 41(a)(2) final court order. Never in
a million years was that requirement going to take place, which motivated Judge McMahon to lie, commit
perjury, obstruct justice, and violate criminal federal law in the service of her personal overt Jim Crow
Page 19 of 102
Fact 8
It is a fact supported by the record evidence presented herein, Exhibits 1-15, and Appx.
61-6, that Judge McMahon has directly and/or indirectly, knowingly, willfully, having full
knowledge of the legal consequence has along with Frank V. Sica, and the other federal judges
and prosecutors named herein engaged in a persistent criminal conspiracy to commit a murder-
for-hire, loan sharking, money laundering, Hobbs Act crimes of violence, bankruptcy fraud
conspiracy, (see Ex. 6, infra), bribery, perjury, obstruct justice, violated the Code of Conduct for
Federal Judges, violated federal criminal and civil laws, and knowingly brought destain, disrepute,
and dishonor to the federal judiciary, all impeachable conduct.
Fact 9
It is a fact supported by Ex. 4-3, 05/17/2019, void order, McMahon, C.J., 02cv2219 (SDNY),
that Judge McMahon was aware of the existence of the Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, (Sand, J), Rule
41(a)(2) final order. Judge McMahon in Ex. 4-3, twice referenced the Dec. 20, 2007, order [cf., EX.
9, infra] as follows: first, she stated regarding Appellant, “makes arguments regarding the order
of dismissal without prejudice [Dkt. 90] of the underlying [02cv2219] action, which is on the
docket at docket number 90” and second, Appellant “seeking an order that ECF No. 90 [see Ex. 9,
infra] voided the legal judgment entered against plaintiff in this civil action (ECF No. 117).”
white supremacy philosophy and judicial doctrine. Judge Colleen McMahon is a judicial racist of the
highest order.
Page 20 of 102
Therefore, on May 17, 2009, Judge McMahon was indisputably aware of the Dec. 20,
2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final order which dismissed 02cv2219 with/without prejudice and she is
charged with actual knowledge of the legal consequences of that order regarding her subject
matter jurisdiction over the annulled and moot 02cv2219 proceedings. Judge McMahon knew
that she was required to enforce the Rule 41(a)(2) final order--conduct civil and criminal
contempt proceedings and hold accountable all those who directly and/or indirectly resisted the
Rule 41(a)(2) final court order. The civil/criminal contempt judicial action was intentionally and
deliberately avoided and Judge McMahon failed to hold accountable white federal prosecutors,
judges, and lawyers, white supremacy committed racial treason; she intentionally omitted to
perform her judicial duties, and fabricated and manufactured a lie, a fraud, and colluded and
conspired with the violators of the Rule 41 order to obstruct justice, which violated Appellant’s
legal rights as the prevailing party to the Rule 41 judgment.
Signed this 8th day of November 2023, under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, and
pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.
Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Brooklyn, NY
November 8, 2023
End of Indictment-Judicial Complaint
Page 21 of 102
III Summary of Colleen McMahon’s criminal charges.
I, Ulysses T. Ware, the Complainant, under oath and pursuant to the penalty of perjury
make this complaint of egregious criminal judicial misconduct against U.S. District Judge (SDNY)
Colleen McMahon, and other federal judges pursuant to the Judicial Misconduct and Disability
Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.
I am writing to file a formal complaint of criminal judicial misconduct against U.S. District
Court Judge Colleen McMahon, based on:
1. her business and personal investments in the same type of
unlawful criminal usury convertible promissory notes (CPNs), the same criminal,
nonjusticiable subject matter in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) judicial proceedings,
2. her and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, unregistered broker-
dealer and investment adviser status as brokers, and dealers in criminal usury
unlawful debts, and other financial securities,
3. her adamant and unethical refusal to recuse herself from the
02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings despite knowing that she possessed an actual
pecuniary and penal conflict of interest regarding the same criminal usury subject
matter being adjudicated in 02cv2219, and
Page 22 of 102
4. her criminal and unethical collusion and conspiracy with the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, their agents, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, LH
Financial Services, Inc., convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Leonard B.
Sand, Peter W. Hall, Robert A. Katzmann, Barbara S. Jones, Edgardo Ramos, Laura
Taylor-Swain, Wendy L. Hagenau, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Debra
Ann Livingston, Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, and others known and
unknown, collectively, an illegal association-in-fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4).
Judge McMahon's unethical criminal judicial misconduct represents a clear and present
danger to the due administration of justice, is also an execrable willful disregard for the principles
of due process and the rule of law, and her criminal judicial misconduct violated the Codes of
Conduct for Federal Judges, as well as numerous state and federal laws, to wit:
1 Allegation A: Judge McMahon's business and personal investments in unlawful

criminal usury convertible promissory notes, (“CPNs”), and other unregistered securities.
According to public financial disclosures held by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Court,12 Judge McMahon and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, have personally and in a business
12
The AOC currently has in its possession Judge McMahon’s judicial public financial records filed for 2003-
2021, which were signed under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, which disclosed allegedly all of
Judge McMahon’s personal and business investments made by her and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica,
their alleged “private foundation” and Sica’s employer, Tailwind Capital Management LLP, jointly, (the
“McMahons’ Criminal Enterprise”). It has been alleged by individuals having personal knowledge of the
internal operations of Tailwind Capital that Tailwind Capital is “nothing more than a private equity Ponzi
scam … which everyone in the industry knows that Frank and his cronies get away because his wife is a
federal judge [Colleen McMahon] has corruptly rigged and fixed, and corruptly used her judicial influence
Page 23 of 102
capacity invested in and personally own an estimated +$22 million in criminal usury loan-sharking
convertible promissory notes (CPNs), and millions of dollars in unregistered securities from the
period beginning in 2003 to the present, 2023. This investment in CPNs violated NYS Penal Law,
section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony; it is also a violation of federal law, 18 USC
2, 371, 1519, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d); and also violated the federal securities laws,
15 USC 78o(a)(1), and 78cc(b).
Judge McMahon and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, are in the business of and have
created, underwritten, funded, collected, and invested in these criminal usury convertible
promissory notes, CPNs, and other unregistered securities while not registered with FINRA and
the SEC as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), as registered broker, dealers, and
investment advisers.
2 Allegation B: Violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges.
Judge McMahon's personal and business investments in unlawful, unregistered criminal
usury convertible promissory notes (CPNs) while not registered as an investment adviser and/or
broker, or dealer violated multiple provisions of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges.
Specifically, her conduct violated Canon 2, which requires that a judge "avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all activities," and Canon 3, which requires that a judge
"perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently." Judge McMahon's and her spouse’s
and connections in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office to protect their criminal enterprise … that is a
known fact ….”
Page 24 of 102
personal and business investments in the same type of criminal usury convertible promissory
notes the subject matter of a case then pending before her [02cv2219 (SDNY)] calls into question
the impartiality and the institutional integrity of the judiciary and raise doubts about the integrity
of our judicial system as a whole.
Judge McMahon’s unethical and unlawful judicial misconduct committed during the
02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings raises the serious and important questions of whether or not
Judge McMahon in the 02cv2219 proceedings acted impartially, without bias, and without an
actual or apparent conflict of interest; or on the other hand, Judge McMahon deliberately and
recklessly acted in a duplicitous, unethical, criminal, biased, partial, and with an actual conflict of
interest in favor of her and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, substantial pecuniary and penal
interest in their and Tailwind Capital Management LLP’s portfolio of CPNs and other unregistered
securities estimated to be more than +$100 million.
3 Allegation C: Violation of federal law, 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(1-5); and 18 USC 2,
157, 241, 242, 371, 1341, 1343, 1519, 1956-57, 1961(6)(B), 1962)a-d), and 2071.
Judge McMahon's refusal to recuse herself from a case [02cv2219 (SDNY)] in which she
had actual, substantial personal investments of the same unlawful criminal usury character as
the subject matter in dispute in the litigation over which she was allegedly assigned, and while
having an actual devastating bankrupting penal interest13 in the same nonjusticiable criminal
13
Judge McMahon and her spouse per the Supreme Court’s decision in Stump, 435 U.S. at 360, both are
personally, civilly, monetarily liable, jointly and severally, for (A) treble damages (3x) +$2.225 billion in RICO
unlawful debt collection activities and (B) for restitution, expenses, costs, attorneys, pain and suffering,
Page 25 of 102
usury subject matter—criminal usury unlawful convertible promissory note investments, (the
“CPNs”), in the matter before her in 02cv2219 (SDNY) is a per se ipso facto violation of federal
law, 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(1-5). These provisions require judges to immediately disqualify
themselves from a case when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when
they, or a close family member or relative, have a financial interest or penal interest in the
subject matter of the case then before the federal judge.
The potential consequences of Judge McMahon's criminal unethical behavior are dire—
high crimes, misdemeanors, and impeachable offenses. The judiciary relies on public trust and
confidence to function properly, and the behavior of Judge McMahon and her other judicial
unindicted coconspirators undermines that trust. Her egregious criminal judicial misconduct
calls into question the impartiality of the judiciary and raises doubts about the integrity of the
judicial system as a whole.
Because Judge Colleen McMahon signed under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury,
her personal public judicial financial disclosure financial statements, see Ex. 15, infra, filed with
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court, see 02cv2219 (SDNY) dockets 139, 139-1, and 139-2,
there cannot be any credible or rational factual dispute or challenge to the veracity of the filings
by the Chief Circuit Judge, the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, the Judicial Conference of
the United States, or Judge McMahon whether or not Judge McMahon (i) personally and in a
intentional, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other damages (+$2.225 billion) to the
victims of her crimes, Ulysses T. Ware and Group Management.
Page 26 of 102
business capacity from 2003 to 2023 unlawfully invested in unlawful criminal usury convertible
promissory notes, and other unregistered securities (ii) while not registered with FINRA, New
York state, and the SEC as a broker-dealer or investment adviser.14 Those are facts fully
supported by the indisputable records presented herein.
4 Indisputable and ipso facto, and per se Judicial admissions and confession of District
Judge Colleen McMahon made in filings before the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
records.
The record evidence and sworn factual predicates placed before the Chief Circuit Judge
in this Complaint are both “clear” and “convincing” and not subject to any rational or good faith
dispute or challenge; based on Judge McMahon’s judicial admissions and confessions made in
her public judicial financial disclosures on file with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts—
District Judge Colleen McMahon is ipso facto, per se,
• guilty of numerous federal RICO predicate offenses,
• guilty of numerous violations of NYS Penal Law, section 190.40,
• guilty of numerous violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges,
numerous violations of 28 USC 455(a), and
• guilty of numerous violations of 455(b)(1-5).
Complainant Ulysses T. Ware respectfully requests:
14
FINRA and the SEC have no records of any 15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealer registration of Colleen
McMahon or Frank V. Sica.
Page 27 of 102
1. that the Court of Appeals file and docket this Complaint,
2. enter the required show cause order to Judge McMahon to admit or deny the
facts and allegations herein,
3. refer the matter to the Director of the FBI given the clear and convincing evidence
of numerous crimes committed by Judge McMahon and the Unindicted
Coconspirators,
4. immediately remove all pending matters before Judge McMahon for public
safety, integrity, and credibility, and
5. immediately refer this matter to the DOJ’s Division on Public Integrity with a
judicial request to open a criminal investigation regarding this matter and take
appropriate action to hold Judge McMahon, the other judges named herein, and
the Unindicted Coconspirators accountable for their criminal and unethical
judicial and other misconduct.
IV Why this Indictment (Judicial Complaint) was filed: the Doctrine of

Judicial Accountability.
1 The Doctrine, Principles, and Philosophy of Judicial Accountability.
Esteemed Members of the Judicial Conference of the United States:
Appellant, Ulysses T. Ware, presents to you not a mere accusation but an indictment of a corrupt
system and its judges perilously close to losing its claim to administer justice, cf., Orwell’s ‘Ministry of
Injustice’ in his novel 1984.15 The integrity of the judiciary, a beacon once thought to be incorruptible, now
15
Judge McMahon and the federal courts are engaged in what Orwell termed, “Newspeak”: Judge
McMahon's refusal to recuse herself, whilst entangled in investments mirroring the subject matter before
her court, echoes Orwell's Newspeak—distorting transparency into an opaque shield. The courts, by not
Page 28 of 102
flickers dimly under the shadow of credible and fully supported allegations against Judge Colleen
McMahon of the Southern District of New York—allegations that bear the stench of corruption reminiscent
of the Tammany Hall scandals, undermining the public's already waning trust in our legal institutions.
Appellant’s charges placed before the Judicial Conference are severe, and they carry with them
the weight of historical ignominy. Judge McMahon, entangled by her and her husband's (Frank V. Sica’s)
financial escapades and shenanigans—over $22 million in criminal usury convertible promissory note
investments (CPNs) directly related to matters before her court—echoes the foul days of the Robber
Barons, where justice was bought and sold like common wares. Her blatant refusal to recuse herself from
these cases (see Dkt. 145 and 146) (02cv2219) does not merely skirt ethical boundaries; it shatters them,
much like the brazen disregard for the law exhibited during the Teapot Dome scandal.
For Judge McMahon to not have sua sponte recused, in light of such blatant conflict of interest, is
an affront to Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct, mocking the very notion of justice these standards
seek to uphold. It was a clear defiance of 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(1-5), which are not mere guidelines
but bulwarks against the tyranny of judicial bias and conflict of interest.
Furthermore, the collusion alleged among Judge McMahon, litigants, and judicial peers is an
ongoing criminal conspiracy that undermines the foundational pillars upon which the judiciary stands. To
demanding her recusal, implicitly endorsing a language of incongruent duplicity where ‘impartiality’ is
contorted to mask personal vested interests. Her massive +$22,00,000 personal investments in criminal
usury convertible promissory notes, laid bare in financial disclosures, (see Ex. 15, infra), should scream
conflict. Yet, this stark reality is cloaked in a lexicon (perverted language) that seeks to diminish the gravity
of her criminal actions, as if the word ‘impartial’ has been perverted to sanction the very partiality it is
meant to exclude.
Page 29 of 102
let such conduct fester is to invite a rot reminiscent of the injustices that marred the courts of the Gilded
Age, where truth and equity were crushed under the gilded boots of the influential.
Let’s be clear: the evidence presented by Appellant is not circumstantial but clear and convincing,
a call that demands not whispers of disapproval but confederated and swift action, see Ex. 15, infra, Judge
McMahon’s own judicial sworn personal financial statements. The very credibility and public perception
of the judiciary hangs in the balance. To dismiss, delay, or downplay the severity of these criminal
allegations is to participate in a masquerade of justice, a farce we have seen played out in history’s darkest
hours, from the fall of the Roman Republic to the corrosion of democratic institutions across the globe in
the 20th century.
2 Why it is important to immediately indict, arrest, criminally prosecute, convict, and

impose a life sentence on violent and dangerous criminals, Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica,
David N. Kelley, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Alexander H. Southwell, Maria E. Douvas,
Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Nicholas S. Goldin, Steven D. Feldman, Andrew L. Fish,
Preet Bharara, David N. Kelley, Merrick B. Garland, Barbara S. Jones, Damian Williams,
Wendy L. Hagenau, Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Debra Ann Livingston, Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr., Kent J. Dawson, LaShann DeArcy Hall, and others involved in this vicious,
dangerous, and violent Hobbs Act murder-for-hire, 18 USC 1958, conspiracy.
It is a fact that Colleen McMahon cannot deny that she knowingly and intentionally acted
recklessly, negligently, fraudulently, and criminally in service to the RICO loan sharking and money
laundering CCE, and she willfully in violation of the law—that is, Article III, Rule 41(a)(2), res
judicata, and judicial and equitable estoppel, and “acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction”16
16
See the Supreme Court’s binding precedent, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 360 (1978). The Court
ruled and explained Colleen McMahon, et al. will be held civilly, and monetarily liable for damages when
acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” over [the 02cv2219, 03-93031, 04cr1224, 09-0851 (2d Cir.),
11-4181cv (2d Cir.), and 23/865/23-869 (2d Cir.)] proceedings. The Court’s ruling imposed devastating
Page 30 of 102
over the 02cv2219 (SDNY) Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, see Ex. 9, infra, dismissed with/without
prejudice lawsuit.
Judge Colleen McMahon stands as a continuous and present danger to the orderly
administration of justice, a position that necessitates not just caution but immediate action. Her
continued presence on the bench amid grave criminal allegations is akin to allowing an accused
arsonist to oversee the fire brigade. The charges that cast a pall over her character and judicial
integrity and, by extension, the judiciary are not fleeting shadows but substantial criminal claims
that, until immediately, fully, and publicly addressed with the solemnity they demand, erode the
very foundation of judicial propriety.
Her significant financial entanglements (+$22,000,000), cf., Ex. 15, infra, directly
interwoven with cases over which she presides, are not mere appearances of impropriety—they
are sirens wailing of potential conflicts of interest so severe that they cannot be ignored. Each
decision she makes while under this cloud of suspicion is a blow to the edifice of justice that we,
as a society, have painstakingly built over centuries.
The administration of justice is not merely about the letter of the law but also the
confidence the public places in those who wield the gavel. How can one be assured of fairness
when the judge who sits before them is marred by accusations of using their sacred position for
and bankrupting +$2.225 billion civil monetary liability over the private individuals Colleen McMahon,
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Wendy L. Hagenau, KTS, David N. Kelley, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah
E. Paul, Alexander H. Southwell, Nicholas S. Goldin, Maria E. Douvas, Barbara S. Jones, Thomas W. Thrash,
Jr., et al. for their crimes and other violations apropos the Fraudulent and Fake Court Orders entered in
the dismissed with/without prejudice 02cv2219 lawsuit, cf., Ex. 9, infra.
Page 31 of 102
personal gain? It is not only a matter of ethics but one of public trust—which, once lost, is not
easily regained.
Allowing Judge McMahon to continue in her judicial capacity without addressing these
allegations under oath, and before a thorough investigation is completed, is tantamount to
permitting a surgeon accused of malpractice to continue wielding the scalpel. The potential harm
is immeasurable, and the risk is too great. In the medical field, such a practitioner would be
suspended immediately pending investigation; the judiciary should hold itself to no lower a
standard.
The urgency of suspending Judge McMahon cannot be overstated. With each case she
hears, the integrity of the judicial process is called into question, and the specter of injustice
looms large. Justice delayed in the face of such accusations is justice denied—not only to the
litigants before her but to the public whose faith in an impartial judiciary is the bedrock of our
legal system.
It is not just the right but the duty of the overseeing bodies to act decisively. Judge
McMahon should be suspended from all judicial activities, preserving the sanctity of the
courtroom until such a time as she can respond, under the full gravity of an oath, denying the
allegations levied against her. Only upon the completion of a full, transparent, and rigorous
investigation, can the truth be ascertained, and appropriate measures taken. Until then, the veil
of suspicion that currently hangs over her robes threatens the very notion of judicial integrity and
casts a long, foreboding shadow over the benches of American justice.
Page 32 of 102
Exhibits in support of the Indictment (Judicial Complaint)
Page 33 of 102
Exhibit 1—McMahon, J., Dkt. 151 (02cv2219 (SDNY) re Null and void ab initio, moot
purported order entered “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” in the personal capacity
of the private individual Colleen McMahon which created 18 USC 2, 157, 371, 1951, 1958,
1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), 2071(a), (b), personal civil monetary liability for McMahon, in the
sum certain amount of $2.2225 billion, jointly and severally, with violent and dangerous
criminals Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Kilpatrick, Townsend, Stockton, LLP (Atl),
(“KTS”), Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter,
Esq., deputy judicial Mob Boss Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA), David N. Kelley, Alexander H.
Southwell, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Sarah E. Paul, Katherine Polk-Failla, Preet
Bharara, Robert W. Sweet, Robert A. Katzmann, Charles Ellis Schumer, Peter W. Hall,
Barbara S. Jones, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Patricia Sinback,
the State Bar of Georgia, its employees, and agents in their personal and individual
capacity, and others.
Page 34 of 102
Exhibit 1 (con’t) re Dkt. 151 (02cv2219), fraudulent, bogus, moot, and void ab initio
purported court order making Hobbs Act threats against a prevailing party, Ulysses T. Ware
in violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3) to aid, abet, assist, and enable the
criminal collection of the unlawful debts, GX 1-4, in violation of 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241,
242, 371, 1346, 1512, 1951, 1956-57, 1958, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b).
Page 35 of 102
Exhibit 2—Dkt 141—Fake, fraudulent, and counterfeit, null and void ab initio purported
court order, (McMahon, J.), entered as an overt act to facilitate, aid, abet, and enable the
violent and dangerous mafia Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, criminal enterprise LH Financial
Services, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., and herself to continue to violate 18 USC 1951, 1956-57,
1958, 1961(6)(B) by the collection of unlawful debts, GX 1-4, and see Ex. 8, McMahon’s
and Frank V. Sica’s RICO CPN unlawful debts.
Page 36 of 102
Exhibit 3—Dkt. 137-- Fake, fraudulent, and counterfeit, null and void ab initio purported
court order, (McMahon, J.), entered as an overt act to facilitate, aid, abet, and enable the
violent and dangerous mafia Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, criminal enterprise LH Financial
Services, Alpha Capital, AG, et al., and herself to continue to violate 18 USC 1951, 1956-57,
1958, 1961(6)(B) by the collection of unlawful debts, GX 1-4, and see Ex. 8, McMahon’s
and Frank V. Sica’s RICO CPN unlawful debts.
Page 37 of 102
Exhibit 3 (con’t)
Page 38 of 102
Exhibit 4-1—Dkt. 120, 02cv2219 (SDNY), McMahon, C.J. (void ab initio, and moot).
McMahon admitted to and conceded, (i) 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection
activities, and (ii) 18 USC 1951 Hobbs Act kidnapping, and false arrest crimes of violence
(“The Court also issued a warrant for the U.S. Marshal Service to arrest Ware and referred
the matter for criminal prosecution.”). Per se Section 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection.
See Ex. 4-3, infra: In 2019 McMahon was clearly aware the 02cv2219 matter had been dismissed on Dec. 20, 2007, “ECF No. 90.”
And was aware of the legal consequences of the Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal on her lack of all jurisdiction over the proceedings.
Therefore, McMahon’s actions were intentional, deliberate, and as overt act in furtherance of the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful
debt collection, which McMahon made referenced to Sand’s “ECF No. 80” RICO unlawful “$2,098, 619” fraudulent judgment.
Page 39 of 102
Exhibit 4 -2(con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.)
Page 40 of 102
Exhibit 4-3 (con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) (05/17/2019) bogus, void, fake, and
fraudulent order.
McMahon in 2019 was aware the 2219 case had been dismissed on Dec. 20, 2007 (“docket number 90”) and twice referred to that fact.
Page 41 of 102
Exhibit 4-4 (con’t)—Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.)
Page 42 of 102
Exhibit 5—Omitted. Once authenticated to be filed under seal (Sensitive personal financial
documents of Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor-Swain, Colleen McMahon, Wendy L. Hagenau,
Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Mob Boss Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, convicted
felon Edward M. Grushko--concrete, clear, and convincing evidence of judicial conspiracy
and bribery).
Page 43 of 102
Exhibit 6—Collusion and conspiracy between Wendy L. Hagenau, Colleen McMahon, and
the USAO (SDNY), Damian Williams—RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection
activities.
Page 44 of 102
Exhibit 7—District Judge (NGDA) Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful
debt collection activities re GX 1-4 (04cr1224)(SDNY)/02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 45 of 102
Exhibit 8—Crimes and frauds of Colleen McMahon’s and Frank V. Sica’s under oath
admission of personal ownership in RICO criminal usury CPNs--+$22,000,000 personal
ownership interest in illicit, unlawful debts.
02cv2219 (SDNY) (02) and 22cv3409 (SDNY) (70)
A judicial public record
Filed on 9/19/2022 10:39:03 AM17
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Monday, September 19, 2022
The Hon. Colleen McMahon18

U.S. District Court
For the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., (“GPMT”)
(OTCBB-GPMT), et al., Case no. 02cv2219 (SDNY) (Sand, J.) (deceased).
Group Management and Ulysses T. Ware’s Request for an Emergency Status Conference.
17
This pleading was filed with the District Court (SDNY) on September 19, 2022, via email,
temporary_pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov, but due to Dkt. 102 and 120, the court has refused to docket
any pleadings submitted to the court by Ulysses T. Ware in violation of 18 USC 1519 and 2071.
18
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain was served on September 19, 2022, via email, with a copy of this
pleading on behalf of the District Court (SDNY) and Chief Circuit Judge Debra A. Livingston was served by
U.S. mail on September 19, 2022, on behalf of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Page 46 of 102
Re: GPMT, the defendant, and Ulysses T. Ware, an interested party, jointly, (the
“Prevailing Parties”), request for an Emergency Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) fraud on the
court, Civil Contempt, Rule 12(h)(3) jurisdictional, and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42 Criminal
Contempt status conference given the jurisdictional facts and clear and convincing
evidence, Ex. 1-4, infra, presented and explained herein.19
Table of Contents
I. .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
A. Request for Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court, Civil Contempt, and Rule 42 Criminal Contempt
Enforcement Proceeding Status conference. ........................................................................................ 49
II. ................................................................................................................................................................. 51
A. Article III subject matter jurisdictional pending issues in 02cv2219 (SDNY). ............................... 51
III. ................................................................................................................................................................ 52
A. As a matter of law the 02cv2219 lawsuit has been and is currently moot. ................................. 52
B. The Adar Bays’ March 15, 2022, decision rendered the 02cv2219 lawsuit null and void ab initio
as of February 2001, and moot. ............................................................................................................. 53
C. The Court’s May 17, 2019, Order, Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) is null and void ab initio, and
GPMT’s counterclaim, Dkt. 31, is required to be reinstated immediately........................................... 54
D. District Judge Colleen McMahon, her spouse, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, and
Tailwind Capital Management LLC, jointly, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), criminal usury
convertible promissory note investments, (the “Criminal Usury Notes”). .......................................... 56
E. Conclusion and requested reliefs. ................................................................................................. 57
Certificate of Service .............................................................................................................................. 60
Exhibits: .................................................................................................................................................. 61
Brady exculpatory evidence and Colleen McMahon’s Criminal Usury Investments. .......................... 61
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) Voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment ............................................... 62
Exhibit 2: FINRA’s unregistered broker-dealer certification. ............................................................ 63
Exhibit 3: Testimony of Ari Rabinowitz: admission of broker-dealer status.................................... 64
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. .............. 65
19The Prevailing Parties are respectfully requesting that the Court set the status conference
between the parties during the week of September 19, 2022.
Page 47 of 102
Exhibit 4(2): Relationship Capital Partners Inc. Form D re No results in the SEC’s EDGAR
registration system. Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x,
and 78ff. .............................................................................................................................................. 66
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. .............. 67
Exhibit 4(4-1): TG&L Holdings LLC re 2017 Reg. D, Rule 506 $500k offering of convertible
promissory notes. Of an alleged unregistered $500k offering of convertible promissory notes,
Judge McMahon purchased between $250k and $500k of the unregistered offering. ................... 68
convertible promissory notes. ........................................................................................................... 69
End of Document ........................................................................................................................................ 70
Page 48 of 102
I.
A. Request for Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court, Civil Contempt, and Rule 42 Criminal
Contempt Enforcement Proceeding Status conference.
Judge McMahon:
Group Management, the defendant in 02cv2219 (SDNY), (“GPMT”), by and through its
legal representative, Ulysses T. Ware, a party in interest, jointly, the Prevailing Parties, 20 are
currently suffering irreparable harms, injuries, and damages resulting from the crimes, civil and
criminal contempts, and frauds on the court committed by District Judge Colleen McMahon and
others named herein; and accordingly writes to and petitions the Court in regard to:
1. A request for an emergency prefiling Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) fraud on the court
status conference regarding numerous frauds on the court committed by officers
of the court District Judges Leonard B. Sand, and Colleen McMahon; Kenneth A.
Zitter, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Barbara R. Mittman, David N. Kelley,
Alexander H. Southwell, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Robert W. Sweet, Ari
Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Inc., Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Stonestreet,
L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro International, S.A., Wendy L. Hagenau, M.
Regina Thomas, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Patricia
Sinback, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP;
20 See Ex. 1, infra, the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment.
Page 49 of 102
2. Article III subject matter and standing jurisdictional matters;21
3. Actual, covert, suppressed, and concealed conflicts of interest and frauds on the
court committed by Colleen McMahon regarding +55 alleged investments made
in criminal usury convertible promissory notes while not registered with FINRA as
a broker-dealer required by 15 USC 78o(a)(1); and
4. To clarify all issues, facts, claims, scheduling, and identity of the respondents to
the Prevailing Parties’ Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court, civil, and Rule 42 criminal
contempt enforcement proceeding regarding the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90,
Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, Ex. 1, infra.22
21 ArticleIII subject matter jurisdictional matters are permitted to be “raised” at “any time” by the
Court, sua sponte, or by “any party,” “even after judgment.” Arbaugh v. Y&D Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
506 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”) (emphasis added).
22 Currently the Prevailing Parties have identified the following persons and entities as
respondents to the fraud on the court, civil, and Rule 42 criminal contempt enforcement
proceedings: Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica (e.g., see Dkt. 106, 107, 108, and 109 in 22cv3409
(SDNY)), Andre Damian Williams, Jr., the U.S. Attorney’s Office (SDNY), the U.S. Probation Office,
Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas, Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins,
Patricia Sinback, Gerald B. Tjoflat, Charles R. Wilson, Adelburo Jordan, the State Bar of Georgia,
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, J. Henry Walker, IV, Kenneth
A. Zitter, Ari Rabinowitz, Katherine Polk-Failla, Sarah E. Paul, Maria E. Douvas, Preet Bharara,
Margaret M. Garnett, Daniel Gitner, Alexander H. Southwell, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Nicholas S.
Goldin, Thomas J. McCarthy, David Mulcahy, and possibly others.
Page 50 of 102
II.
A. Article III subject matter jurisdictional pending issues in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
1. The Article III jurisdictional issues regarding the plaintiffs’ voluntary, ex parte, and covert
December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, superseding Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) final judgment entered
after the statute of limitation had run on all claims23 in the complaint, Dkt. 1;24
2. FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the
plaintiffs;25
3. The March 15, 2022, decision in Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir.
2022)26, and
23 Ipso facto as a matter of law once the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit on December
20, 2007, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, a binding and
dispositive jurisdictional judicial admission they suffered no “concrete injury in fact caused by the
defendants,” cf., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, at that very moment the plaintiffs’ Article III standing,
and the Court’s Article III and 28 USC 1332(a) diversity subject matter jurisdiction were
terminated, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93-95; and, ipso facto, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit was
dismissed with prejudice—that is, a final judgment on the merits for the defendants, GPMT,
Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, jointly, (the “Prevailing Parties”).
24See Exhibit 1, indisputable evidence that 02cv2219 was dismissed with prejudice, voluntarily,
on December 20, 2007, on the plaintiffs’ ex parte and covert motion.
25See Exhibit 2, indisputable evidence that the 02cv2219 plaintiffs never lawfully registered
with FINRA or the SEC as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), given the sworn testimony
of government witness Ari Rabinowitz in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), in 2007, see Exhibit 3.
26
The Court of Appeals decision, binding on the 02cv2219 proceedings, determined that GPMT’s
2001 convertible notes, (the “Notes”) and the so-called subscription agreement, (the
Page 51 of 102
4. The Court’s ultra vires, null and void ab initio May 17, 2019, Dkt. 120, Order (McMahon,
C.J.).27
III.
A. As a matter of law the 02cv2219 lawsuit has been and is currently moot.
Judge McMahon, the record is not in dispute, the plaintiffs on December 20, 2007, Dkt.
90, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), voluntarily, after the statute of limitation had run on all claims in
the complaint, demanded, ex parte, that the Court dismiss with prejudice their 02cv2219 lawsuit,
see Exhibit 1; which ipso facto, “annulled,” “vitiated,” and abrogated all prior orders, judgments,
and proceedings in the 02cv2219 lawsuit. A. B. Dick, 197 F.2d at 501-02. There is no dispute
“Subscription Agreement”), jointly, (the “Illegal Contracts”), were illegal contracts, (ii) null and
void ab initio, (iii) unenforceable by the plaintiffs, (iv) the 02cv2219 proceedings were, ipso facto,
RICO criminal usury unlawful debt collection activity, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), RICO predicate criminal
offenses, and (v) the Illegal Contracts violated N.Y. Penal Law, § the criminal usury law, a class
E felony.
27 Pursuant to binding circuit authority in A. B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 501-02 (2d Cir.
1952) (The plaintiffs’ voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of the 02cv2219 lawsuit “annulled and
vitiated all prior orders, judgments, and proceedings therein as if the [02cv2219] lawsuit had
never been filed, terminated the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings, and
rendered the matter moot”). (emphasis added).
Pursuant to the legal standard in A.D. Dick, Id., the Court lacked Article III subject matter
jurisdiction on August 1, 2011, Dkt. 102, and on May 17, 2019, to have entered its Order, Dkt. 120.
Accordingly, Dkt. 102 (unconstitutional purported filing sanctions entered lacking subject matter
jurisdiction over the 02cv2219 proceedings) and Dkt. 120, are null and void ab initio per Steel Co.,
523 U.S. at 94-95, and lack binding legal preclusive effect.
Page 52 of 102
regarding this issue, which is res judicata and collateral estoppel on the Court, and the 02cv2219
plaintiffs, and their privies, Federated, 452 U.S. at 398, 401-02 (matters resolved, actually or
necessarily, by final judgment are binding, absolutely [without any exception], on the Court, the
parties, and their privies in all subsequent litigation between the parties; and all issues, facts,
and claims are “forever settled” between the parties ….”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
02cv2219 proceedings have been moot since December 20, 2007, upon entry of the Rule 41(a)(2)
voluntary final judgment, (the “Voluntary Final Judgment”). Exhibit 1.
B. The Adar Bays’ March 15, 2022, decision28 rendered the 02cv2219 lawsuit null and
void ab initio as of February 2001, and moot.
On March 15, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered its decision in
Adar Bays. The Court ruled that the contracts at issue therein, cf., the subject matter of 02cv2219
(SDNY), GPMT’s Illegal Contracts29, were “unenforceable” and “void ab initio” criminal usury
contracts that violated N.Y. Penal Law, §190.40, the “criminal usury law” a class E felony if the
28 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022).
29 GPMT’s Notes and Subscription Agreement’s ¶10.1(iv) required that GPMT potentially pay
more than “200%” of the then loan amount of $1.1M (implicit criminal usury interest) to the
lenders, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, unregistered broker-dealers, see Exhibit 2; and see the 02cv2219
(SDNY) Nov. 25, 2002, Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 50, 54 (Sand, J.) citing ¶10.1(iv) of the GPMT
illegal Subscription Agreement. The GPMT’s Illegal Contracts were criminal usury unlawful debt
contracts, violated N.Y. Penal Law, a class E felony; and the 02cv2219 lawsuit was a RICO unlawful
criminal usury debt collection device, 18 USC 1961(6)(B), see U.S. v. Grote, 961 F.2d 105 (2d Cir.
2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and +$3.0B RICO forfeiture judgment).
Page 53 of 102
illegal contracts implicitly provided for interest to be paid to the lender at twice the legal rate of
25%, a criminal usurious debt.
Put another way the plaintiffs in Adar Bays (and 02cv2219) had no legal right to (i)
repayment or (ii) to collect the unlawful criminal usury debt; and accordingly, lacking a legal
right to repayment as a matter of law, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, they lacked Article III standing
as a plaintiff in the federal courts. Therefore, applying Adar Bays’ reasoning to the 02cv2219
lawsuit, the lawsuit as of February 2001 was null and void ab initio, and moot. The 02cv2219
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, lacking a legal right to repayment, to have filed the lawsuit.
C. The Court’s May 17, 2019, Order, Dkt. 120 (McMahon, C.J.) is null and void ab
initio, and GPMT’s counterclaim, Dkt. 31, is required to be reinstated immediately.
On May 17, 2019, the Court (McMahon, C.J.), purported to deny, Dkt. 120, Ulysses T.
Ware’s motion, Dkt. 118, to reinstate GPMT’s counterclaim, Dkt. 31 (08/30/2002), after entry of
the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Exhibit 1, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment. The Court as a matter of
law, A.B. Dick Co, 197 F.2d at 501-02; and Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94-95, per se lacked Article III
subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings to have lawfully denied Ulysses T. Ware’s
Page 54 of 102
motion to reinstate GPMT’s counterclaim on May 17, 2019.30 Thus, the May 17, 2019, Order, Dkt.
120, is null and void ab initio, and lacks all legal preclusive effects. Steel Co., Id. at 94.31
On May 17, 2019, given the plaintiffs’ December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary
dismissal with prejudice of 02cv2219, see Exhibit 1, the district court (McMahon, C.J.) as a matter
of law, Steel Co., Id., lacked the “power to declare the law” and, therefore, ipso facto, lacked
Article III subject matter jurisdiction to have entered Dkt. 120. Ergo, Dkt. 102 (Sand, J.) and Dkt.
120 (McMahon, C.J.) are null and void ab initio, and moot.32 The district court is required to
vacate and set aside Dkt. 102 and Dkt. 120, and immediately reinstate GPMT’s counterclaim, Dkt.
31.
30The District Court’s (Sand, J.) December 20, 2007, Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment, Exhibit 1,
annulled, vitiated, and abrogated any order, Dkt. 57 (01/15/2003), which dismissed GPMT’s
counterclaim, Dkt. 31, without prejudice.
31"Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to
declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of
announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." (emphasis added).
32Ipso facto on May 17, 2019, there was not a “live” Article III “case or controversy” that existed
between the real parties in interest given the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit with
prejudice on December 20, 2007, Exhibit 1. Accordingly, then Chief Judge Colleen McMahon
lacked all Article III subject matter jurisdiction to have entered Dkt. 120. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at
94-95.
Page 55 of 102
D. District Judge Colleen McMahon, her spouse, Frank V. Sica, their private
foundations, and Tailwind Capital Management LLC, jointly, (the “Unindicted
Coconspirators”), criminal usury convertible promissory note investments, (the “Criminal
Usury Notes”).
Judge McMahon, the Prevailing Parties have conducted an in-depth and thorough
analysis and investigation of your and the Unindicted Coconspirators’ Criminal Usury Notes
investments made while you have been a federal judge and also made since 2019 while you have
been allegedly “randomly” assigned the moot 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings in 2019 after the
death of District Judge Leonard B. Sand.
As the Court has been made aware, see Section III, A, B, and C, supra, the subject matter
of the 02cv2219 lawsuit involved criminal usury convertible promissory note investments, (the
“Illegal Subject Matter”),33 see government trial exhibits in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY), GX 1-
4, and GX-5, jointly, (the “RICO Unlawful Debt Contracts”), cf., the 04cr1224 indictment’s ¶¶8-
11, which pleaded the government out of court by pleading actual innocent affirmative defenses
on the face of the bogus and fraudulent indictment; and moreover, the Illegal Subject Matter
annulled and abrogated all Article III standing of the unregistered 02cv2219 plaintiffs, and the
subject matter jurisdiction of the 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), and 04cr1224 (SDNY)
courts.
33 District Judge Colleen McMahon and her spouse, Frank V. Sica, according to public judicial
financial disclosures established that Judge McMahon’s personal investment portfolio includes
more than +55 RICO Unlawful Debt Contracts valued between $10.5M to $55M. Accordingly,
Judge McMahon has an actual conflict of interest regarding the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings.
Page 56 of 102
The Prevailing Parties have become aware of Judge McMahon’s and the Unindicted
Coconspirators’ +55 RICO Unlawful Debt Contracts made in privately held companies34 which all
claimed a Regulation D, Rule 506 exemption for the issuance of the RICO Unlawful Debt
securities.35
According to the on-file with the SEC Form D offering notification of the claimed
Regulation D, Rule 506 exemption for the issuance and sale of the RICO Unlawful Debt securities,
in each alleged investment the issuer certified that Judge McMahon and Frank V. Sica purchased
“convertible promissory note” investments.36
E. Conclusion and requested reliefs.
34The Prevailing Parties accessed and thoroughly analyzed District Judge Colleen and her spouse,
Frank V. Sica’s sworn judicial financial disclosures filed between 2003 to 2020. Absent were
required filings for 2004 and 2010.
35 See the SEC’s EDGAR system’s notification of the filing of numerous instances of Form D offering
notifications. However, the SEC has no records, whatsoever, of your alleged RICO Unlawful Debt
investments in (1) Lending Front, Inc, (2) Relationship Capital Partner, Inc., (3) Acredo Cloud
Corp., see Ex. 4, infra. The absence of the filing of the required Form D notification of your alleged
investment is a primary strict-liability violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff—that is, the criminal
offer, sale, and purchase of unregistered securities.
36E.g, see Ex. 4(4), infra, TG&L Holdings LLC, 2018 Form D offering that claimed the Regulation D,
Rule 506 exemption for $500k offering of convertible promissory note investments made to Judge
Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica. Also see Dkt. 108 and 109 in 22cv3409 (SDNY).
Page 57 of 102
Judge McMahon, the law nor the record, Exhibits 1-4, infra, cannot be reasonably,
rationally, and/or non-frivolously disputed by Judge McMahon or the 02cv2219 plaintiffs. In fact,
the plaintiffs are no longer putative Article III plaintiffs, and therefore are not permitted to appear
and establish Article III standing, which they have the burden of production and proof, Lujan, 504
U.S. at 560-61, given their December 20, 2007, dismissal of the 02cv2219 lawsuit.
The Prevailing Parties have presented clear and convincing evidence regarding Judge
McMahon’s alleged RICO Unlawful Debts, Ex. 1-4, infra, which definitively confirmed that Judge
Colleen McMahon has an actual conflict of interest regarding adjudicating the merits of the
claims that form the factual basis for the requested status conference. Therefore, ipso facto, as
a matter of law, per se, the district court is required to:
1. vacate Dkt. 102 and 120,
2. reinstate GPMT’s counterclaim, Dkt. 31,
3. vacate and set aside all orders, judgments, Dkt. 54, and other relief, Dkt. 50, in 02cv2219
entered in favor of the plaintiffs,
4. enter final judgment on behalf of GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky
Landers, the Prevailing Parties;
5. set the matter down for sanctioning proceedings; and
6. immediately pursuant to 28 USC 455(a) and 455(b)(1-5) disqualify District Judge Colleen
McMahon from all judicial involvement in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings.
Judge McMahon, if the Court would before 11:00 AM, on September 20, 2022, time of the
essence, notify Ulysses T. Ware, GPMT, and the plaintiffs’ representatives via court order entered
Page 58 of 102
on the docket in 02cv2219 setting forth the date for the requested Emergency Status Conference
during the week of September 19, 2022, the “real parties”37 will be prepared and positioned to
bring before the Court the necessary facts and arguments for the Court to efficiently use its
judicial resources.
GPMT and Ulysses T. Ware can be contacted at email: utware007@gmail.com or the address
on page 1.
Sincerely,
For: Group Management and Ulysses T. Ware
By: Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Monday, September 19, 2022
37As of December 20, 2007, and the Adar Bays decision the 02cv2219 plaintiffs are no longer
lawful Article III “real parties in interest” with respect to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings. Cf.,
Lujan, Id.
Page 59 of 102
Certificate of Service
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on Monday,
September 19, 2022
cc: Office of the United States Attorney (SDNY)

Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY)
District Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY) regarding U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and
22cv3409 (SDNY)
Office of the U.S. Attorney General (Merrick B. Garland)

Office of the Chief Bankruptcy Judge (NDGA)
The State Bar of Georgia
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
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Sims W. Gordon, Jr.
Thomas J. Leghorn
Marlon G. Kirton
Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Daniel Gitner, and Margaret M. Garnett
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP
Colleen McMahon was served via the Office of the Chief District Judge (SDNY), the Hon.
Laura Taylor-Swain on September 19, 2022, via email.
Page 60 of 102
Exhibits:
Brady exculpatory evidence and Colleen
McMahon’s Criminal Usury Investments.
Page 61 of 102
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) Voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment
Page 62 of 102
Exhibit 2: FINRA’s unregistered broker-dealer certification.
Page 63 of 102
Exhibit 3: Testimony of Ari Rabinowitz: admission of broker-dealer status.
Page 64 of 102
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff.
Page 65 of 102
Exhibit 4(2): Relationship Capital Partners Inc. Form D re No results in the SEC’s EDGAR registration
system. Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff.
Page 66 of 102
Confirmed the unregistered sale of securities in violation of 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff.
Page 67 of 102
Exhibit 4(4-1): TG&L Holdings LLC re 2017 Reg. D, Rule 506 $500k offering of convertible
promissory notes. Of an alleged unregistered $500k offering of convertible promissory notes,
Judge McMahon purchased between $250k and $500k of the unregistered offering.
Page 68 of 102
convertible promissory notes.
Page 69 of 102
End of Document
Page 70 of 102
Exhibit 9—02cv2219 (SDNY), Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, after the statute
of limitation had run on all claims in the complaint, the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with
prejudice of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, and the annulment and vitiation of all orders [GX
11, 24, and 34], and judgments [GX 7], and proceedings in 02cv2219 (SDNY).
According to FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification, see Ex. 10, infra, each plaintiff had never lawfully
registered as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and NY state law as broker-dealers, which
rendered the 02cv2219 lawsuit, null and void ab initio.
Page 71 of 102
Exhibit 10—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, unregistered broker-dealer certification for each
02cv2219 plaintiff required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and New York state law.
Page 72 of 102
Exhibit 15--RICO criminal usury, loan sharking, CPN investments
personally owned by Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica.
Exhibit 2: Judge McMahon’s and convicted felon Edward M. Grushko’s money laundering
that involved unregistered broker-dealer and RICO unlawful debt creator and collector
Alpha Capital, AG. What is Judge McMahon and her spouse, Frank V. Sica’s relationship to
Alpha Capital, AG, Kenneth A. Zitter (Harvard Law), Dennis S. Meir (Harvard Law), Thomas
W. Thrash, Jr. (Harvard Law), LH Financial Services, Inc., and Ari Rabinowitz?
Page 73 of 102
Exhibit 3: Money laundering by Edward M. Grushko, Alpha Capital, AG, and Judge Colleen
McMahon in the Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. litigation.
Page 74 of 102
Exhibit 4: Reported 2020 income of Frank V. Sica.
Page 75 of 102
Exhibit 5: #103 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,000 and
$1,000,000.
Page 76 of 102
Exhibit 6: #113 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $100,001 - $250,000.
Page 77 of 102
Page 78 of 102
Exhibit 8: #204 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 -
$1,000,000.
Page 79 of 102
Page 80 of 102
Page 81 of 102
$1,000,000.
Page 82 of 102
$1,000,000.
Page 83 of 102
$1,000,000.
Page 84 of 102
Exhibit 14: #276, 277, and 279 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between
$500,001 - $1,000,000.
Page 85 of 102
Exhibit 15: ##297, 300, 302, and 304 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between
$50,001 - $1,000,000.
Page 86 of 102
Exhibit 16: #323 2020 convertible promissory note valued between 100,001 - $250,000.
Page 87 of 102
Exhibit 17: ##327, 334, 336, 337, and 339 2020 convertible promissory notes valued
between 50,001 - $500,000.
Page 88 of 102
Page 89 of 102
Page 90 of 102
Page 91 of 102
Page 92 of 102
Exhibit 22: #520 2020 convertible promissory note valued between (not valued).
Page 93 of 102
Appendix 61-6—Unfiled and docketed Prevailing Party Ulysses T. Ware’s
12/22/22 Request to District Judge Colleen McMahon to clarify her moot,
counterfeit, fake, fraudulent, and void ab initio order, Dkt. 151, Ex. 1,
supra. McMahon refused to file and docket this judicial pleading and
therefore violated 18 USC 2, 157, 201(b), 241, 242, 371, 401(2), 401(3),
1512, 1961(6)(B), 1962(a-d), and 2071(a), (b), and 42 USC 1983, 1985(2),
and 1985(3).
Office of Ulysses T. Ware

123 Linden Blvd
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
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”).
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).
Page 94 of 102
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.
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. 151.38
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
38
“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).
Page 95 of 102
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”).39
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 on 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,
39
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 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.
Page 96 of 102
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. 40
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.41
40
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 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").
41
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 97 of 102
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
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))).”).
Page 98 of 102
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
meaningful appellate review, if necessary, without delays of a remand to the District Court
required by an incomplete record.42
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,43 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
42
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.
43
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 99 of 102
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
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
Page 100 of 102

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 101 of 102

End of Document
Page 102 of 102


11.07.23 Re District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon's Criminal Judicial Misconduct and Corruption

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

11.07.23 Re District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon's Criminal Judicial Misconduct and Corruption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Criminal Judicial Misconduct Indictment re:

confidentiality be maintained regarding this matter.

Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Criminal Judicial Misconduct Indictment-Complaint.

Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware, Complainant-Appellant

Complaint of criminal judicial misconduct Second Circuit, Nov. 8, 2023. ..................................................... 3

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AOC”). See Ex. 8, infra.

Indictment (Declaration) of Charges and

criminal racketeering activities, criminal prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct.

an Article III federal judge,

adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States,5 and;

covert operation an unregistered brokers, dealers, and investment advisers in

judgments, and proceedings,8 (the “Annulled Orders” or “Annulled Proceedings”).9

2. to reduce to nothing; obliterate.

Federal Judges, Canons 1, 2, and 3.

It is an indisputable fact supported by McMahon’s own personal financial statements,

Therefore, Judge McMahon is guilty as charged and committed impeachable conduct.

and 3, impeachable conduct. See Appx. 61-6, infra.

41(a)(2) final order, Ex. Id.,

penal and pecuniary interest.

41(a)(2) final order by civil and/or criminal contempt proceedings.11

and dishonor to the federal judiciary, all impeachable conduct.

legal rights as the prevailing party to the Rule 41 judgment.

pursuant to 28 USC 1746 in Brooklyn, NY.

Ulysses T. Ware (Appellant)

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

End of Indictment-Judicial Complaint

Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.

Court Judge Colleen McMahon, based on:

1. her business and personal investments in the same type of

nonjusticiable subject matter in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) judicial proceedings,

2. her and her alleged spouse, Frank V. Sica, unregistered broker-

unlawful debts, and other financial securities,

3. her adamant and unethical refusal to recuse herself from the

02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings despite knowing that she possessed an actual

matter being adjudicated in 02cv2219, and

02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, their agents, Ari Rabinowitz, Kenneth A. Zitter, LH

Financial Services, Inc., convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, Esq., Leonard B.

Taylor-Swain, Wendy L. Hagenau, Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Debra

unknown, collectively, an illegal association-in-fact as defined in 18 USC 1961(4).

1 Allegation A: Judge McMahon's business and personal investments in unlawful

15 USC 78o(a)(1), and 78cc(b).

2 Allegation B: Violation of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges.

Judge McMahon's personal and business investments in unlawful, unregistered criminal

of our judicial system as a whole.

securities estimated to be more than +$100 million.

subject matter of the case then before the federal judge.

judicial system as a whole.

supported by the indisputable records presented herein.

District Judge Colleen McMahon is ipso facto, per se,

• guilty of numerous federal RICO predicate offenses,

• guilty of numerous violations of NYS Penal Law, section 190.40,

• guilty of numerous violations of the Codes of Conduct for Federal Judges,

numerous violations of 28 USC 455(a), and

• guilty of numerous violations of 455(b)(1-5).

Complainant Ulysses T. Ware respectfully requests:

IV Why this Indictment (Judicial Complaint) was filed: the Doctrine of

1 The Doctrine, Principles, and Philosophy of Judicial Accountability.