04.20.23 Re Loeb & Loeb Tribunal Notifications

The Office of Ulysses T.
Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
Utware007@gmail.com
10:54:27 AM
April 20, 2023
Via email on April 20, 2023

Mitchell Nussbaum, Esq
Loeb & Loeb, LLP
345 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10154
mnussbaum@loeb.com
(212) 407-4159
Re:
(1) Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., et
al., 02cv2219 (SDNY);
(2) Ware v. Alpha Capital, AG, et al., 11-4181cv (2d Cir.);
(3) U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY);
(4) In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-WLH (BC NDGA),
(5) U.S. v. Ware, 17-3527 (2d Cir.), jointly, (the “Moot Proceedings”); and
(6) the December 20, 2007, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2), ex parte dismissal of the
02cv2219 (SDNY), lawsuit, after the statute of limitation had run on all
claims in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) complaint.
Criminal usury convertible promissory notes (GX 1-4)1 and criminal usury illegal
subscription agreement (GX 5)—NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury
law, a class E felony, and RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B), the collection of a criminal usury
unlawful debts (GX 1-4) via (1) the September 1, 2004, Atlanta, GA kidnapping of
Ulysses T. Ware, Esq., and (2) via the In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031
(BC NDGA) Chapter 11 criminal interference by the Atlanta, GA law firm, Kilpatrick,
Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, (“KTS”).
1
GX 1-4, and GX 5 refers to the Government’s moot trial evidence entered via your client Ari Rabinowitz,
Tr. 180, 192, in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and used in the moot U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010)
moot appeal.
Page 1 of 80
Thursday, April 20, 2023
(01) request for consent and no opposition to recall the panel decision and mandate entered in 11-
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Table of Contents
Introduction. ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Conclusion. ................................................................................................................................................... 8
PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE. .................................................................................. 9
Exhibit A—Notice of the Court of Appeals regarding 11-4181cv (2d Cir.). ............................................... 10
.................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Exhibit B—12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice of 02cv2219 (SDNY). 11
Exhibit C—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for the Clients..... 12
Exhibit D—Court of Appeals 17-3527 notice. ............................................................................................ 13
.................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit E—12.25.22 Letter to District Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY)................................................... 14
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................................................................................................................................ 17
Exhibit F—Dkt. 124 (02cv2219) (SDNY). .................................................................................................... 20
I. Designation of unindicted coconspirator, racketeer, material fact witness, and adverse respondent in
02cv2219. .................................................................................................................................................... 28
A. Conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud conspiracy, aiding and abetting, money
laundering, unlawful debt creation, collection, and laundering of the illegal profits and proceeds by and
through private foundations and other entities by Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor Swain, Colleen
McMahon, Debra Ann Livingston, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Ruby Krajick, Frank V. Sica, Leonard
B. Sand, Ari Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Inc., Alpha Capital, AG, et al. .......................................... 28
II. Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, Tailwind Capital Management, and Others
Unindicted Coconspirator and Racketeer Status. ........................................................................................ 28
Claim #1: Conspiracy to create and collect RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debts in the Southern District
of New York and Elsewhere. .................................................................................................................... 28
Claim #2: Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, and Tailwind Capital
Management LLC’s conspired to launder money derived from RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt
Creation and Collection. See Ex. 5-22, infra, and Tailwind Capital Management LLC’s Private Equity
Ponzi scam............................................................................................................................................... 29
Claim #3: Racketeering to money launder, conspiracy, the creation, and collection of 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
unlawful debts, obstruction of justice, and evidence destruction. ......................................................... 31
III. Requested Emergency All Writs Act Reliefs. ........................................................................................ 36
Page 2 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
A. All Writs Act Reliefs Requested. ...................................................................................................... 36
B. Individuals and entities, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), for which emergency relief is
requested be entered. ............................................................................................................................ 39
Distribution List ....................................................................................................................................... 42
Exhibits ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) 12/20/2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary final judgment entered in favor of
GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, the prevailing parties. .................................... 44
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? .......................................................................................................... 45
Exhibit 3: Money laundering by Edward M. Grushko, Alpha Capital, AG, and Judge Colleen McMahon in
the Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. litigation. ............................................................................................ 46
Exhibit 4: Reported 2020 income of Frank V. Sica. .................................................................................. 47
Exhibit 5: #103 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,000 and $1,000,000. ............ 48
Exhibit 6: #113 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $100,001 - $250,000. .................... 49
Exhibit 8: #204 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 - $1,000,000. ................. 51
Exhibit 10: #220 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $15,001 - $50,000. ...................... 53
Exhibit 11: #244 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 - $1,000,000. .............. 54
Exhibit 14: #276, 277, and 279 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $500,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Exhibit 15: ##297, 300, 302, and 304 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $50,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Exhibit 16: #323 2020 convertible promissory note valued between 100,001 - $250,000. .................... 59
Exhibit 17: ##327, 334, 336, 337, and 339 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between 50,001 -
$500,000. ................................................................................................................................................ 60
Exhibit 18: #376 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $250,001 - $500,000. .................. 61
Page 3 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 22: #520 2020 convertible promissory note valued between (not valued). ................................ 65
Exhibit 23: 2019 Form 990 PF excerpts Frank V. Sica and Colleen McMahon’s Private Foundation
return. ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Exhibit 24: Dkt 122 Judicial Public Record Destruction: August 15, 2022, deletion and destruction by
District Judge Colleen McMahon and Ruby Krajick, as an overt act in a conspiracy to obstruct justice,
and to enable RICO collection of the February 2001 $1.1M unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B). ............ 67
Exhibit 25(1): Page 1. Moot Dkt 120(1), 02cv2219 (SDNY): Bogus and moot Order (McMahon, C.J.),
entered as an overt act in the conspiracy to obstruct justice and enable continued 18 USC 1961(B)(6)
unlawful debt collection. On May 17, 2019, Judge McMahon knew 02cv2219 on 12/20/2007, see Ex. 1,
supra, had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by the plaintiffs. ........ 68
Exhibit 25(2): Page 2. ............................................................................................................................... 69
Exhibit 25(3): Page 3. ............................................................................................................................... 70
Exhibit 25(4): Page 4. ............................................................................................................................... 71
Exhibit 26: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs. Willful and bad faith suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory evidence
by the USAO (SDNY)’s prosecutors and federal judges. .......................................................................... 72
Exhibit 27: Sept. 1, 2004, kidnapping of Petitioner as assessed by the USPO (SDNY). Petitioner was
kidnapped by the U.S. Marshals and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) and held under $250K
ransom for the issuance of fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) unregistered
broker-dealers and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters, who as a matter of law, SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995), as legally ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to Section 5’s registration
requirements. .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Exhibit 28: State Bar of GA bogus, fraudulent, and fabricated affidavit of service: Petitioner was not in
the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons anywhere in the United States on January 15, 2007. The State
Bar conspired with the USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and District Judge Pauley in a conspiracy
to steal Petitioner’s license to practice law. ............................................................................................ 74
Exhibit 29: Ari Rabinowitz’s confession of statutory underwriter and unregistered broker-dealer status
for himself and Alpha Capital, AG during the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial. ................................ 75
Exhibit 30: LH Financial Services’ boss Solomon Obstfeld’s alleged murder. .......................................... 76
Exhibit 31(1): Alleged September 22, 2006, proceedings of the person alleged to be Jeremy Jones. .... 77
Exhibit 31(2): Marlon G. Kirton’s letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.) admitted that Jones had
cooperated with the USAO and the USAO provided Jones with a USSG “5k letter.” The alleged 5K letter
does not appear on any docket, nor has ever been revealed, produced in any judicial proceedings, nor
served on Petitioner. ............................................................................................................................... 78
Exhibit 32: Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica’ 2019 purported private foundation’s Form 990-PF
filing. ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
Page 4 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Introduction.
Mr. Nussbaum:
First, Ulysses T. Ware on April 20, 2023, writes to you and Loeb & Loeb, LLP in your
professional capacities as officers of the court, and pursuant to the District Court (SDNY) and NYS
Bar Assn. Rules of Ethics and Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and “duty of complete candor
to the tribunals” to (i) immediately not later than Friday, April 21, 2023, by 11:00 AM, time of
the essence, notify the below respective courts (tribunals) and (ii) the Office of the United States
Attorney (SDNY), Andre Damian Williams, Jr. regarding:
1. U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY),

2. Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY),
3. U.S. v. Ware, 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010),
4. Ware v. Alpha Capital, AG, et al., 11-4181cv, and
5. Alpha Capital, AG, et al., v. IVG Corp., a/k/a Group Management Corp., et al., 02cv2219
(SDNY),
6. U.S. v. Ware, 10566 (SDNY), and,
7. In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-WLH (BC NDGA), Chapter 11, (the “Moot
Proceedings” or the “Tribunals”)
and inform each Tribunal and the USAO (SDNY) that each of the Moot Proceedings has been (a)
superseded, vitiated, and abrogated, (b) rendered null and void ab initio, and (c) rendered moot
by Ex. B, and Ex. C, infra., i.e., actual innocent Brady exculpatory evidence deliberately and
intentionally suppressed by the USAO (SDNY) prosecutors—that is, actual innocent “special
circumstances.”
Page 5 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Second, Ulysses T. Ware hereby this 20th day of April 2023, notify you, Loeb & Loeb, LLP,
and your clients, Ari Rabinowitz, Alpha Capital, AG, and Trailblazer Merger Corp I, (the “Clients”),
of Mr. Ware’s intentions apropos the Clients, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, Mitchell Nussbaum, Esq., the Moot
Proceedings, and the Rule 41(a)(2) superseding final judgment—that is, Mr. Ware will move in
the U.S. Court of Appeals under the authority of Supreme Court precedent, Calderon v.
Thompson, 538, 558 (1998) (the courts of appeals have the inherent Article III jurisdiction and
authority to recall their mandates), and Taylor v. United States, 822 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2016)
(Katzmann, C.J.)2 (recall of mandate granted: court of appeals has the inherent jurisdiction and
power to recall its mandate at any time) citing Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 75 F.3d
86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) to recall the panel decision entered in 11-4181cv “dated 01/29/2013” see
Ex. A, infra, and the panel decision entered in U.S. v. Ware, 17-3527 (2d Cir.) dated 02/06/2018,
see Ex. D, infra.
Third, Mr. Ware hereby this 20th day of April 2023, designates and assigns Ari Rabinowitz,
Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), LH Financial Services, Trailblazer Merger Corp. I, Mitchell Nussbaum,
Esq., and Loeb & Loeb, LLP as hostile, adverse material fact witnesses, adverse party-opponents,
and unindicted coconspirators status, concerning direct and/or indirect knowing and willing
2
Note that C.J. Katzmann (deceased) sat on the 09-0851cr (2d Cir. 2010) panel. Accordingly, there is no
good faith, non-frivolous opposition to the courts’ authority to recall the 11-4181cv and 17-3527 mandates
given (i) Ex. B, (ii) Ex. C, (iii) Ex. E, infra, or the Court of Appeals March 15, 2022, decision in Adar Bays v.
GeneSYS ID, Inc., 28 F.4d 379 (2d Cir. 2022) (criminal usury convertible promissory notes (GX 1-4) are null
and void ab initio, unenforceable, moot, violated NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a
class E felony, and implicitly violated RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt collection activities, cf., U.S. v.
Grote, 961 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2020) (aff’d conviction, sentence, and +$3.0 billion RICO forfeiture judgment
for unlawful debt collection activities).
Page 6 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
participants in the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) loan sharking and money laundering criminal
enterprise operations of LH Financial Service, Ari Rabinowitz, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt),
Trailblazer Merger Corp. I, and others.
Fourth, see Ex. B, infra, the Clients, on 12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, voluntarily, after the statute
of limitation had run on all claims in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) manifestly bogus, fraudulent, and
frivolous complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2) allegedly moved the 2219 district
court (Sand, J.), (deceased) to dismiss with prejudice the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit--which
according to the District Court (SDNY) records department’s personnel on 10.07.22, “ … there is
no record of any such Rule 41 motion filed in that case [02cv2219] it does not exist in the record
of the court ….” (emphasis added). The actual innocent evidence is clear and convincing—Loeb &
Loeb, LLP’s Clients on December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, dismissed the 2219 lawsuit with prejudice;
which the district court (Sand, J.), Dkt. 90, Ex. B, infra, granted.
The 12.20.2007 Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal, Ex. B, infra, whether without or
without prejudice had dire and devastating effects3 on the 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11
proceedings,4 the 02cv2219 lawsuit, and the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) criminal proceedings,
to wit:
3
See Ex. E, infra, 12.25.2022, letter to District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY)
mootness. Note that District Judge McMahon, and her spouse, Frank V. Sica, according to public judicial
financial records maintained by the Executive Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, owns more
than +$22 million in RICO criminal usury convertible promissory note investments. See Dkt. 02cv2219
(SDNY) Dkt. 124 for the indisputable, clear and convincing evidence of Judge McMahon’s and Frank V.
Sica’s RICO money laundering, and loan sharking conspiracy operations.
4
Because of the criminal usury and illegal status and nature of the convertible promissory notes, GX 1-
4, and GX 5, the subscription agreement, KTS, and the 2219 plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to have
appeared in the 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Chapter 11 proceedings —that is, lacked as a matter of law and fact
Page 7 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Fifth, see Ex. C, infra, on May 17, 2021, FINRA certified that each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY)
plaintiffs and LH Financial Services had never lawfully registered in the United States and the
State of New York as broker-dealers as required by federal law, 15 USC 78o(a)(1), and NYS law—
that is, the Clients and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs ipso facto, per se, lacked Article III and 28
USC 1332(a) diversity standing to have filed the bogus, fraudulent, and manifestly frivolous5
02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit. Ergo, as a matter of law and fact the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit is null
and void ab initio.
Conclusion.
Mr. Nussbaum, time is of the essence for you and Loeb & Loeb, LLP to act pursuant to your
ethical and professional duty of “complete candor to the tribunals” and also given that Mr. Ware
is actually and factually innocent of all charges in U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) vis-à-vis the
manifestly fraudulent and frivolous 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit’s annulled and moot orders (GX 7,
GX 11, and GX 24), and in regard to the null and void ab initio GX 1-4, the criminal usury
convertible promissory notes (the RICO unlawful debts).
a “concrete injury in fact” caused by the defendant (GPMT) actions—any alleged injury to the unregistered
broker-dealers was caused by the criminal usury nature of GX 1-4, and GX 5—that is, a self-inflicted
nonactionable injury. Loan sharking and money laundering are not actionable by unregistered broker-
dealers in the United States Article I (03-93031) or Article III (02cv2219 and 04-cr1224) federal courts. See
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. Accordingly, the 04cr1224 (SDNY) indictment failed to charge an 18 USC 3231
“offense” and the charges are null and void ab initio, and moot, actual and factual innocent “special
circumstances.”
5
Manifestly frivolous and moot by seeking to collect GX 1-4, criminal usury unlawful debts in violation of
NYS Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury law, a class E felony, which cannot be waived, see Appx.
U, attached hereto; and in violation of RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debt (GX 1-4) collection activities,
see Grote, Id.
Page 8 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
PLEASE BE ADVISED, TAKE NOTICE, AND BE AWARE.
Therefore, accordingly, unless Mr. Ware receives a copy of your not later than April 21,
2023, time of the essence, notifications to each of the Tribunals that 02cv2219 (SDNY), and GX 7,
GX 11, GX 24, GX 1-4, and GX 5 are ipso facto, null and void ab initio, and moot, Mr. Ware will
notify the NYS State Bar Assn. and the District Court (SDNY) Committee on Lawyer Discipline
pursuant to Local Rules District Court (SDNY) Rules 1.5(b)(5), and 1.5(d)(3) and request that a
lawyer disciplinary proceeding be open on Mitchell Nussbaum, Esq. regarding the Moot
Proceedings, and other matters.
If not later than April 21, 2023, time of the essence, Mitchell Nussbaum, Esq. and Loeb &
Loeb, LLP does not respond to this letter, and produce a sworn declaration from Loeb & Loeb, LLP,
and from each of the Clients regarding the lawfulness of GX 1-4, and GX 5, given the Adar Bays
decision, and the 12.20.2007, Rule 41(a)(2) mootness of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit, Mr. Ware
will notify the Tribunals that Loeb & Loeb, LLP, and the Clients have no good faith, non-frivolous
opposition to the immediate recall of the mandates in 09-0851cr, 11-4181cv, and 17-3527 (2d
Cir.).
Sincerely,
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
Cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY)
All interested parties were served via email.
Page 9 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit A—Notice of the Court of Appeals regarding 11-4181cv (2d Cir.).
Page 10 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit B—12.20.2007, Dkt. 90, voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with
prejudice of 02cv2219 (SDNY).
Page 11 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit C—FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-
dealer status for the Clients.
Page 12 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit D—Court of Appeals 17-3527 notice.
Page 13 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit E—12.25.22 Letter to District Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY).
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).
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.
Page 14 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
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. 151.6
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
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
6
“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 15 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
GX 5 (the “2219 plaintiffs’ criminal usury underwriting contract”), jointly, (the “Criminal Usury
Subject Matter”).7
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 in 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,
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. 8
7
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.
8
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
Page 16 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
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.9
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.
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").
9
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 17 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
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))).”).
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.
Page 18 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
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.10
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,11 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
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
10
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.
11
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 19 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit F—Dkt. 124 (02cv2219) (SDNY).
Filed on 9/21/2022 11:22:25 AM
02cv2219 (SDNY) (04)
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York
Alpha Capital, AG, et al. v. Group Management Corp., et al.
___________
Submitted by:
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Petitioners Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management, and Silver Screen Studio, (the
“Prevailing Parties”)12: (1) Notice to immediately cease and desist all resistance,
civil and 18 USC 401(3) criminal contempt, to the December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90,
Rule 41(a)(2) final judgment; (2) Designation of Unindicted Coconspirator,
Racketeer, Material Fact Witness, and Adverse Respondent Status for Rule
60(d)(3), Fed. R. Crim P. 42, Civil Contempt Judgment Enforcement, and (3)
Request for Emergency All Writs Act Relief against:
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor Swain, Debra Ann Livingston, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack,
Colleen McMahon, convicted felon Edward M. Grushko, fugitive Thomas Badian, Barbara R.
Mittman, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital Management LLC, Ruby Krajick, Ari Rabinowitz, LH
Financial Services, Inc., Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina Thomas,
Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Charles Ellis Schumer, Kenneth
A. Zitter, Leonard B. Sand, Katherine Polk-Failla, Maria E. Douvas, Nicholas S. Goldin, Alexander
H. Southwell, Steven D. Feldman, Sarah E. Paul, Daniel Gitner, Margaret M. Garnett, David N.
12On December 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, Ex. 1, infra, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) final
judgment, conferred prevailing party status on Group Management Corp, Ulysses T. Ware, Elorian
and Becky Landers, and Silver Screen Studios.
Page 20 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Barbara S. Jones, Preet Bharara, Melissa Childs, Andrew J. Peck, Michael
H. Dolinger, Joan E. McKown, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., and others both known and unknown,
jointly, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), conspiracy to commit money laundering, unlawful
debt creation and collection, conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to commit honest services
fraud, and conspiracy to commit racketeering.13
13
18 USC 1519 and 18 USC 2071 cover and protect the U.S. Government’s judicial public records
from concealment and removal from the Bankruptcy Clerk’s and District Clerk’s possession,
control, and security. See also 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful RICO debt collection activity regarding
the illegal debt collection proceedings in 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC
NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), and 22cv3409 (SDNY).
See Fed. R. Crim P. Rule 55: Records.

“The clerk of the district court must keep records [Jeremy Jones’ alleged USSG 5k perjury
pleadings] of criminal proceedings in the form prescribed by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts. The clerk must enter in the records every court order or
judgment and the date of entry.”
Page 21 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Certificate of Service
The government was served with this pleading on 09.21.22 via Damian Williams at
damian.williams@usdoj.gov, Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov, and USAG Merrick B.
Garland was served via DUSAG Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Jeffrey.ragsdale@usdoj.gov on 09.21.22.
District Judges Edgardo Ramos, Colleen McMahon, District Clerk Ruby Krajick, and Circuit Judges
Robert D. Sack, Amalya L. Kearse, and Debra Ann Livingston were served on September 21, 2022,
via service on the Chief District Judge (SDNY) Laura Taylor-Swain via email to,
SwainNYSDcorresp@nysd.uscourts.gov.
Page 22 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Table of Contents
I. Designation of unindicted coconspirator, racketeer, material fact witness, and adverse respondent in
02cv2219. .................................................................................................................................................... 28
A. Conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud conspiracy, aiding and abetting, money
laundering, unlawful debt creation, collection, and laundering of the illegal profits and proceeds by and
through private foundations and other entities by Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor Swain, Colleen
McMahon, Debra Ann Livingston, Amalya L. Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Ruby Krajick, Frank V. Sica, Leonard
B. Sand, Ari Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, Inc., Alpha Capital, AG, et al. .......................................... 28
II. Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, Tailwind Capital Management, and Others
Unindicted Coconspirator and Racketeer Status. ........................................................................................ 28
Claim #1: Conspiracy to create and collect RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debts in the Southern District
of New York and Elsewhere. .................................................................................................................... 28
Management LLC’s conspired to launder money derived from RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful Debt
Creation and Collection. See Ex. 5-22, infra, and Tailwind Capital Management LLC’s Private Equity
Ponzi scam............................................................................................................................................... 29
Claim #3: Racketeering to money launder, conspiracy, the creation, and collection of 18 USC 1961(6)(B)
unlawful debts, obstruction of justice, and evidence destruction. ......................................................... 31
III. Requested Emergency All Writs Act Reliefs. ........................................................................................ 36
A. All Writs Act Reliefs Requested. ...................................................................................................... 36
B. Individuals and entities, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), for which emergency relief is
requested be entered. ............................................................................................................................ 39
Distribution List ....................................................................................................................................... 42
Exhibits ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) 12/20/2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary final judgment entered in favor of
GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, the prevailing parties. .................................... 44
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? .......................................................................................................... 45
Exhibit 3: Money laundering by Edward M. Grushko, Alpha Capital, AG, and Judge Colleen McMahon in
the Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. litigation. ............................................................................................ 46
Exhibit 4: Reported 2020 income of Frank V. Sica. .................................................................................. 47
Exhibit 5: #103 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,000 and $1,000,000. ............ 48
Page 23 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 8: #204 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 - $1,000,000. ................. 51
Exhibit 14: #276, 277, and 279 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $500,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Exhibit 15: ##297, 300, 302, and 304 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between $50,001 -
$1,000,000. ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Exhibit 16: #323 2020 convertible promissory note valued between 100,001 - $250,000. .................... 59
Exhibit 17: ##327, 334, 336, 337, and 339 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between 50,001 -
$500,000. ................................................................................................................................................ 60
Exhibit 22: #520 2020 convertible promissory note valued between (not valued). ................................ 65
Exhibit 23: 2019 Form 990 PF excerpts Frank V. Sica and Colleen McMahon’s Private Foundation
return. ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Exhibit 24: Dkt 122 Judicial Public Record Destruction: August 15, 2022, deletion and destruction by
District Judge Colleen McMahon and Ruby Krajick, as an overt act in a conspiracy to obstruct justice,
and to enable RICO collection of the February 2001 $1.1M unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B). ............ 67
Exhibit 25(1): Page 1. Moot Dkt 120(1), 02cv2219 (SDNY): Bogus and moot Order (McMahon, C.J.),
entered as an overt act in the conspiracy to obstruct justice and enable continued 18 USC 1961(B)(6)
unlawful debt collection. On May 17, 2019, Judge McMahon knew 02cv2219 on 12/20/2007, see Ex. 1,
supra, had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by the plaintiffs. ........ 68
Exhibit 25(2): Page 2................................................................................................................................ 69
Exhibit 25(3): Page 3. ............................................................................................................................... 70
Exhibit 25(4): Page 4. ............................................................................................................................... 71
Exhibit 26: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for each of the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs. Willful and bad faith suppressed and concealed Brady exculpatory evidence
by the USAO (SDNY)’s prosecutors and federal judges. .......................................................................... 72
Page 24 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 27: Sept. 1, 2004, kidnapping of Petitioner as assessed by the USPO (SDNY). Petitioner was
kidnapped by the U.S. Marshals and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) and held under $250K
ransom for the issuance of fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) unregistered
broker-dealers and 15 USC 77b(a)(11) statutory underwriters, who as a matter of law, SEC Release 33-
7190 n. 17 (1995), as legally ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to Section 5’s registration
requirements. .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Exhibit 28: State Bar of GA bogus, fraudulent, and fabricated affidavit of service: Petitioner was not in
the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons anywhere in the United States on January 15, 2007. The State
Bar conspired with the USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell and District Judge Pauley in a conspiracy
to steal Petitioner’s license to practice law. ............................................................................................ 74
Exhibit 29: Ari Rabinowitz’s confession of statutory underwriter and unregistered broker-dealer status
for himself and Alpha Capital, AG during the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial. ................................ 75
Exhibit 30: LH Financial Services’ boss Solomon Obstfeld’s alleged murder. .......................................... 76
Exhibit 31(1): Alleged September 22, 2006, proceedings of the person alleged to be Jeremy Jones. .... 77
Exhibit 31(2): Marlon G. Kirton’s letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.) admitted that Jones had
cooperated with the USAO and the USAO provided Jones with a USSG “5k letter.” The alleged 5K letter
does not appear on any docket, nor has ever been revealed, produced in any judicial proceedings, nor
served on Petitioner. ............................................................................................................................... 78
Exhibit 32: Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica’ 2019 purported private foundation’s Form 990-PF
filing. ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
Page 25 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
The Office of Ulysses T. Ware14
123 Linden Blvd.
Ste 9-L
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 844-1260
utware007@gmail.com
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
The Hon. Colleen McMahon15

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).
PLEASE BE ADVISED AND TAKE NOTICE.
Judge McMahon, the Petitioners, the Prevailing Parties in 02cv2219 (SDNY), hereby this
21st day of September 2022, have designated Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital
Management LLC, its partners, associates, and business agents, Colleen McMahon and Frank V.
Sica’s private foundations, and others as (i) an unindicted coconspirator, (ii) a material fact
witness, (iii) an adverse party respondent in regard to Rule 60(d)(3) fraud on the court claims,
Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 42 criminal contempt and civil contempt enforcement proceedings, and (iv)
14
This pleading was filed with the District Court (SDNY) on September 21, 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.
15
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain was served on September 21, 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 21, 2022, on behalf of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Page 26 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
as a racketeer and willing participant in a RICO unlawful debt creation and collection, and private
equity Ponzi scam conspiracy.
Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management, Silver Screen Studios
By: Ulysses T. Ware for Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management and Silver Screen Studios.
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
September 21, 2022
Page 27 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
I. Designation of unindicted coconspirator, racketeer, material fact
witness, and adverse respondent in 02cv2219.
A. Conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud conspiracy, aiding and

abetting, money laundering, unlawful debt creation, collection, and laundering of the
illegal profits and proceeds by and through private foundations and other entities by
Edgardo Ramos, Laura Taylor Swain, Colleen McMahon, Debra Ann Livingston, Amalya L.
Kearse, Robert D. Sack, Ruby Krajick, Frank V. Sica, Leonard B. Sand, Ari Rabinowitz, LH
Financial Services, Inc., Alpha Capital, AG, et al.
Petitioner, Ulysses T. Ware, the defendant in the moot U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY) and
U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) proceedings, jointly, (the “Retaliatory RICO Unlawful Debt
Collection Cases”), hereby this 21st day of September 2022, repleads and incorporates by
reference herein, in heac verba, Dkt. 1-2, Declaration of Ulysses T. Ware, and Claims 1-17, and
pleads and asserts the following claims.
II. Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, Tailwind

Capital Management, and Others Unindicted Coconspirator and
Racketeer Status.
Claim #1: Conspiracy to create and collect RICO Criminal Usury Unlawful
Debts in the Southern District of New York and Elsewhere.
Petitioner pleads and claims that from on or about February 2001 continuing to the
present without interruption, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, the
Unindicted Coconspirators, knowingly, willfully, and intentionally acted alone, separately, and/or
jointly, formed an illegal association-in-fact, a criminal enterprise, (the “CCE”), with the specific
Page 28 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
and illegal and criminal objectives and purposes of (1) the creation and (2) collection of criminal
usury illegal debts, (the “Unlawful Debts”), which (i) violated N.Y. Penal Law, section 190.40, the
criminal usury law, a class E felony, (ii) which the collection thereof of the Unlawful Debts violated
18 USC 1961(6)(B); and (iii) the laundering of the profits and proceeds derived from the
operations of the CCE.16
Management LLC’s conspired to launder money derived from RICO Criminal Usury
Unlawful Debt Creation and Collection. See Ex. 5-22, infra, and Tailwind Capital
Management LLC’s Private Equity Ponzi scam.17
1. Petitioner pleads and claims that Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private
foundations, Tailwind Capital Management LLC, jointly, (“McMahon”), and others known
and unknown, have since 2001 continuing without interruption in the Southern District
of New York and elsewhere formed an illegal association-in-fact, a continuing criminal
enterprise, (the “CCE”), for the purpose of (i) the creation, (ii) the collection, (iii) the
laundering, (iv) the protection, and (v), concealment of the participants, the profits and
proceeds derived from or Hobbs Act money laundering, conspiracy, and the creation of
16See Tailwind’s current and historical alleged “investments,” in actuality front (shell) companies
used to launder the proceeds and profits of a billion dollar criminal enterprise.
17 See Tailwind Capital Management’s purported “realized” investments—that is, the private
equity Ponzi scam run by Tailwind, Frank V. Sica, and Colleen McMahon’s unlawful use of her
judicial influence with the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY) to obstruct, delay, and impede any
criminal or civil investigation of Tailwind’s money laundering criminal enterprise.
Page 29 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
RICO unlawful debts which violated, (A) N.Y. Penal Law, section 190.40, the criminal usury
law, a class E felony, and (B) 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
2. McMahon knowingly and willfully participated in the activities of the CCE by criminally
abusing her position and office as a U.S. federal judge (SDNY) and knowing, willfully, and
covertly acted in her official and unofficial capacities, and has obstructed justice,
committed numerous frauds on the court, removed and concealed evidence from the
Court, conspired with Ruby Krajick to have herself and Edgardo Ramos assigned to
matters that involved Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), and other participants in the CCE.
3. From beginning on or about May 2019 to the present McMahon has acted on behalf of
the CCE’s criminal objectives, and used her office and position as a U.S. federal district
judge, and conspired with Ruby Krajick and they knowingly violated 18 USC 1519 and 2071
and suppressed and concealed official judicial public records filed by Petitioner in August
2022 in 02cv2219 (SDNY), submitted to the Court on 08/07/22, docketed as Dkt. 122, and
deleted by McMahon from the 02cv2219 (SDNY) docket on 08/15/22, as an overt act to:
i. cover up, suppress, and conceal McMahon’s and Krajick’s involvement in the CCE,
ii. to protect the ill-gotten, criminal, profits and proceeds generated by the CCE,
iii. to protect the participants in the CCE from criminal and civil process,
iv. to protect McMahon’s and Frank V. Sica’s personal investments in RICO criminal
usury unlawful debts, see Ex. 5-22, infra,
v. to cover up and conceal Frank V. Sica, her spouse, and Tailwind Capital
Management’s private equity Ponzi scam which Tailwind, its partners, and their
Page 30 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
coconspirators have laundered billions of dollars disguised as private equity
investments, traded on inside confidential inside information, solicited bogus and
fraudulent valuation of private companies, inflated the asset values of private
companies, used the U.S. capital markets to raise money for use by the CCE to
fund the private equity Ponzi scam, used the U.S. banking system to launder the
profits and proceeds derived from the private equity Ponzi scam, used the Internal
Revenue Code and their purported private foundations18 to launder the profits
and proceeds derived from the racketeering activities of the CCE
vi. to cover up and conceal her and Frank V. Sica’s investments in shell front
companies which were in effect kickbacks, payoffs, bribes, illegal gratuities, favors,
gifts, and other things of value for those to aided, abetted, and assisted the CCE
to achieve its criminal objectives.
Claim #3: Racketeering to money launder, conspiracy, the creation, and collection
of 18 USC 1961(6)(B) unlawful debts, obstruction of justice, and evidence
destruction.
Petitioner pleads and claims that the CCE was aided, abetted, assisted, and enabled by
the racketeering activities and willful participation of the Unindicted Coconspirators in the
activities and operations of the CCE, and each Unindicted Coconspirator knowingly, acted
18See Ex. 32, infra. According to persons having personal knowledge of Colleen McMahon’s and
Frank V. Sica’s investments, it was stated, “ … they have used the foundations and shell companies
to pay kickbacks and other payoffs to persons they want to reward for helping them keep
everything secret and out of the public eyes … they have been doing this for years ….”
Page 31 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
separately and/or jointly in furtherance of the objectives and purposes of the CCE, committed
two or more racketeering activities as defined in 18 USC 1961(1), and knowingly arranged,
facilitated, aided, abetted, conspired, and enabled the CCE to launder the profits and proceeds
obtained from the creation and collection of the Unlawful Debts through various entities and
persons, to wit:
1. LH Financial Services, Inc., Ari Rabinowitz, Solomon Obstfeld,19
2. Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro
International, S.A.,20
3. Charles Ellis Schumer, Paul, Weiss, LLP, Andre Damian Williams, Jr., Lissette A. Doran,21
19LH Financial Services, Rabinowitz, and Obstfeld (who was allegedly murdered), aided, abetted,
and enabled the CCE to create and collect the Unlawful debts by funding the Unlawful Debts,
threatening Petitioner and GPMT with harms, injuries, and damages unless fraudulent Rule 144
opinions were issued to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs; hired lawyers and judges to aid and abet
the RICO 18 USC 1961(6)(B) collection of the Unlawful Debts; lied and committed perjury for the
USAO during the 04cr1224 (SDNY) trial; and laundered the profits and proceedings of the CCE.
20 Unregistered broker-dealers according to the May 17, 2021, certification by FINRA, see Ex. 26,
infra. As a matter of law, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995) ruled that Section 2(a)(11) statutory
underwriters are required to register all distribution of securities with the SEC pursuant to
Section 5. The 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs as a matter of law were legally ineligible for any Rule
144 exemption to Section 5; and therefore, GPMT and Petitioner were not required to criminally
or civilly violate the federal securities laws and issue bogus and fraudulent Rule 144 legal opinions
that would have enabled the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs to circumvent Section 5 and conduct an
illegal unregistered public offering of GPMT’s securities and violate 15 USC 77e, 77x, and 78ff. See
Ex. 29, infra.
21Schumer, Paul, Weiss, Williams, Duran, Ramos, Taylor-Swain, Bharara, Colleen McMahon, and
other Unindicted Coconspirators paid and/or received gifts, favors, kickbacks, payoffs, bribes, and
other illegal gratuities and provided services for the CCE in the protection of the profits, proceeds,
and participants in the CCE’s operations.
Page 32 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
4. Robert B. Schumer, Paul, Weiss, LLP,
5. Edgardo Ramos, Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, Nicholas S. Goldin, Robert W. Sweet,
6. Colleen McMahon,22 Frank V. Sica,23 private foundations, Edward M. Grushko,
7. Leonard B. Sand,24
8. the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”),25
9. the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”), Joan E. McKown, Steve R. Peikin,
Spencer C. Barasch, Jeffrey B. Norris,26
22According to FINRA’s public website, neither Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, LH Financial
Service, or Alpha Capital, AG have ever registered as broker-dealers as required by federal law, 15
USC 78o(a)(1).
23See Ex. 5-22, infra. Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, and their purported ‘private foundation(s)’
laundered the profits and proceeds of the CCE disguised as charitable contributions and
donations in exchange for confidential inside information on which they, their friends, families,
and associates made numerous illegal investments and profits.
24 District Judge Sand (deceased) colluded, conspired, and racketeered with the Unindicted
Coconspirators and aided, abetted, and enabled the CCE to conduct illegal RICO collection
activities, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) lawsuit; and further enabled the CCE and the Unindicted
Coconspirators to kidnap Petitioner on September 1, 2004, in Atlanta, GA by the U.S. Marshals
and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. (NDGA) as the illegal means and method to extort GPMT
and Petitioner out of +$100M in free trading securities in GPMT. See Ex. 27, infra.
25The USAO and its prosecutors allowed itself/them to be willingly, recklessly, and risibly duped
and made a fool of by Charles Ellis Schumer, the CCE, and the Unindicted Coconspirators; and
recklessly permitted and allowed itself to be used as the prosecutorial collection agency for the
02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs and the CCE’s money laundering operations.
26 The SEC and its officials, knowingly and willfully colluded and conspired with the CCE, the USAO,
Judge Dawson, and the Unindicted Coconspirators and knowingly in bad faith undertook
racketeering activities, mail and wire frauds, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, etc., and in bad faith colluded with the USAO to initiate the Bootleg Grand Jury
Proceedings, 03-0831 (D. NV), conspired in bad faith with the USAO to circumvent the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, conspired in bad faith with the USAO to violate Petitioner’s Fifth
Page 33 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
10. Laura Taylor-Swain,27
11. David N. Kelley, Dechert, LLP, Michael J. Garcia, (see n. 10, infra),
12. Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, Dennis S. Meir, John W. Mills, III, J. Henry Walker,
IV; (see n. 12, infra).
13. Margaret H. Murphy, Joyce Bihary, Coleman Ray Mullins, Wendy L. Hagenau, M. Regina
Thomas, Patricia Sinback;28
14. Kent J. Dawson,29
Amendment right to remain silent, and conspired in bad faith with the USAO, former FBI special
agent David Makol, magistrate judge Andrew J. Peck, and District Judge Pauley (deceased) to
fraudulent obtain arrest warrants for Petitioner; and further conspired in bad faith with the USAO
to commit grand fraud in the procurement of the U.S. v. Ware, 05cr1115 (SDNY) purported
indictment, which as a matter of law was moot.
27In willful violation of 18 USC 2, 201, 241, 242, 371, 1346, 1519, and 18 USC 2071 Chief District
Judge Laura Taylor-Swain in 2021 stole, removed, suppressed, and concealed Petitioner’s Local
Rules District Court (SDNY) Rule 1.5(b)(5) professional misconduct petition filed against U.S.
Attorney (SDNY) Andre Damian Williams, Jr. and USAG Merrick B. Garland for their continued
willful resistance and disobedience to the Brady Court Orders’ disclosure requirements.
28 The Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court, its judges, and employees, aided, abetted, assisted, and
knowingly conspired with the CCE and the Unindicted Coconspirators and willfully and
intentionally destroyed, removed, concealed, and suppressed Petitioner’s July 2021 Rule
9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court filings; and since 2021 Wendy L. Hagenau and M. Regina Thomas
have recklessly colluded and conspired and obstructed all Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) Article III
jurisdictional inquiries regarding In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm (BC NDGA), see
Dkt. 187-227 (03-93031).
29District Judge Kent J. Dawson aided, abetted, assisted, and conspired with the USAO and the
SEC’s lawyers and enabled and approved the July 2003 initiation of an illegal and unconstitutional
bootleg grand jury proceeding, 03-0831 (D. NV), (the “Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding”). Judge
Dawson knowingly and willfully conspired with the SEC and the USAO and enabled the use of the
Bootleg Grand Jury Proceeding to criminally circumvent, 18 USC 2, 371, 241, 242, 1346, 1512,
1519, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and gather unlawful evidence for use in the SDNY’s
imminent Retaliatory RICO Unlawful Debt Collection Cases.
Page 34 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
15. Andrew J. Peck, Michael H. Dolinger, David Makol, Maria A. Font, Marlon G. Kirton,30
16. The U. S. Probation Office (SDNY), Michael Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. McCarthy, David
Mulcahy, Colleen Tyler,31
17. The State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia,32
18. Orinda D. Evans, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., the U.S. Marshals (NDGA),33
19. Edward T.M. Garland, Manibur S. Arora, Donald F. Samuel, David B. Levitt, (“GSL”),34
30 See n. 10, supra.
31 See Ex. 27, infra. The USPO knowingly and in bad faith prepared false and fraudulent
presentencing reports which were used by the 04cr1224 and 05cr1115 District Courts as the
fraudulent basis to impose an illegal and unconstitutional consecutive sentence on Petitioner as
a Jim Crow retaliatory racially-motivated hate crime for Petitioner’s refusal to draft, sign, and
issue the bogus and fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal opinions to the ineligible, unregistered broker-
dealers, see Ex. 26, infra, 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs.
32 The State Bar of GA, the Supreme Court of GA, and their employees knowingly, in bad faith,
and recklessly, allowed themselves to be used by the USAO and District Judge Pauley as pawns,
duped, and played as fools; and knowingly fabricated a bogus and fraudulent affidavit of service,
see Ex. 28.
33 See Ex. 27, infra. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. joined the CCE and provided illegal judicial
services to the CCE on September 1, 2004, by enabling the CCE to kidnap Petitioner as an overt
racketeering act: (1) to tamper in the deposition of SEC lawyer Stephen Webster and (2) to aid,
abet, and enable the 18 USC 1961(6)(B) RICO collection of the Unlawful Debt.
34 Petitioner’s
retained Sixth Amendment legal counsels in 04cr1224 and 05cr1115. GSL colluded,
conspired, and assisted the USAO to fraudulent indict and convict Petitioner by refusing to
provide any effective assistance of independent legal counsel and challenge the USAO’s bogus
cases in any meaningful way whatsoever. GSL merely filed a notice of appearance in 04cr1124
and refused to file any further pleadings. GSL stole the retainer of Petitioner and refused to enter
an appearance in 05cr1115 after being paid by Petitioner to function as Sixth Amendment
independent legal counsel in 05cr1115.
Page 35 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
20. Gary G. Becker,35
III. Requested Emergency All Writs Act Reliefs.
A. All Writs Act Reliefs Requested.
Petitioners, Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management, and Silver Screen Studios are and will continue
to suffer irreparable harms, injuries, and damages caused by the persons and entities named
herein are approaching the Court, and requesting emergency 28 USC 1651(a) All Writs Act
judicial assistance from the Court;
1. To order the Unindicted Coconspirators to immediately, and all those in active
concert therewith, not later than Thursday, September 22, 2022, at 9:00 AM,
time of the essence, to cease and desist all resistance to the December 20, 2007,
Dkt. 90, Ex. 1, infra, final judgment inherent preclusive effects.
35 District Judge Pauley appointed Becker in 05cr1115 (SDNY) as the purported “stand-by counsel”
over the objection of Petitioner; and Judge Pauley bribed and paid CJA kickbacks to Becker to act
and function as a government agent, a mole, and convey Petitioner’s confidential information to
the USAO and the Court.
Page 36 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
2. To obtain complete financial36 and other disclosures,37 (the “Emergency
Disclosures”), from the persons or entities named herein, and other relief.
3. Order the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (NDGA), and all those in active concert therewith
regarding In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm, Chapter 11, to
immediately cease and desist all resistance to the December 20, 2007, Ex. 1, Rule
41(a)(2) final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”).
4. Order the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), regarding U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224
(SDNY) and Ware v. USA, et al., 22cv3409 (SDNY) and all those in active concert
therewith to immediately cease and desist all resistance to the Rule 41 Final
Judgment.
5. Order the State Bar of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia, and all those
in active concert therewith to immediately cease and desist all resistance to the
Rule 41 Final Judgment.
36 Complete financial disclosure shall include, but is not limited to, all records, evidence of, proof,
and/or instances of all bribes, kickbacks, favors, gifts, tips, recommendations, illegal gratuities, or
other things of value, in any form, given, received, and/or offered by any person or entity named
in n. 5, infra, or from any person or entity whatsoever.
37Petitioner is requesting disclosure of all communications, in any form or format, between the
Unindicted Coconspirators named in Section I(B), supra, between each other, and between any
person or entity associated with or related to Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), LH Financial Services,
Inc., Ari Rabinowitz, fugitive Thomas Badian, Charles Ellis Schumer, Robert B. Schumer, Paul,
Weiss, LLP, the SEC, Dechert, LLP, Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, the Office of the United
States Attorney (SDNY), or from any person and/or entity whatsoever regarding 02cv2219 (SDNY),
03-0831 (D. NV), 03-93031 (BC NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), 05cr1115 (SDNY), or 22cv3409 (SDNY).
Page 37 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
6. Order the 22cv3409 (SDNY) habeas corpus court and District Judge Edgardo
Ramos and all those in active concert therewith to immediately cease and desist
all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
7. Order the Atlanta, GA law firm Kilpatrick, Townsend, & Stockton, LLP, and all
those in active concert therewith to immediately cease and desist all resistance
to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
8. Order District Judge Colleen McMahon,38 the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, their lawyers,
agents, and all those in active concert therewith to immediately cease and desist
all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
9. Order District Judge Laura Taylor-Swain and all those in active concert therewith
to immediately cease and desist all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
10. Order the District Court (NDGA) and all those in active concert therewith to
immediately cease and desist all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.
11. Order Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica to file into the 02cv2219 (SDNY) record
all 15 USC 78o(a)(1) broker-dealer registration documents filed with FINRA and/or
the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”).
38Cf., Ex. 25, infra, fraudulent, and bogus 02cv2219 (SDNY), moot, ultra vires Dkt. 120, May 19,
2019, purported Order (McMahon, C.J.), willfully resisted, civil and 18 USC 401(3) criminal
contempt, the Rule 41 Final Judgment’s preclusive effects as an overt act in furtherance of the
CCE’s racketeering activities.
Page 38 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
B. Individuals and entities, (the “Unindicted Coconspirators”), for which emergency
relief is requested be entered.
1. District Judge (SDNY) Colleen McMahon, her spouse, Frank V. Sica, and his employer,
Tailwind Capital, LLC, immediate financial disclosures, see #7, below.
2. Edgardo Ramos’ financial disclosures of all bribes, kickbacks, favors, gifts, illegal gratuities,
and other things of value received by Ramos, his spouse, or family members;
3. Charles Ellis Schumer’s immediate disclosure of all bribes, kickbacks, gifts, favors, tips,
investment advice, things of value, or illegal gratuities offered and/or paid to any
Unindicted Coconspirator, their spouse, family, friends, or associations, charities,
foundations, or other persons or entities.
4. For the Atlanta, GA bankruptcy court to immediately produce and disclose each July 2012
Rule 9024/60(d)(3) fraud on the court pleadings submitted to the Court by Petitioner in
03-93031 (BC NDGA); and disclose all orders or judgment entered on any such fraud on
the court pleading.
5. For Edgardo Ramos, Ruby Krajick, and/or the USAO to immediately disclose all
documents, records, transcripts, communications, or other papers associated with or
related to the alleged September 22, 2006, fabricated Rule 11 proceeding by the person
known as, or alleged to be Jeremy Jones.39
39 See Ex. 31, infra. Government “principal witness” Jeremy Jones it is alleged, but no official court
records exist, nor has the USAO produced Jones’ alleged Rule 11 perjury contract, Jones’ USSG
5k letter, Jones’ Jencks Act disclosures, Jones’ grand jury testimony, Jones’ bribes, favors,
kickbacks, illegal gratuities, or other things of value paid to Jones to knowingly lie and commit
perjury for the USAO in 05cr1115 (SDNY).
Page 39 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
6. For Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica to immediately not later than Monday,
September 26, 2022, by 10:00 AM, time of the essence, to disclose all alleged
investments in companies in which Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt) and/or LH Financial
Services, Inc. invested; and disclose all convertible promissory note, promissory note,
preferred stock, or debt investment in all private companies they invested in since 2003
7. For Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, and Tailwind Capital Management, (“Tailwind”), to
immediately not later than Monday, September 26, 2022, by 10:00 AM, time of the
essence,
a. disclose all alleged investment funds and proceeds raised by Tailwind since 1999;
b. disclose all investments in all private companies made by Tailwind since 1999;
c. disclose the valuation of all private companies invested in by Tailwind since 1999;
d. disclose the valuation of all private companies sold by Tailwind since 1999;
e. disclose all alleged “distributions” paid by Tailwind to Frank V. Sica since 1999;
f. disclose an inventory of all donations and contributions made by McMahon to any
private foundation since 1999;
g. disclose an inventory of all donations and contributions made by any private
foundation owned by or under the control of Colleen McMahon and/or Frank V.
Sica.
Respectfully submitted by,
Page 40 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Ulysses T. Ware
/s/ Ulysses T. Ware
September 21, 2022
Page 41 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Distribution List
The individuals listed below were served via email with a copy of this pleading on
September 21, 2022.
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 20, 2022, via email.
Page 42 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibits
Page 43 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 1: 02cv2219 (SDNY) 12/20/2007, Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary final judgment entered
in favor of GPMT, Ulysses T. Ware, and Elorian and Becky Landers, the prevailing parties.
Page 44 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
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 45 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 3: Money laundering by Edward M. Grushko, Alpha Capital, AG, and Judge Colleen
McMahon in the Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. litigation.
Page 46 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 4: Reported 2020 income of Frank V. Sica.
Page 47 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 5: #103 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,000 and
$1,000,000.
Page 48 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 6: #113 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $100,001 - $250,000.
Page 49 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 50 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 8: #204 2020 convertible promissory note valued between $500,001 -
$1,000,000.
Page 51 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 52 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 53 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
$1,000,000.
Page 54 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
$1,000,000.
Page 55 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
$1,000,000.
Page 56 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 14: #276, 277, and 279 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between
$500,001 - $1,000,000.
Page 57 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 15: ##297, 300, 302, and 304 2020 convertible promissory notes valued between
$50,001 - $1,000,000.
Page 58 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 16: #323 2020 convertible promissory note valued between 100,001 - $250,000.
Page 59 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 17: ##327, 334, 336, 337, and 339 2020 convertible promissory notes valued
between 50,001 - $500,000.
Page 60 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 61 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 62 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 63 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 64 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 22: #520 2020 convertible promissory note valued between (not valued).
Page 65 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 23: 2019 Form 990 PF excerpts Frank V. Sica and Colleen McMahon’s Private
Foundation return.
Page 66 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 24: Dkt 122 Judicial Public Record Destruction: August 15, 2022, deletion and
destruction by District Judge Colleen McMahon and Ruby Krajick, as an overt act in a
conspiracy to obstruct justice, and to enable RICO collection of the February 2001 $1.1M
unlawful debt, 18 USC 1961(6)(B).
Page 67 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 25(1): Page 1. Moot Dkt 120(1), 02cv2219 (SDNY): Bogus and moot Order
(McMahon, C.J.), entered as an overt act in the conspiracy to obstruct justice and enable
continued 18 USC 1961(B)(6) unlawful debt collection. On May 17, 2019, Judge McMahon
knew 02cv2219 on 12/20/2007, see Ex. 1, supra, had been voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) by the plaintiffs.
Page 68 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 25(2): Page 2.
Page 69 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 70 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Page 71 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 26: FINRA’s May 17, 2021, certification of unregistered broker-dealer status for
each of the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs. Willful and bad faith suppressed and concealed
Brady exculpatory evidence by the USAO (SDNY)’s prosecutors and federal judges.
Page 72 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 27: Sept. 1, 2004, kidnapping of Petitioner as assessed by the USPO (SDNY).
Petitioner was kidnapped by the U.S. Marshals and District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
(NDGA) and held under $250K ransom for the issuance of fraudulent Rule 144(k) legal
opinions to the 02cv2219 (SDNY) unregistered broker-dealers and 15 USC 77b(a)(11)
statutory underwriters, who as a matter of law, SEC Release 33-7190 n. 17 (1995), as legally
ineligible for any Rule 144 exemption to Section 5’s registration requirements.
Page 73 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 28: State Bar of GA bogus, fraudulent, and fabricated affidavit of service: Petitioner
was not in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons anywhere in the United States on
January 15, 2007. The State Bar conspired with the USAO’s AUSA Alexander H. Southwell
and District Judge Pauley in a conspiracy to steal Petitioner’s license to practice law.
Page 74 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 29: Ari Rabinowitz’s confession of statutory underwriter and unregistered broker-
dealer status for himself and Alpha Capital, AG during the U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY)
trial.
Page 75 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 30: LH Financial Services’ boss Solomon Obstfeld’s alleged murder.
Page 76 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 31(1): Alleged September 22, 2006, proceedings of the person alleged to be
Jeremy Jones.
Page 77 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 31(2): Marlon G. Kirton’s letter to the District Court (Pauley, J.) admitted that Jones
had cooperated with the USAO and the USAO provided Jones with a USSG “5k letter.” The
alleged 5K letter does not appear on any docket, nor has ever been revealed, produced in
any judicial proceedings, nor served on Petitioner.
Page 78 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
Exhibit 32: Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica’ 2019 purported private
foundation’s Form 990-PF filing.
Page 79 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.
End of document
Page 80 of 80
4181cv (2d Cir.) dated 01/29/2013.

04.20.23 Re Loeb & Loeb Tribunal Notifications

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

04.20.23 Re Loeb & Loeb Tribunal Notifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Office of Ulysses T.

Via email on April 20, 2023

Attorney (SDNY), Andre Damian Williams, Jr. regarding:

1. U.S. v. Ware, 04cr1224 (SDNY),

see Ex. D, infra.

enterprise operations of LH Financial Service, Ari Rabinowitz, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt),

Trailblazer Merger Corp. I, and others.

and void ab initio.

convertible promissory notes (the RICO unlawful debts).

Proceedings, and other matters.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Cc: Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY)

All interested parties were served via email.

December 25, 2022

Via regular U.S. mail on December 25, 2022

Administrative Issue #2: Request for Clarification.

Good Cause Shown.

A judgment is void if it is "so affected by a fundamental infirmity [the exercise of Article

Accordingly, respectfully, Petitioner requests:

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

See Fed. R. Crim P. Rule 55: Records.

damian.williams@usdoj.gov, Jun Xiang was served at jun.xiang@usdoj.gov, and USAG Merrick B.

Garland was served via DUSAG Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Jeffrey.ragsdale@usdoj.gov on 09.21.22.

The Hon. Colleen McMahon15

PLEASE BE ADVISED AND TAKE NOTICE.

equity Ponzi scam conspiracy.

Ulysses T. Ware, Group Management, Silver Screen Studios

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

September 21, 2022

A. Conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud conspiracy, aiding and

pleads and asserts the following claims.

II. Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, their private foundations, Tailwind

operations of the CCE.16

of New York and elsewhere formed an illegal association-in-fact, a continuing criminal

law, a class E felony, and (B) 18 USC 1961(6)(B).

usury unlawful debts, see Ex. 5-22, infra,

investments, traded on inside confidential inside information, solicited bogus and

fraudulent valuation of private companies, inflated the asset values of private

and proceeds derived from the racketeering activities of the CCE

to achieve its criminal objectives.

1. LH Financial Services, Inc., Ari Rabinowitz, Solomon Obstfeld,19

2. Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Stonestreet, L.P., Markham Holdings, Ltd., Amro

6. Colleen McMahon,22 Frank V. Sica,23 private foundations, Edward M. Grushko,

8. the Office of the U.S. Attorney (SDNY), (the “USAO”),25

Spencer C. Barasch, Jeffrey B. Norris,26

IV; (see n. 12, infra).

Thomas, Patricia Sinback;28

14. Kent J. Dawson,29

Mulcahy, Colleen Tyler,31

17. The State Bar of Georgia, the Supreme Court of Georgia,32

30 See n. 10, supra.

III. Requested Emergency All Writs Act Reliefs.

A. All Writs Act Reliefs Requested.

judicial assistance from the Court;

1. To order the Unindicted Coconspirators to immediately, and all those in active

Dkt. 90, Ex. 1, infra, final judgment inherent preclusive effects.

regarding In re Group Management Corp., 03-93031-mhm, Chapter 11, to

41(a)(2) final judgment, (the “Rule 41 Final Judgment”).

Rule 41 Final Judgment.

all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.

to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.

all resistance to the Rule 41 Final Judgment.

the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”).