No. 02-24-90036jm (2d Cir.

)
In re Colleen McMahon, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Office of the Chief Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Claims, Demand for disclosure information, and other

defensive documents required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1-4) disclosures.
_______________

Please be advised, take notice, and be aware of the

following vital information.
Civil Action No. 24cv____ (NDGA)
Ulysses T. Ware, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Andre Damian Williams,1 Debra Ann Livingston, et al.
Unindicted Coconspirators, Putative Defendants.
___________

RE: Hobbs Act Criminal Enterprise Finding re: Damian Williams, Colleen
McMahon’s, Frank V. Sica, and Tailwind Capital Management LLP, et al. 18
USC 1961(1) et. seqs. RICO Predicate Acts’ Liability.

Federal Rules of Civil Proc. Rule 11(b)(1-4)

Notice of RICO Conspiracy Prefiling Investigation.

/s/ Ulysses T. Ware

Filed on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 7:30:09 AM

1
a/k/a “Damian Williams,” a/k/a “Damian,” a/k/a U.S. Attorney (SDNY), a/k/a “federal prosecutor.”

Page 1 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... 4
Factual Findings and Analysis of Defendants' Overt Acts and Predicate Acts ..................................... 4
I. Colleen McMahon’s Overt Acts and Racketeering Predicate Acts ................................................ 5
1. Judicial Manipulation and Issuance of Fraudulent Orders ................................................................ 6
2. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence .............................................................................................. 7
II. Frank V. Sica’s, McMahon’s, and Tailwind Capital Management LLP’s RICO Overt Acts
and Racketeering Conspiracy Predicate Acts. ..................................................................................... 8
1. Issuance of Fraudulent Debt Instruments.......................................................................................... 9
2. Money Laundering and Concealment of Fraudulent Profits ........................................................... 10
III. Tailwind Capital’s Overt Acts and Racketeering Predicate Acts .............................................. 11
1. Enforcement of Fraudulent Financial Judgments ........................................................................... 11
IV. Predicate Acts: Tailwind Capital’s actions constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B)
(Collection of Unlawful Debt) and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud by Submission of False Affidavits).
................................................................................................................................................................ 12
1. Collection of Unlawful Debt – 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B) ................................................................. 13
2. Fraud by Submission of False Affidavits – 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) ................................................... 13
3. Obstruction of Justice – 18 U.S.C. § 1503 ...................................................................................... 14
4. Wire Fraud – 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ........................................................................................................ 15
V. Fraudulent Use of Judicial Proceedings ......................................................................................... 15
1. Suppression of Critical Evidence in Judicial Proceedings .............................................................. 16
2. Issuance of Fraudulent Court Orders to Protect Tailwind Capital .................................................. 17
3. Protection from Criminal Investigations ......................................................................................... 18
Conclusion: Long-Running Judicial Corruption Conspiracy............................................................... 19
Legal Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Judgment and Damages ........................................................................................................................... 21
End of document ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Page 2 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Background2
This matter comes before the Court for a mock bench trial adjudication of claims brought

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq.,

by the plaintiffs Ulysses T. Ware and associated entities, against multiple defendants, including

Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica, Tailwind Capital, and other entities and individuals. The

plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of

racketeering activity, which included fraud, the obstruction of justice, extortion, bribery,

conspiracy to obstruct justice, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering, Hobbs Act

extortion using firearms, and the collection of unlawful debts in violation of both federal and

state laws while using firearms.

2
Colleen McMahon’s conduct constitutes an egregious violation of the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges, which mandates integrity, impartiality, and adherence to the law. McMahon’s deliberate
manipulation of judicial proceedings to benefit her spouse, Frank V. Sica, and his associates at Tailwind
Capital, represents a per se violation of these ethical principles. Specifically, McMahon’s suppression of
exculpatory evidence, issuance of fraudulent court orders, and obstruction of justice not only betrayed her
judicial duties but facilitated ongoing criminal activity. McMahon’s actions violate Canon 1 of the Code
of Conduct, which requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and Canon 2,
which mandates that a judge avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Her
blatant bias and abuse of power in shielding Sica from legal accountability, through rulings that lacked legal
merit, are egregious violations of these ethical standards. Moreover, Canon 3, which requires judges to
perform their duties impartially and diligently, was disregarded entirely, as McMahon actively obstructed
justice to protect the criminal enterprise. Under Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JC&D) Rule
3(a)(2), McMahon’s conduct clearly establishes probable cause for the appointment of a Rule 11 Special
Committee to investigate her actions. The breadth of her misconduct—fraudulent rulings, suppression of
evidence, and misuse of judicial authority—warrants immediate inquiry, as it demonstrates a profound
dereliction of duty and judicial corruption. This investigation should also encompass the actions of Frank
V. Sica and Tailwind Capital, as McMahon’s misconduct directly facilitated their ongoing violations of
federal law, including RICO.

Page 3 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
Introduction and Background

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the RICO claims brought by Plaintiff

Ulysses T. Ware, his associated business entities, and other claimants against defendants Colleen

McMahon, Frank V. Sica, and Tailwind Capital, among others. Plaintiffs allege that these

defendants, among other co-conspirators, engaged in a long-term (+20 years) pattern of

racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a, b, c) and (d), through a criminal

enterprise aimed at exploiting Mr. Ware and his businesses, and other borrowers financially.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants, McMahon, Sica, Tailwind, and others

known and unknown, an illegal association in fact, 18 USC § 1961(4), OCGA § 16-14-3(3),

committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of this criminal enterprise, including the

manipulation of judicial proceedings, fraudulent financial schemes, the enforcement of unlawful

debts, and the suppression of exculpatory evidence.

The Court, after conducting a comprehensive review of the documentary and testimonial

evidence presented, finds in favor of Mr. Ware and the plaintiffs. The defendants’ overt acts and

predicate acts of racketeering have been established beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The

following sections provide a detailed analysis of each defendant’s overt acts, corresponding

predicate acts, and the legal reasoning that supports the Court’s conclusion that the defendants are

liable under the federal RICO statute.

Factual Findings and Analysis of Defendants' Overt Acts and

Predicate Acts
The evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the defendants engaged in a series of

overt acts, all of which furthered the objectives of the criminal enterprise. Each overt act violated

Page 4 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
one or more predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), which defines "racketeering activity"

to include acts such as obstruction of justice, bribery, fraud, extortion, and the collection of

unlawful debt.

The evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Ware and the claimants,

establishes the existence of a criminal enterprise, operating for the financial gain of its members

and to the detriment of the plaintiffs. The enterprise consisted of both public officials and private

actors conspiring to further mutual financial interests through illegal means, including the

fraudulent manipulation of judicial proceedings and the enforcement of unlawful debts.

The defendants, including McMahon, Sica, Bertisch, and Tailwind Capital, played specific

roles in the enterprise’s scheme. Their overt acts included entering into and collecting criminally

usurious convertible debt instruments, fabricating judicial proceedings to suppress exculpatory

evidence, and issuing fraudulent court orders designed to perpetuate financial harm against Mr.

Ware.

I. Colleen McMahon’s Overt Acts and Racketeering Predicate Acts

Colleen McMahon, acting as Chief Judge of the District Court Southern District of New

York, played a pivotal role in manipulating judicial proceedings to shield her spouse, Frank V.

Sica, and his business partners at Tailwind Capital from legal scrutiny. McMahon's actions were

not isolated judicial errors but were part of a broader conspiracy to suppress evidence and enforce

fraudulent financial obligations against Mr. Ware and Group Management.

Page 5 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
1. Judicial Manipulation and Issuance of Fraudulent Orders

McMahon’s participation in the criminal enterprise is evidenced by her issuance of

fraudulent court orders in the 02cv2219 (SDNY) proceedings that obstructed Mr. Ware’s access

to justice. Specifically, McMahon consistently dismissed Mr. Ware’s legal filings that sought

disclosure of critical financial documents and challenged the legitimacy of debts owed to entities

controlled by Sica and Tailwind Capital.

• Factual Context: In several instances, McMahon issued ultra vires, null and void ab initio

purported judicial orders (Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151) in 02cv2219 (SDNY) denying Mr.

Ware’s motions for discovery, motions to compel, and motions for sanctions against

defendants (the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, Sica, Tailwind, McMahon, Bertisch, and others who

were clearly engaged in criminal fraudulent financial activities. One such ruling, in

essence, is a summary judgment order dismissing Mr. Ware’s legitimate claims, see Dkt.

151, (02cv2219 SDNY) against Tailwind Capital and its affiliates, Alpha Capital AG

(Anstalt), Arie Rabinowitz, and others, issued without jurisdiction and without adequate

legal basis, allowed the criminal enterprise to maintain control over the fraudulent Hobbs

Act criminal usury convertible promissory notes, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4 (see

plaintiffs’ exhibits)—which violated NYS Penal Law, § 190.40, and 18 USC § 1961(6)(B),

that financially crippled Mr. Ware’s businesses. The dismissal of these motions was

intended to prevent the disclosure of financial documents that would have exposed

McMahon’s, Sica’s, Rabinowitz’s, LH Financial Services, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs’, and

Tailwind Capital’s criminal usury practices.

• Predicate Acts: McMahon’s deliberate manipulation of judicial rulings constitutes 18

U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice). By obstructing Mr. Ware’s ability to present

Page 6 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 critical evidence in his defense, McMahon directly furthered the enterprise’s goal of

financially exploiting him and Group Management. This also constitutes a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud in connection with the administration of justice), and §

1962(d) (participation in a racketeering conspiracy).

2. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence

McMahon's criminal judicial misconduct extended to the deliberate suppression of

exculpatory evidence—the unregistered broker-dealer status of each 02cv2219 plaintiff, which

was critical to exposing the fraudulent nature of the financial claims pursued by Rabinowitz, Alpha

Capital, Tailwind Capital, and other unindicted coconspirators. Despite multiple requests for

production under Brady v. Maryland, McMahon refused to order the release of documents that

would have demonstrated the unlawful debts allegedly owed by Group Management and Mr.

Ware, see Dkt. 120 (McMahon, J.), were criminally usurious and unenforceable under New York

Penal Law, section 190.40.

• Factual Context: During the litigation, Mr. Ware sought financial disclosures that would

have revealed the illegal interest rates associated with the convertible promissory notes

issued by Tailwind Capital, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, and McMahon. McMahon,

in her capacity as Chief Judge and later as a District Judge (SDNY), repeatedly ruled in

favor of withholding these documents, preventing Mr. Ware from accessing the evidence

necessary to challenge the fraudulent debts, see Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151. The

documents in question showed that the promissory notes carried interest rates upwards

of 275%-550%, far exceeding New York’s statutory limits on usury. McMahon’s

suppression of this exculpatory material directly benefited her spouse, Sica, his associates

Page 7 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 at Tailwind Capital, Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, and other

unindicted coconspirators.

• Predicate Acts: The suppression of exculpatory evidence constitutes a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice) and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud by Suppression

of Material Evidence). McMahon’s actions obstructed the judicial process by preventing

the fair administration of justice and concealed the fraudulent nature of the debts.

II. Frank V. Sica’s, McMahon’s, and Tailwind Capital Management LLP’s RICO
Overt Acts and Racketeering Conspiracy Predicate Acts.3

Frank V. Sica, a senior executive at Tailwind Capital, orchestrated, arranged, and

coordinated the issuance of fraudulent criminal usury convertible promissory notes (“CPNs”), and

engaged in a series of financial transactions that violated both state and federal laws. Sica’s

unlawful actions were undertaken with the full knowledge that these unregistered financial

instruments were structured to be uncollectable under New York usury laws, yet they were

3
In addition to Colleen McMahon’s egregious judicial misconduct, the record reveals that neither
McMahon, Frank V. Sica, nor Tailwind Capital were ever registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), or the New York State Department
of Financial Services, as required under 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1). This section of federal law mandates that
any entity or individual engaging in the business of buying and selling securities—essentially operating
as a broker-dealer—must be lawfully registered. The absence of such registration during the entire 20-
year span of the criminal enterprise highlights the blatant disregard for federal regulatory oversight by all
parties involved. Sica, McMahon, and Tailwind Capital’s failure to register as broker-dealers
demonstrates their deliberate evasion of lawful requirements designed to protect the public and financial
markets from fraud. Despite orchestrating complex financial transactions, including the issuance of
fraudulent convertible promissory notes, neither Sica nor Tailwind adhered to the necessary legal
requirements, operating unlawfully in the financial markets for decades. McMahon’s manipulation of
judicial proceedings further shielded this illegal operation from scrutiny. McMahon’s role in facilitating
and concealing Sica and Tailwind’s non-compliance with federal securities law only exacerbates the
severity of her judicial corruption. Her judicial protection allowed the criminal enterprise to persist,
unchecked by the SEC, FINRA, or other regulators, undermining the integrity of financial markets and
the legal system alike.

Page 8 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
enforced through fraudulent legal means, often with the assistance of his spouse, Colleen

McMahon.

1. Issuance of Fraudulent Debt Instruments

Sica, McMahon, Bertisch, and Tailwind were directly involved in underwriting,

structuring, funding, issuing, and administering—a fraudulent and criminal business model,

convertible promissory notes, and other unregistered securities that carried criminally usurious

interest rates, with terms designed to ensure that borrowers, including Group Management, would

be unable to repay the predatory debt under legal conditions. These fraudulent financial products

served as the foundation for the enterprise’s scheme to financially exploit Group Management and

Mr. Ware.

• Factual Context: Sica, through Tailwind Capital, structured and administered a series of

(i) unregistered securities, and (ii) unregistered convertible promissory notes (more than

100) that charged criminal usury interest rates as high as 500%, far exceeding the

permissible legal limits under New York's usury statutes, which cap interest rates at 16%

for civil usury and 25% for criminal usury. These predatory criminal usury CPNs, disguised

as legitimate financial instruments, were issued to Group Management (via LH Financial

Services) and other borrowers under the false pretense that they were enforceable. Sica,

McMahon (a federal judge), and Tailwind were aware of the illegal nature of these financial

products, nonetheless sought their enforcement through the federal courts, relying on

McMahon’s judicial influence to suppress any legal challenges, see the predatory unlawful

debt collections moot judicial proceedings, to wit: 02cv2219 (SDNY), 03-93031 (BC

NDGA), 04cr1224 (SDNY), and 05cr1115 (SDNY).

Page 9 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 • Predicate Acts: Sica’s issuance and collection of these CPNs violated 18 U.S.C. §

1961(6)(B) (Collection of Unlawful Debt). The criminal usury associated with these notes

also constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud in connection with Financial

Instruments).

2. Money Laundering and Concealment of Fraudulent Profits

In addition to issuing fraudulent debt instruments, Sica engaged in money laundering to

conceal the proceeds of the illegal financial scheme. He utilized a network of shell corporations

and offshore accounts to launder the proceeds from the unlawful debts collected through Tailwind

Capital’s operations pretending to be “private equity” transactions.

• Factual Context: Financial records introduced at trial revealed that Sica moved millions

of dollars in proceeds from the enforcement of fraudulent debt instruments through

offshore accounts in jurisdictions known for lax regulatory oversight. These transactions

were part of a broader scheme to conceal the origin of the funds, making it more difficult

for investigators to trace the profits derived from the criminal usury. Sica’s money

laundering activities included the falsification of corporate records and financial statements

to create the appearance of legitimate business operations, and conspiracy to commit bank

fraud, a racketeering predicate act, 18 USC § 1344.4

4
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the
custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Page 10 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 • Predicate Acts: Sica’s money laundering activities violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money

Laundering) and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud by Falsification of Corporate Records).

His actions were integral to the enterprise’s ability to perpetuate its financial exploitation

of Mr. Ware and other victims.

III. Tailwind Capital’s Overt Acts and Racketeering Predicate Acts

Tailwind Capital as an entity was deeply involved in the structuring, issuance, and

enforcement of the fraudulent financial instruments that formed the backbone of the criminal

enterprise. Acting through its executives, including Sica and Bertisch, Tailwind Capital engaged

in predatory lending practices and manipulated judicial proceedings to enforce its unlawful

financial claims.5

1. Enforcement of Fraudulent Financial Judgments

Tailwind Capital, with the assistance of McMahon, Bertisch, Zitter, KTS, and Sica,

enforced fraudulent judgments against Mr. Ware and Group Management in both state and federal

courts, see Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151 (02cv2219 SDNY). These judgments were based on

5
Tailwind Capital engaged in sophisticated financial maneuvers that masked the illegal profits derived from
their predatory lending activities, which violated the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. These financial
instruments, including criminally usurious convertible promissory notes, were structured to exploit Group
Management and individuals like Mr. Ware under the guise of legitimate “private equity transactions.”
Tailwind’s executives, including Frank V. Sica, used these purported transactions to launder the illegal
proceeds generated by the unlawful debts. By utilizing complex corporate structures and shell companies,
Tailwind Capital disguised the origin of the profits derived from their unlawful loan-sharing schemes. These
transactions were intended to provide a veneer of legitimacy, hiding the predatory nature of the underlying
loans. The fraudulent proceeds were funneled through multiple entities and offshore accounts, allowing
Tailwind to obscure the funds' illicit origin. These actions were facilitated by falsified corporate records
and financial statements, further concealing the laundering of profits. Tailwind's manipulation of judicial
proceedings also ensured that the criminal nature of these financial instruments remained hidden, thereby
protecting the enterprise and enabling continued enforcement of the fraudulent debts. These actions
constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering) and are integral to the broader racketeering
activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

Page 11 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
financial instruments that were criminally usurious and, as such, should have been unenforceable

under New York law.

• Factual Context: Tailwind Capital and its partners and affiliates (Rabinowitz, LH

Financial Services, Zitter, KTS, and the 02cv2219 plaintiffs) pursued aggressive litigation

strategies to enforce fraudulent judgments against Mr. Ware and Group Management,

knowing that the underlying financial instruments were illegal. These enforcement efforts

included the submission of falsified affidavits and declarations to courts, as well as the

suppression of documents that would have revealed the illegal terms of the debts. Despite

Mr. Ware’s attempts to challenge these judgments, Tailwind Capital, with the aid of

McMahon’s judicial influence, succeeded in enforcing the fraudulent claims, resulting in

significant financial harm to Mr. Ware and Group Management. See 02cv2219 (SDNY)

Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151 (McMahon, J.); also see 03-93031 (BC NDGA) Dkt. 258, 274,

and 275 (Hagenau, C.J.).

IV. Predicate Acts: Tailwind Capital’s actions constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §

1961(6)(B) (Collection of Unlawful Debt) and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud by
Submission of False Affidavits).

Tailwind Capital’s, KTS’, Zitter’s, and McMahon’s Hobbs Act armed enforcement of

fraudulent financial instruments, specifically criminally usurious convertible promissory notes,

violated multiple predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 401(3), 924(c), 1201-02, 1956-

57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and 1962(a-d). The actions of Tailwind Capital, along with its partners

Rabinowitz, LH Financial Services, and the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, were designed to defraud Mr.

Ware and Group Management through unlawful debt collection and fraudulent litigation practices.

The following provides a detailed analysis of the specific predicate acts violated, how these actions

Page 12 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
were executed, and how Colleen McMahon and Frank V. Sica personally benefited from the

scheme.

1. Collection of Unlawful Debt – 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B)

The convertible promissory notes issued by Tailwind Capital and the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

plaintiffs carried interest rates far in excess of New York’s legal limits for usury (civil usury at

16% and criminal usury at 25%). Tailwind Capital, fully aware that these instruments were illegal,

nonetheless sought to enforce them through judicial proceedings. Frank V. Sica, as a principal in

Tailwind, benefited directly from the collection of these unlawful debts, reaping profits that were

generated through the issuance and enforcement of these notes.

Colleen McMahon, as Chief Judge, and now as a District Judge (SDNY) ensured that

these unlawful debts were enforceable by dismissing legal challenges raised by Mr. Ware, see Dkt.

151 (02cv2219 SDNY), thereby suppressing any exposure of the criminally usurious terms. The

violations of § 1961(6)(B) occurred when the 02cv2219 plaintiffs and Tailwind, under

Rabinowitz’s and Sica’s leadership, respectively, knowingly pursued the enforcement of these

unlawful debts, leveraging McMahon’s judicial authority to protect the fraudulent scheme from

legal challenge. This allowed the criminal enterprise to continue extracting money from Mr. Ware

and Group Management through extortionate means.

2. Fraud by Submission of False Affidavits – 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)

To further their enforcement efforts, Tailwind Capital, Zitter, Rabinowitz, Konrad

Ackermann, KTS, and others in concert with its legal partners, submitted falsified affidavits and

declarations in the 02cv2219 and 03-93031 (BC NDGA) cases and related proceedings. These

fraudulent documents deliberately misrepresented the nature of the financial instruments,

concealing the criminally usurious terms of the convertible promissory notes. The false

Page 13 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
representations asserted that the debts were legitimate and enforceable under law, while concealing

the fact that they violated New York's usury statutes, section 190.40.

McMahon played a crucial role in this predicate act by ensuring that any legal challenges

or motions to uncover the truth behind the fraudulent notes were dismissed or suppressed. For

instance, McMahon's rulings in 02cv2219 (SDNY), specifically in Dkt. 120 and 151, directly

obstructed Mr. Ware’s efforts to expose these fraudulent affidavits. By dismissing these

challenges, McMahon protected her and her spouse Sica's financial interests, ensuring that the false

affidavits would stand unchallenged, allowing Tailwind and Rabinowitz to fraudulently collect on

the illegal debts. This scheme resulted in significant financial benefits for both McMahon and Sica,

as the fraudulent enforcement of these debts was central to the enterprise’s profitability.

3. Obstruction of Justice – 18 U.S.C. § 1503

McMahon’s judicial actions constituted a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 241, 242, 371,

401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1503 (Obstruction of Justice), and 1962(d) by deliberately blocking Mr.

Ware’s attempts to uncover the fraudulent nature of the financial instruments issued by Tailwind

Capital. As Mr. Ware sought discovery of documents that would have revealed the criminally

usurious interest rates and fraudulent terms embedded in the promissory notes, McMahon

consistently ruled against these efforts, suppressing critical evidence that would have unraveled

the scheme, see Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151 (02cv2219 SDNY)..

By conspiring to and actually obstructing justice, McMahon safeguarded the financial

interests of her spouse, Sica, Rabinowitz, KTS, Zitter, LH Financial Services, and his associates

at Tailwind Capital. The intentional suppression of Mr. Ware’s legitimate legal motions (see Dkt.

139, 139-1, and 139-2) ensured that Tailwind’s fraudulent activities would not be exposed to

judicial scrutiny, further entrenching the enterprise’s ability to collect unlawful debts.

Page 14 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
4. Wire Fraud – 18 U.S.C. § 1343

In addition to filing false affidavits in court, Tailwind Capital, Sica, McMahon,

Rabinowitz, Zitter, KTS, et al. engaged in wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by transmitting

fraudulent legal documents and communications across state lines via electronic means to enforce

their unlawful debts. These wire communications included falsified financial statements,

fraudulent affidavits, and legal filings sent to courts (02cv2219 and 03-93031) and to Mr. Ware’s

legal team, all designed to bolster the appearance of legitimacy for the predatory loans.

Sica, as the architect of the financial scheme, and McMahon, as the judicial protector, both

benefited from this wire fraud. Sica profited directly from the continued collection of fraudulent

debts, while McMahon, by ensuring that these fraudulent communications went unchallenged in

court, safeguarded her family’s financial interests. This sustained the ongoing exploitation of Mr.

Ware and other victims of the scheme, allowing the criminal enterprise to operate with impunity.

By engaging in these predicate acts, Tailwind Capital, with McMahon and Sica at the helm,

perpetrated a scheme designed to obscure the fraudulent nature of the financial instruments they

were enforcing. McMahon’s judicial power ensured that the enterprise’s activities remained

unchecked, while Sica’s orchestration of the financial transactions enabled the illegal profits to

flow back to the enterprise’s beneficiaries. Both McMahon and Sica reaped significant financial

rewards (+$200 million) from the enterprise, using the courts and the U.S. Marshals as a tool for

perpetuating their illegal conduct.

V. Fraudulent Use of Judicial Proceedings

The scheme orchestrated by Tailwind Capital, Frank V. Sica, Michael Bertisch, Colleen

McMahon, and others was a long-running judicial corruption conspiracy, wherein McMahon

Page 15 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
used her judicial influence to shield Sica and Tailwind Capital from criminal scrutiny, allowing

their fraudulent financial practices to continue unchecked. This conspiracy involved the strategic

manipulation of judicial proceedings, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and the

enforcement of unlawful debts through fraudulent rulings. Each overt act committed by McMahon

was designed to prevent law enforcement from investigating or prosecuting the illegal financial

activities of Tailwind, Rabinowitz, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), KTS, LH Financial Services, and

Sica. The following discusses each overt act in detail.

1. Suppression of Critical Evidence in Judicial Proceedings

McMahon actively suppressed critical financial records that would have exposed the

criminal usury involved in the promissory notes issued by Tailwind Capital, the 02cv2219 (SDNY)

plaintiffs, Rabinowitz, Trailblazer Merger Corp, I, and other affiliates. By denying Mr. Ware’s

motions to obtain key documents, McMahon ensured that Tailwind’s illegal financial activities

were hidden from legal scrutiny, effectively protecting the enterprise’s interests.

• Factual Context: During the litigation in 02cv2219 (SDNY), Mr. Ware repeatedly sought

financial documents that would have revealed that the interest rates on the convertible

promissory notes issued by Tailwind Capital, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, KTS, and

LH Financial Services far exceeded legal limits. McMahon denied these motions,

suppressing evidence that would have exposed the illegal financial practices of Tailwind

and Sica, and ensuring that their fraudulent schemes remained undisclosed.

• Overt Act: McMahon’s judicial suppression of evidence constitutes 18 U.S.C. § 1503

(Obstruction of Justice). By blocking access to critical documents, she ensured that Mr.

Page 16 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 Ware could not mount an effective defense, thereby allowing the criminal enterprise to

continue its fraudulent financial operations.

2. Issuance of Fraudulent Court Orders to Protect Tailwind Capital

McMahon leveraged her judicial authority to issue fraudulent court orders that protected

Tailwind Capital and Sica from legal challenges, see 02cv2219 Dkt. 120 and 151. These orders,

which dismissed Mr. Ware’s legitimate claims and motions, were issued without jurisdiction over

the dismissed with prejudiced 02cv2219 proceedings, see Dec. 20, 2007, Dkt. 90, plaintiffs’

voluntary Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice, without proper legal justification, and were

intended to prevent any exposure of the criminally usurious nature of the financial instruments at

the heart of the enterprise’s operations.

• Factual Context: In 02cv2219, McMahon dismissed Mr. Ware’s claims against Tailwind

Capital, Rabinowitz, Zitter, KTS, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, and Sica, see Dkt. 120, 137, 141,

and 151, despite the overwhelming evidence that the promissory notes issued by Tailwind

and the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs’ Tailwind’s affiliates, were illegal under New York

usury law, section 190.40, and the collection of the CPNs violated federal law, 18 USC

1961(6)(B), a racketeering predicate act. These fraudulent dismissals by McMahon were

intended to prevent the legal system from uncovering the fraudulent nature of the CPN

criminal usury debts and protected Sica, herself, Bertisch, Tailwind, Rabinowitz, LH

Financial Services, Alpha Capital, AG (Anstalt), Zitter, Thrash, the U.S. Marshals, and

other unindicted coconspirators from both civil liability and potential criminal

investigation.

Page 17 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 • Overt Act: McMahon’s reckless and bad faith issuance of fraudulent and void ab initio

court orders constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice) and 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1) (Fraud in connection with the judicial process). These ultra vires

rulings allowed the fraudulent financial claims to stand, furthering the objectives of the

criminal enterprise by enabling the continued collection of unlawful debts, cf., Dkt. 120

(McMahon, J.).

3. Protection from Criminal Investigations

McMahon’s manipulation of the judicial process extended beyond specific rulings, as her

corrupt use of her judicial influence effectively shielded Tailwind Capital, Rabinowitz, KTS,

Zitter, the 02cv2219 (SDNY) plaintiffs, and Sica from criminal law enforcement. By consistently

issuing rulings that prevented any legal challenge to the fraudulent promissory notes, McMahon

insulated Sica, Rabinowitz, LH Financial, Zitter, KTS, Tailwind, and other unindicted

coconspirators from prosecution and ensured that Tailwind Capital’s and Rabinowitz’s unlawful

activities remained undetected by criminal authorities.6

6
Colleen McMahon’s actions represent a flagrant breach of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges,
revealing a pattern of judicial manipulation that insulated Tailwind Capital, Rabinowitz, KTS, Zitter,
LH Financial, and other unindicted coconspirators from legal scrutiny and criminal prosecution. Her
rulings systematically suppressed legal challenges to fraudulent promissory notes issued by these entities,
effectively preventing the exposure of their unlawful activities. This conduct represents a clear violation of
Canon 1, which demands that judges uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. By using her
judicial authority to block legal challenges, McMahon did not simply exercise discretion but actively
prevented the legal system from functioning as intended—thereby undermining its foundational principles.
Her rulings enabled Sica, Rabinowitz, and their associates to continue operating their fraudulent schemes
without facing legal or regulatory consequences, in direct contravention of Canon 2, which requires judges
to avoid not only impropriety but the appearance thereof. The extent of McMahon’s misconduct—ensuring
that key financial documents remained undisclosed and shielding the criminal enterprise from law
enforcement—suggests a deliberate effort to subvert the justice system. Her actions allowed Tailwind
Capital and its affiliates to persist in their unlawful activities while evading accountability, further eroding

Page 18 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 • Factual Context: McMahon’s repeated dismissal of motions filed by Mr. Ware prevented

any inquiry into the legality of the financial instruments issued by Tailwind Capital and the

02cv2219 plaintiffs—that is, GX 1, GX 2, GX 3, and GX 4. These actions, which

consistently ruled in favor of Tailwind, Rabinowitz, KTS, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, and

Sica, shielded them from investigations that could have led to criminal charges for their

involvement in issuing criminally usurious loans. Her ultra vires, moot, void ab initio

rulings—Dkt. 120, 137, 141, and 151, prevented any legal breakthrough that could have

exposed the underlying fraud and initiated law enforcement involvement.

• Overt Act: McMahon’s predicate acts’ actions to protect Sica, Rabinowitz, KTS, Zitter,

and Tailwind from criminal investigations violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1962(d)

(Obstruction of Justice; and Participation in a Racketeering Conspiracy). By ensuring

that no legal or law enforcement entity could scrutinize Tailwind Capital’s illegal

operations, McMahon obstructed the administration of justice and allowed the criminal

enterprise to continue profiting from fraudulent financial practices.

Conclusion: Long-Running Judicial Corruption Conspiracy

In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable, and clearly established, and

shows that Colleen McMahon, an unindicted coconspirator, leveraged her judicial authority to

protect Tailwind Capital, Rabinowitz, KTS, Zitter, Bertisch, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, and

Frank V. Sica from legal accountability, thereby enabling their criminal enterprise to flourish.

Through the suppression and concealment of exculpatory evidence, the issuance of fraudulent

public trust in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. This reckless disregard for ethical standards
ultimately facilitated the perpetuation of fraudulent financial schemes.

Page 19 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
court orders, and the protection from criminal investigations, McMahon ensured that the

enterprise’s illegal financial activities remained shielded from scrutiny. Both McMahon and Sica

reaped significant financial benefits (+$100 million) from this scheme, as Tailwind Capital’s

fraudulent promissory notes continued to generate illegal profits without facing any legal or

criminal consequences. The overt acts described above, including McMahon’s manipulation of

judicial proceedings, constitute clear violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1961(1), and 1962(a-d),

and are central to their criminal liability under the racketeering statutes and other state law statutes.

Legal Conclusion
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Colleen McMahon, Frank V. Sica,

Rabinowitz, Zitter, KTS, Meir, Mills, Walker, Kadaba, Bertisch, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, Trailblazer

Merger Corp., I, Alexandria Kane, Mitchell Nussbaum, the 02cv2219 plaintiffs, Tailwind Capital,

and others known and unknown, an illegal association in fact, engaged in a coordinated and

deliberate pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 156-57, 371, 924(c),

1201-02, 1344, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), 1962(c) and (d). Each defendant committed

multiple overt acts that furthered the criminal enterprise’s objectives, including the manipulation

of judicial proceedings, the issuance and collection of criminally usurious debts, and the laundering

of illegal profits.

• Colleen McMahon: McMahon corruptly used her judicial authority to obstruct justice by

suppressing exculpatory evidence, issuing fraudulent court orders, and preventing Mr.

Ware from challenging the fraudulent financial instruments that formed the basis of the

enterprise’s exploitation. Her conduct violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 156-57, 201, 241, 242, 371,

Page 20 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.
 401(2), 401(3), 924(c), 1341, 1343, 1344, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1961(6)(B), and

1962(d); and 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3).

• Frank V. Sica: Sica orchestrated, coordinated, and administered the origination,

underwriting, issuance, funding, collection, and administration of criminally usurious

promissory notes and engaged in money laundering, via Tailwind, to conceal the profits

from these illegal transactions. His actions violated 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6)(B) and 18 U.S.C.

§§2, 241, 242, 371, 924(c), 1341, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1503, 1951, 1956-57, 1958-59,

1961(6)(B), and 1962(d); and 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3).

• Tailwind Capital: Tailwind Capital, acting through its executives, enforced fraudulent

financial judgments, manipulated judicial proceedings, and suppressed evidence. These

actions violated 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d).

Judgment and Damages

The Court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor. The defendants

are jointly and severally liable for treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), with total damages

awarded to the plaintiffs amounting to $5.225 billion USD. Additionally, the Court imposes

punitive damages for the defendants’ willful and malicious conduct. An injunction is also granted,

barring the defendants from engaging in further financial transactions related to the illegal

promissory notes or from manipulating judicial proceedings in any future litigation involving Mr.

Ware.

End of document

Page 21 of 21
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
(04) re McMahon, Sica, Tailwind Capital, et al. Hobbs Act predatory loan sharking, money laundering, and
judicial corruption criminal enterprise 18 USC 1961(1) et. seqs. Racketeering crimes.