DOJ responds to Joseph Cammarata's meltdown letter

The minute entry for civil proceedings held before Judge Kenney in the SEC’s civil case on July 6th remain sealed.

In the parallel criminal case filed against Joseph Cammarata, the DOJ has filed a response to his meltdown letter.

To recap, on July 5th Cammarata filed a meltdown letter through his brother. The letter was directly addressed to Judge Kenney.

In his epic meltdown rant, Cammarata (right) basically accused the DOJ of fabricating the case against him.

Cammarata whined about not having money to pay his attorneys and requested permission to represent himself.

The SEC pushed back claiming, while they didn’t oppose the release of untainted funds, they hadn’t received any communication from Cammarata’s attorney’s on the matter.

The SEC refrained from commenting on Cammarata’s claims pertaining to his criminal case.

Cammarata’s letter was filed in both his civil and criminal cases. On July 7th the DOJ filed their own response to Cammarata’s claims.

First the DOJ addresses Cammarata’s request to proceed pro se (i.e. representing himself);

There are rare circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Court to meet with one party to a criminal case.

Typically, those extraordinary circumstances are limited to cases where privileged information needs to be disclosed to the Court, or where the Court needs be apprised of information the public dissemination of which might lead to death or injury to a third party.

Cammarata has requested such a one-party meeting with the Court that is not only based on assertions that are unsupported, but is under circumstances where such an ex parte meeting would be entirely inappropriate.

Cammarata asserts that some unnamed government employees, sworn to uphold the Constitution and law of the United States, instead subverted their oaths and “falsified documents, tampered with witnesses/evidence, [and] committed multiple counts of perjury . . . .”

Cammarata claims that his allegations are “purely based on evidence, truth and data.”

If any of Cammarata’s allegations were true, which they are not, the public would have an overriding interest in seeing the evidence.

Likewise, proof that Cammarata’s scurrilous claims are without foundation is the kind of information that would be of public concern.

In either case, public confidence in the process and outcome demand that, if evidence is to be presented to the Court, it must be in public subject to the usual forms of adversarial testing.

If documents or evidence have been falsified, if witnesses have been interfered with, or if perjury has been committed, then correction of the record cannot involve the kinds of protected communications that are subject privilege.

Thus, an ex parte meeting would be inappropriate, and Cammarata’s motion should be denied.

On Cammarata’s request for another bail hearing;

On the government’s motion, after an evidentiary hearing that was fully, fairly, and thoroughly contested by the defense, this Court revoked the defendant’s bail.

In doing so, this Court found that there was:

(i) probable cause that the defendant had committed the federal crime of alien smuggling while he was on release;

(ii) clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had violated his bail conditions both because he failed to surrender/refrain from
obtaining passports and travel documents and because he committed a crime while on release; and

(iii) a preponderance of evidence that the defendant was unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

Nothing in Cammarata’s pro se letter, either alone or in combination, rebuts the presumption that his continued detention is necessary to assure the safety of the community and individuals within it.

Indeed, for all it appears, many of his arguments were as available in March 2022, when this Court revoked Cammarata’s bail and ordered him detained, as they are today.

Thus, they do nothing to establish the kind of extraordinary change in circumstances that would warrant the Court in revising its conclusions and releasing a defendant who has demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to comply with the Court’s pretrial orders.

First and foremost, Cammarata insists, without any proof whatsoever, that the government fabricated the evidence that the Court relied upon in making its findings at the March 2022 revocation hearing.

Such bald assertions, no matter how vociferously asserted, and how many times repeated, do nothing to dispel the statutory presumption that Cammarata faces.

Having failed to adduce any evidence at all, by definition Cammarata has not met his burden.

While Cammarata insists that he has evidence, he has failed to adduce any of it, much less enough to establish a prima facie case of fabrication by the government.

His request for a hearing on this basis should therefore be denied.

In addition, Cammarata claims that the conditions of his pretrial detention interfere with his ability to review the discovery in his case and prepare for trial.

Even accepting that a defendant’s review of pretrial discovery is more cumbersome if that defendant is detained pending trial, this argument does not address Cammarata’s continuing dangerousness and his demonstrated inability to comply with conditions of release.

Moreover, Cammarata’s description of the impact of his detention on his pretrial preparation is substantially overstated.

Cammarata is neither the first nor the only defendant in a complex case who has been ordered detained pretrial.

As one would expect, the FDC has facilities to accommodate such situations.

According to the Federal Detention Center, Cammarata’s floor at the FDC has a computer specifically designated for electronic discovery.

In fact, Cammarata’s counsel has already dropped off an external hard drive for Cammarata to review.

Unfortunately, the drive is encrypted and neither Cammarata nor his lawyer have provided a password, so the FDC staff are unable to confirm that Cammarata’s drive contains only legitimate discovery.

Thus, while Cammarata does not have current access to his discovery, the facilities are available as soon as he complies with his obligations.

In any event, Cammarata’s situation is largely of his own making.

He was on bail, subject to conditions of release, until March 10, 2022. Instead of using his time to prepare for trial, Cammarata instead chose to smuggle his foreign girlfriend into the United States and make international travel arrangements for the two of them.

Having elected that course, Cammarata is in no position to complain about the consequences he is experiencing as a result.

Owing to the length of covering Cammarata’s meltdown letter yesterday, I refrained from sharing my thoughts.

My two cents are that, while between Cammarata’s letter and the DOJ’s response there’s a lot of legal aspects for the court to consider, I think layman analysis is much simpler.

Cammarata has basically demanded a private audience with the Judge hearing his case, to make a bunch of accusations against the DOJ from memory and with no supporting evidence.

How on Earth is that permissible in a criminal case?

And let’s say Cammarata gets his way. Then what? What exactly is Judge Kenney supposed to do?

Cammarata: So in conclusion, just trust me bro.

Judge: I see. Well um, that was all very entertaining but there are processes to follow and I can’t act on any of this. So I guess it’s back to prison?

For sure I am not intimately familiar with criminal trial process but a Defendant basically pleading their case before a Judge, effectively outside of the judicial process, seems extraordinarily unusual.

Cammarata of course sees himself as an extraordinarily unusual main character in a universe that revolves around him…

I may not be a typical defendant, this case against me is also not typical.

…but he’s not.

Cammarata is just another schmuck who got caught breaking the law. He was released on bail and got caught again breaking the law.

I’ll continue to monitor the case dockets for updates.

Previous Post Next Post