Author Avatar



Share post:

The minutes for the July 6 civil hearing before Judge Kenney in the SEC’s civil action are still confidential.

The DOJ has responded to Joseph Cammarata’s breakdown letter in the related criminal case that has been brought against him.

Recall that on July 5th, Cammarata sent his brother a letter of meltdown. Judge Kenney was the intended recipient of the letter.

Cammarata (right) essentially charged the DOJ of inventing the evidence against him in his spectacular breakdown outburst.

Cammarata bemoaned his inability to pay his lawyers and asked for permission to represent himself.

The SEC said that although they didn’t object to the distribution of clean cash, they hadn’t heard from Cammarata’s lawyers about the issue.

The SEC chose not to respond to Cammarata’s assertions on his criminal case.

The letter from Cammarata was submitted in both his civil and criminal prosecutions. The DOJ submitted its own rebuttal to Cammarata’s assertions on July 7.

Cammarata’s desire to proceed pro se (i.e., represent oneself) is first addressed by the DOJ;

The Court should occasionally meet with one side in a criminal case, although this is unusual.

Usually, those extreme circumstances are restricted to situations where the Court has to be informed of privileged information or when the public release of material might result in a third party’s death or damage.

Under addition to being based on unfounded claims, Cammarata’s request for such a one-party conference with the Court was made in circumstances where such an ex parte meeting would be totally improper.

Cammarata claims that several anonymous government officials violated their oaths to support the Constitution and laws of the United States by falsifying papers, tampering with witnesses’ or other evidence’s statements, and committing multiple charges of perjury.

According to Cammarata, his views are “pure based on proof, the truth, and statistics.”

The public would be overwhelmingly interested in viewing the proof if Cammarata’s accusations were genuine, which they are not.

The same goes for evidence that disproves Cammarata’s baseless allegations; this sort of material would be of public interest.

If evidence is to be brought before the Court, it must be in public and exposed to the customary procedures of adversarial examination since the public’s faith in the process and result demands it in any scenario.

Correction of the record cannot entail the sorts of protected communications that are subject to privilege if papers or other evidence has been fabricated, witnesses have been mistreated, or perjury has been committed.

Therefore, Cammarata’s motion should be rejected since an ex parte meeting would be improper.

Regarding Cammarata’s demand for a further bail hearing;

This Court revoked the defendant’s bail on the government’s request following an evidentiary hearing that the defense fully, fairly, and vigorously argued.

In doing so, this Court discovered that:

I strong evidence that the defendant smuggled illegal aliens while on release from custody;

(ii) sufficient proof that the defendant had breached his bail terms by failing to appear in court or refraining from

acquiring passports and other travel credentials, as well as the fact that he did anything wrong while on release; and

(iii) a majority of the evidence demonstrating the defendant’s lack of propensity to comply with any condition of release or set of conditions.

Nothing in Cammarata’s pro se letter refutes the assumption that his continuing imprisonment is required to ensure the community’s and its residents’ safety, either individually or collectively.

For all that it would seem, many of his reasons were still valid in March 2022 when this Court revoked Cammarata’s bail and ordered him to be held.

As a result, they don’t provide any evidence of the type of remarkable shift in circumstances that would allow the Court to reevaluate its findings and release a defendant who has shown he can’t or won’t follow the court’s pretrial directions.

The government manufactured the evidence, according to Cammarata, who first asserts this without offering any supporting evidence, at the March 2022 revocation hearing.

No matter how loudly or repeatedly such plain claims are made, they cannot change the statutory presumption that Cammarata is subject to.

By virtue of his failure to present any evidence at all, Cammarata has not upheld his burden of proof.

Even though Cammarata claims to have proof, he has not presented any of it, much less enough to prove that the administration was lying on the surface.

Therefore, his request for a hearing on this ground should be rejected.

Additionally, Cammarata asserts that his ability to analyze the evidence in his case and get ready for trial is hampered by the terms of his pretrial incarceration.

This argument ignores Cammarata’s continued threat and his clear inability to abide by release terms, even if it is agreed that reviewing pretrial information is more difficult while a defendant is held pending trial.

Furthermore, Cammarata grossly exaggerates the effect of his arrest on his pretrial preparation.

Cammarata is neither the only nor the first defendant in a complicated case to get a court order for pre-trial detention.

The FDC has the resources necessary to handle such circumstances, as one might anticipate.

The Federal Detention Center claims that a computer on Cammarata’s level at the FDC has been set aside particularly for electronic discovery.

Actually, the attorney representing Cammarata has already delivered an external hard drive for Cammarata to examine.

The FDC staff is unable to verify that Cammarata’s drive includes solely legal information since the disk is encrypted and neither Cammarata nor his attorney have given a password.

Cammarata now lacks access to his discoveries, but after he fulfills his commitments, he will get access to the facilities.

In any case, Cammarata is primarily to blame for his predicament.

He was released on bond with restrictions until March 10, 2022. Cammarata decided to smuggle his foreign lover into the country and plan their worldwide journey rather than spending his free time to be ready for trial.

Cammarata is in no position to be upset about the effects he is going through because he chose that route.

Because yesterday’s coverage of Cammarata’s meltdown letter took so long, I decided not to share my opinions.

While there are many legal factors for the court to take into account between Cammarata’s letter and the DOJ’s answer, in my opinion, layperson analysis is far easier.

Cammarata has essentially asked a secret meeting with the judge hearing his case so that he may level a number of unproven claims against the DOJ.

How in the world is it acceptable in a court of law?

Let’s assume Cammarata gets his way as well. Next, what? What what is Judge Kenney expected to accomplish?

Cammarata: To sum up, just believe me, man.

Observer: I see. That was all really entertaining, but there are procedures to be followed, so I can’t do anything about it. I suppose it’s back to jail now?

Although I am not very familiar with the criminal trial process, it seems quite rare for a defendant to essentially argue their case before a judge, effectively outside of the judicial process.

Naturally, Cammarata views himself as the star of a cosmos that revolves entirely around him.

Although I may not be a typical defendant, neither is the case against me.

But he isn’t.

Cammarata is simply another jerk who broke the law and was caught. After being granted bail, he was apprehended breaching the law once more.

I’ll keep checking the case dockets for any developments.

EasyTask 888 Review Part 2 - Is a Fraud
Infinity2Global Review Part 2 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *