The government seized over $150 million in assets and claims. They froze every account. Then they prosecuted a man for conduct the Supreme Court explicitly ruled legal in 2008. Once they took everything, admitting error became impossible — unwinding the seizures, vacating the orders, acknowledging the prosecution should never have happened. The cost of correction grew every month. So instead of justice, they chose cover-up.
Four years later, Joseph Cammarata sits in federal prison. No court has ruled on his appeals. No judge has explained why binding Supreme Court precedent doesn't apply. The Third Circuit has ignored unopposed motions for 21 months. The Constitution exists on paper — they follow none of it.
This is what happens when prosecutors have unbridled power and judges choose self-preservation over justice. The failure isn't one bad actor — it's every level of the federal judiciary, from the District Court to the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, refusing to do what the Constitution demands: decide cases. They stay silent because the truth would unravel everything. This website exists because sunlight is the only disinfectant left.
In Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008), the Supreme Court held that assignees of legal claims have Article III standing to pursue those claims in their own name. Pennsylvania's Assignment of Claims Act of 1939 confirms this right under state law.
Joseph Cammarata assigned securities settlement claims to beneficial owners who then filed class-action claims — exactly as the law permits. The government indicted him anyway. No court has explained why Sprint doesn't control. None has even tried. The reason is simple: it does control, and the charged conduct was never a crime.
Sprint v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008)A coordinated prosecution between DOJ and SEC designed to guarantee conviction by eliminating any possibility of a funded defense.
Judge Chad Kenney was assigned to both the criminal case (21-cr-427) and the SEC civil case (21-cv-4845). He scheduled the SEC asset-freeze hearing at the exact same time as the criminal bail hearing — in two different cities — making it physically impossible for the defendant to attend both. No notice was given for the Philadelphia hearing. This was not a coincidence.
Multiple conflicts that should have resulted in recusal — none were disclosed.
Four related appeals have stalled in this court for years. Requests to transfer to a conflict-free circuit have been ignored.
Judge Kenney presided over both the criminal prosecution AND the SEC civil case. He controlled the asset freeze that eliminated the defense while simultaneously overseeing the criminal trial. Despite multiple recusal motions, he refused to step aside. The SEC hearing was scheduled without notice at the exact time as the Miami bail hearing — ensuring the defendant could never appear.
Every claim on this site is documented with court filings, docket entries, and official records. Verify everything yourself.
Organized by category with citations to specific court filings and controlling law for each violation.
View All ViolationsEvery significant event from 2019 investigation through present Supreme Court proceedings, with links to filings.
View TimelineProfiles of judges, prosecutors, and officials involved — their actions, conflicts, and documented misconduct.
View Players40+ PDFs of indictments, motions, orders, transcripts, and appellate briefs. Searchable by case and date.
Browse FilingsExecutive summary and full documentation package prepared for oversight committees and congressional staff.
View BriefThe mandamus petition (No. 25-6128) detailing all violations, denied January 20, 2026 without addressing merits.
View DocketThis isn't just about Joseph Cammarata. It's about what happens when institutional safeguards fail at every level.
The Due Process Protections Act of 2020 was enacted specifically to prevent Brady violations. Neither district court ever issued the required certification. Rule 65 limits TROs to 14 days. This one has been enforced for 4+ years. Sprint v. APCC is binding Supreme Court precedent. No court has explained why it doesn't apply.
When the government's only defense is silence, and the courts' only response is delay, transparency becomes the last check on power.