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 defend

🤖 Quick Answer

What did Joseph Cammarata allege in his letter to Judge Kenney?

How did the SEC respond to Cammarata's claims regarding legal representation?
The SEC opposed his self-representation request, stating they had not received formal communication from his attorneys regarding the release of untainted funds for legal defense purposes.

What procedural status marked the civil case proceedings before Judge Kenney?
Minute entries documenting civil proceedings held on July 6th before Judge Kenney in the SEC case remain sealed from public disclosure, preventing full access to case details and judicial determinations.

🔗 Related Articles

- DOJ opposes Eddy Alexandre’s change of bail conditions
- DOJ pushing for September 2019 Mark Scott OneCoin trial date
- Judge stays iMarketsLive contempt response deadline
- No criminal charges pending against Krassenstein brothers
- DOJ drops criminal charges against Christopher Scanlon