Presidential Pardon Petition

Executive SummaryWhy Executive Action Is Required

For more than four years, Joseph Cammarata has remained incarcerated for conduct that does not constitute a federal crime under controlling Supreme Court precedent. The resulting defect is jurisdictional and goes to the threshold question of Article III subject-matter jurisdiction.

That jurisdictional defect was properly raised, preserved, and repeatedly presented to every reviewing court. No court has ever adjudicated it.

As a result, incarceration continues by default, not by adjudication.

When courts refuse to decide whether they had authority to act at all, the judicial process fails at its core. The only remaining constitutional safeguard is executive clemency — in this case, a presidential pardon as corrective relief.

Why the Failure to Adjudicate PersistedThe Institutional Lock-In

Through coordinated civil and criminal proceedings, the government seized and restrained more than $150 million in assets and claims tied to this case. That deprivation did not merely impair the defense; it fundamentally altered the institutional posture of the matter. Once those assets were taken and trial proceedings advanced, acknowledgment of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would have required unwinding unlawful seizures, vacating orders, restoring assets, and conceding that the prosecution itself should never have occurred.

At that point, correction became institutionally costly. What should have been a threshold jurisdictional ruling became an exposure event. The result was not adjudication, but silence — motions left unanswered, jurisdiction avoided rather than decided, and delay substituted for constitutional duty. Over time, the justice system ceased functioning as a check on power and instead became an instrument for protecting itself from the consequences of admitting error.

The Core Legal IssueIn Plain English

Federal courts are constitutionally required to determine subject-matter jurisdiction before exercising power. In this case:

• The prosecution depended on a legal theory foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent (Sprint v. APCC Services)
• If that precedent is applied, no federal crime exists
• Without a crime, federal courts lack jurisdiction
• Without jurisdiction, all proceedings are void

Despite this:

• Jurisdiction was explicitly raised and preserved
• The government never responded on the merits
• The courts declined to decide the issue

Public RecordWhere Jurisdiction Was Presented

The jurisdictional defect was raised and preserved in the following proceedings. None adjudicated it.

In each matter: jurisdiction was properly raised, the government did not respond on the merits, and the court declined to adjudicate the issue.

Clemency ApplicationCurrent Status

All previously submitted materials remain incorporated. Supplemental filings formally convert this matter to a pardon-first petition based on jurisdictional nullity. Commutation is requested only in the alternative.

Public RecordsAvailable Downloads

All referenced filings are public record and available for download.