Third Circuit Cover-Up: 93 Violations Proving a Systemic Collapse of Justice

In the tax prosecution (22-cr-639), Petitioner repeatedly and expressly demanded a speedy trial. Despite those formal assertions, the government and court postponed proceedings for many months without valid justification, citing scheduling convenience and unrelated matters. The delays impaired witness availability, records access, and the defense’s ability to present exculpatory proof. By ignoring Petitioner’s demand and failing to honor statutory and constitutional deadlines, the court violated both the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a prompt and public trial.

Record References: 22-cr-639 docket entries and motions asserting speedy-trial rights.

Controlling Law: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972); 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

Constitutional Violation: Sixth Amendment (speedy trial); Fifth Amendment (due process).

The prosecution withheld critical exculpatory evidence throughout the tax case, including business, accounting, and banking records confirming the lawful nature of Petitioner’s income and transactions. The government also ignored multiple defense requests for materials and data already in its possession that would have disproven any alleged tax deficiency or intent to defraud. By refusing to disclose this exculpatory material, the prosecution prevented the jury from considering proof that the income was legitimate and that no crime existed. The suppression of this evidence violated the government’s obligations under Brady and rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

Record References: 22-cr-639 discovery correspondence and defense motions to compel.

Controlling Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

Constitutional Violation: Fifth Amendment (due process; suppression of material exculpatory evidence).

At arraignment and throughout pretrial proceedings, the court failed to issue or enforce the required Due Process Protections Act order under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f). As a result, prosecutors were never formally advised of their continuing obligation not only to produce known exculpatory material but also to affirmatively identify and disclose controlling law — including Supreme Court or statutory precedent — that is itself exculpatory under the Act. By omitting that advisement, the court enabled a prosecution that ignored binding authority and withheld both evidence and legal precedent favorable to the defense. This failure constituted structural error, rendering all subsequent proceedings constitutionally defective and in violation of the core purpose of the Due Process Protections Act.

Record References: 22-cr-639 arraignment and pretrial transcripts.

Controlling Law: Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f); Due Process Protections Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-182.

Constitutional Violation: Fifth Amendment (due process).

At trial, the prosecution’s proof and the court’s rulings expanded beyond the indictment, permitting constructive amendments and reliance on inadmissible hearsay. The judge’s remarks and evidentiary rulings reflected bias and hostility toward the defense, signaling partiality to the jury. Together these actions deprived Petitioner of a fair trial and an impartial tribunal.

Record References: 22-cr-639 trial transcripts and evidentiary rulings.

Controlling Law: Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960); Fed. R. Evid. 801–805; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

Constitutional Violation: Fifth Amendment (due process); Sixth Amendment (fair trial).

Petitioner repeatedly requested exculpatory materials including IRS forms, settlement correspondence, and trust account records. Prosecutors failed to produce them, and courts refused to enforce disclosure obligations under Rule 5(f).

This deprived Petitioner of material evidence favorable to the defense, a core violation of Brady v. Maryland.

RecordBrady motions (21-cr-427; 21-cv-4845)

Controlling LawBrady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)

Petitioner repeatedly put the court on notice—at every hearing, in pre-trial motions, and at trial—that he had not received the exculpatory evidence required for a fair tax trial. He explained that business expense records were critical and that, without them, a fair trial was impossible. In writing, Petitioner also requested two additional categories of exculpatory materials that he knew the government possessed and was suppressing because they defeated all three elements of 26 U.S.C. § 7201:

• Statements attached to the settlement checks advising recipients that the payments were “generally not taxable income.”
• IRS Forms 1042-S showing those settlement payments were reported to the IRS and that taxes were actually withheld and paid.

The government responded in writing that no such check statements or 1042-S filings existed, despite their centrality to the defense case.

Record References: 22-cr-639 pre-trial hearings and motions (including repeated defense requests); trial transcripts; government correspondence denying existence of the check statements and 1042-S forms.

Controlling Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

Constitutional Violation: Fifth Amendment (due process; suppression of material exculpatory evidence).

The government’s knowing suppression is established by the record: the three categories of materials Petitioner consistently requested were seized by the FBI, in the government’s possession, and documented in the criminal fraud case with government Bates stamps—yet they were never produced in the tax prosecution. Petitioner raised these issues at trial, in post-trial motions (including an improperly stricken reconsideration motion), and again on direct appeal (3d Cir. No. 24-1983).

The withheld categories—business expenses, the check-statement inserts, and IRS Forms 1042-S—each defeated one or more of the three required elements of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201):

1. Affirmative attempt to evade – negated by 1042-S forms showing reporting and tax withholding;
2. Willfulness – negated by the check statements advising payments are “generally not taxable income;”
3. Tax due and owing – negated by the business-expense records.

The government did not withhold some exculpatory evidence—it withheld all of it, despite having scanned and Bates-stamped versions in its files from the fraud case.

Record References: Fraud-case discovery with government Bates stamps; 22-cr-639 trial and post-trial filings (including motions documenting the missing categories); 3d Cir. No. 24-1983.

Controlling Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).

Constitutional Violation: Fifth Amendment (due process; knowing suppression of material exculpatory evidence).

Government denied existence of IRS 1042-S forms proving settlement payments were reported and taxes paid. Over fifty Bates-stamped forms from government discovery confirmed they possessed and withheld material exculpatory evidence, violating Brady and due process.

RecordTrial transcript (Tax Case, Oct 2023)Sidebar exclusion noted on the recordBates-stamped IRS 1042-S forms (from Fraud Discovery)

Controlling LawBrady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Due Process Protections Act (2020)Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)Sixth Amendment (fair trial)

Prosecutors held an ex parte sidebar excluding Petitioner and accused him of fabricating 1042-S forms. Petitioner showed the forms came from government discovery with government Bates stamps, exposing willful suppression and deceit before the court.

RecordTrial transcript; sidebar transcript exclusionDiscovery showing government Bates stampsGovernment concession of possession

Controlling LawBrady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)Sixth Amendment (right to be present)

After IRS confirmation of authenticity, the government admitted the forms were withheld but minimized scope. The court denied Petitioner’s Brady motion with prejudice without reasons and failed to enforce Rule 5(f) warnings/remedies—denying due process.

RecordTrial transcriptBrady motion and order denying relief with prejudice (Tax Case)

Controlling LawFed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)Due Process Protections Act (2020)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)

Court ignored Affordable Care Act § 6041 requiring payers to file 1042-S forms for annual payments over $250. This statutory regime corroborated Petitioner’s defense and disproved “affirmative attempts” to evade taxes; the non-application compounded the Brady violation.

RecordTrial transcriptMotion citing ACA 2010 § 6041

Controlling LawAffordable Care Act (2010), 26 U.S.C. § 6041Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)

Government withheld thousands of statements attached to settlement checks stating the proceeds are “generally not taxable income.” These FBI-seized documents negated the willfulness element under 26 U.S.C. § 7201; concealing them violated Brady and Giglio.

RecordTrial transcriptFraud discovery; FBI seizure inventoryEmail denial to standby counsel

Controlling LawBrady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)26 U.S.C. § 7201

ConstitutionFifth Amendment (due process)Sixth Amendment (fair trial)

At trial, after the government’s original theory—that Petitioner fraudulently filed claims in entities that did not trade— was disproven by testimony and documentary evidence, the prosecution impermissibly shifted its theory during closing arguments. For the first time, they alleged that Petitioner “stole” trades from clients. This accusation was never included in the indictment, never litigated, and not presented to the grand jury. The mid-trial shift constituted a constructive amendment and fatal variance, violating Petitioner’s constitutional right to be tried only on the charges returned by the grand jury.

Record Trial transcript (closing arguments) Indictment Jury instructions Defense objections to variance

Controlling Law United States v. Stirone, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Grand Jury Clause; Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Notice of Charges)

Despite over $78 million in frozen assets and expiration of the TRO on November 24, 2021, the district court refused to release untainted funds for criminal defense or appellate counsel. Petitioner was compelled to proceed pro se at post-trial motions and sentencing, a structural error depriving the right to counsel at critical stages.

Record ECF #142, #183, #255, #353 (21-cv-4845) Sentencing transcript Orders denying release of funds

Controlling Law United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016)

Constitution Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

The district court imposed $40 million restitution and a 22-point loss enhancement without identifying a single victim or proving actual loss. The Presentence Report listed no victims, and the government conceded none existed. The sentence violated due process and the prohibition on excessive fines.

Record Third Circuit Appeal No. 23-2110 (restitution remanded) ECF #366, #372 (21-cv-4845) Sentencing transcript

Controlling Law 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3) United States v. Catoggio, 326 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2003)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines Clause)

The presiding judge declared at the TRO hearing: “I consider this a crime against the courts.” This statement was later deleted from official transcripts, including ECF #45 and #46 (civil case) and the June 6, 2023 sentencing transcript. The deliberate alteration of the record conceals bias, prevents meaningful appellate review, and undermines public access to judicial proceedings.

Record ECF #45, #46 (21-cv-4845) Sentencing Transcript (June 6, 2023) Audio recording discrepancies

Controlling Law In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 1995) Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)

Constitution First Amendment (Public Access to Courts) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

On November 3, 2021, the FBI seized co-defendants’ devices but left Petitioner’s computers and the partner-payout server behind in the Old Bridge, NJ office — accessible to cooperating witness Erik Cohen. Two weeks later, on November 17, 2021, the lead agent personally retrieved those machines from Cohen, after they were in a cooperator’s exclusive control. This destroyed the reliability of any data later used at trial and deprived Petitioner of a fair opportunity to challenge authenticity.

Record FBI search/seizure activity (Nov. 3, 2021) Retrieval by SA E. Edward Conway (Nov. 17, 2021) Trial testimony re: devices left with cooperator

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 901 (authentication); chain-of-custody principles California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial; Effective Assistance)

Trial exhibits included emails lacking headers, formatting anomalies, and altered WhatsApp/FBI message extracts — all produced by the cooperating witness and not collected under government supervision. The government admitted devices were left with the cooperator and later produced days before trial. The integrity of digital evidence was compromised and should have triggered exclusion or a mistrial.

Record Trial exhibits showing header/format defects Government admissions re: devices with cooperator Pre-trial production just days before trial

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 901; 1002 (original-writing rule) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Confrontation; Fair Trial)

At trial the government conceded there was no chain of custody on critical digital evidence attributed to Petitioner — obtained “solely by” the cooperating witness without oversight. Admitting such evidence without establishing authenticity or a reliable chain violated due process and undermined the verdict’s integrity.

Record Trial testimony acknowledging absent chain of custody Exhibits sourced from cooperator Timing of pre-trial disclosures

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 901 (authentication requirement) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

The district court failed to issue the Due Process Protections Act (2020)/Rule 5(f) order at first appearance — no written/verbal advisement or remedies warning. Predictably, prosecutors withheld controlling exculpatory law, including the Pennsylvania Law of Assignments (1939) and Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008), which affirm the legality of assigning claims and directly support actual innocence. The court then refused to apply that law.

Record Docket/first appearance showing absence of DPPA/Rule 5(f) order Trial record presenting assignment law and Sprint Government non-disclosure noted

Controlling Law Due Process Protections Act (2020); Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) Brady/Kyles disclosure duties Sprint v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008); Pennsylvania Law of Assignments (1939)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

The Third Circuit has failed to rule on multiple fully briefed appeals and motions, including 24-1381 and 25-1188, which remain pending without decision for extended periods. In some cases, judicial misconduct motions and mandamus petitions have been left unanswered for over a year. This refusal to adjudicate constitutes a constructive denial of appellate review, leaving unlawful district court orders in effect indefinitely and depriving Petitioner of meaningful access to an Article III tribunal.

Record 3d Cir. Docket No. 24-1381 (ignored judicial notice; motions unruled) 3d Cir. Docket No. 25-1188 (unopposed mandamus pending for months)

Controlling Law Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831) 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act)

Constitution Article III (Judicial review) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

Despite clear jurisdictional error and unopposed filings, the Third Circuit has not issued timely rulings on critical petitions, including unopposed mandamus requests. The delay exceeds reasonable judicial timeframes, denying Petitioner a prompt and fair appellate process and perpetuating unlawful confinement.

Record 3d Cir. Docket No. 25-1188 (unopposed mandamus with no ruling) Docket activity reflecting prolonged inaction

Controlling Law Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967) Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (1932) 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act)

Constitution Article III (Duty to decide) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

Petitioner’s formal judicial misconduct complaint, filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, has not been docketed or ruled upon by the Chief Judge or the Third Circuit Judicial Council, despite statutory deadlines. The complaint was submitted to the official responsible for such matters — Jean Donnelly, the spouse of SEC prosecutor John Donnelly — creating a clear conflict of interest and further undermining confidence in impartial review. The refusal to process and adjudicate the complaint obstructs statutory oversight and denies Petitioner the right to seek redress for judicial misconduct.

Record Judicial Misconduct Complaint (28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364) submitted; no docketing/ruling Administrative inaction; conflict noted (Third Circuit Office of the Executive)

Controlling Law Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 858 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1988)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) First Amendment (Right to petition)

By refusing to act on appeals, judicial notices, and misconduct motions, the appellate court has allowed unconstitutional district court orders — including asset freezes, denial of counsel, and Brady violations — to remain in effect. This silence constitutes tacit ratification of unlawful conduct and violates the duty of appellate courts to ensure constitutional compliance.

Record 3d Cir. Docket Nos. 23-2110, 24-1381, 25-1188 (no rulings despite full briefing) District orders remain unreviewed and in effect

Controlling Law Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act)

Constitution Article III (Judicial duty to adjudicate) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

After presiding over a trial marred by suppressed exculpatory materials, the district judge abruptly retired before ruling on multiple pending post-trial motions, including Rule 29 and Rule 33 challenges to sufficiency and prosecutorial misconduct. Despite scheduled hearings, no written rulings issued; instead, the court declared the motions “denied” at sentencing without explanation. This failure to decide substantive motions deprived Petitioner of meaningful review and due process.

Record ECF #112, #134, #137, #138, #149 (motions struck) ECF #155 (reconsideration raising judicial unfitness) Sentencing transcript (May 13, 2023)

Controlling Law Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 (Judgment of Acquittal) Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 (New Trial) United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469 (1947) In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Article III (Judicial duty to decide)

The indictment rested on false “essential facts,” asserting Petitioner’s settlement income was taxable and procured by fraud. At trial, government witnesses contradicted those assertions, confirming the payments were non-taxable prorated loss recoveries under court-approved allocation plans. Controlling law—including the Pennsylvania Assignment Act and Sprint v. APCC—established the legality of assigned claims. Misstating elements to the grand jury and the petit jury constituted prosecutorial misconduct and denied a fair trial.

Record Trial testimony of settlement administrators Cross-examinations & post-trial briefing citing assignment law Defense submissions citing Sprint (554 U.S. 269) and Pennsylvania Assignment Act (1939)

Controlling Law Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008) Pennsylvania Law of Assignments (1939) Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

After testimony undermined the prosecution’s theory, the government conducted mid-trial interviews with cooperating codefendants to realign testimony, reflected in 302s produced during trial. Petitioner moved for a mistrial citing witness tampering and sequestration violations. The court denied relief without inquiry, condoning prosecutorial interference and depriving Petitioner of an impartial proceeding.

Record Trial record and sidebar motions FBI 302 interview summaries produced mid-trial Defense mistrial motion during proceedings

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 615 (Sequestration of witnesses) Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 (New Trial) United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

In the SEC civil enforcement case (21-cv-4845), the court denied Petitioner’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by granting summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel from the criminal case—even though the criminal proceedings were constitutionally defective and did not adjudicate key issues relevant to the SEC claims. Petitioner’s jury demand and opposition filings (ECF #45–#47) were struck without hearing, and the court relied on tainted criminal findings despite no discovery or evidentiary hearing in the SEC case.

Record ECF #45–#47 (jury demand & oppositions struck) ECF #58, #62, #66 (summary judgment & estoppel orders) 21-cv-4845 docket (no discovery, no trial)

Controlling Law Seventh Amendment (civil jury trial) Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) Blonder-Tongue Labs. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971)

Constitution Seventh Amendment (Civil Jury Trial Right) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

At sentencing in United States v. Cammarata (21-cr-427), the court imposed multiple guideline enhancements— under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1) (loss amount), §2B1.1(b)(2) (number of victims), and §3B1.1 (role)—without evidentiary support or required factual findings. No actual victims or verified losses were identified in the Presentence Report; the government’s assertions were unsworn and contradicted by the record. The court failed to make findings on disputed factors as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B), adopting speculative “intended loss” and unsupported leadership enhancements that inflated the guideline range and violated due process.

Record Sentencing Transcript (ECF #220, 21-cr-427) Presentence Report & Defense Objections Gov’t Sentencing Memo (ECF #366) Sentencing Memorandum (ECF #372) Appeal No. 23-2110 (loss/victim issues)

Controlling Law U.S.S.G. §§2B1.1, 3B1.1, 6A1.3 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 2022)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Sentencing Fact-Finding)

The prosecution withheld and misrepresented key exculpatory financial records, including IRS Forms 1042-S and settlement check statements, which confirmed that the payments at issue were non-taxable loss recoveries, not income derived from fraud. These records, obtained from settlement administrators, established that Petitioner’s conduct was lawful and contradicted the indictment. Despite defense requests and Brady obligations, the government failed to disclose them, and the court declined to compel production, depriving Petitioner of a fair trial and sentencing based on accurate facts.

Record Defense motions for production (ECF #137, #149) Trial transcript referencing undisclosed 1042-S forms Government concession of “no loss” (ECF #366)

Controlling Law Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) (DPPA)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

The government and court repeatedly denied Petitioner access to essential business and financial records necessary to prove innocence, including corporate books, settlement ledgers, and accounting data stored on seized servers and email archives. Despite repeated motions and court order requirements, these materials were withheld, obstructing defense preparation. The court also failed to issue the mandatory Due Process Protections Act order under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), removing enforcement mechanisms for disclosure violations and enabling trial by ambush.

Record Defense motions for access (ECF #112, #134, #137) Court’s omission of Rule 5(f) order Trial transcript showing incomplete records

Controlling Law Fed. R. Crim. P. 16; Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Right to Prepare Defense)

While held at FDC Philadelphia, Petitioner’s personal laptop containing defense strategy, legal research, and work product was seized without prior notice or consent. Despite accessing the device, the government failed to comply with ECF #35, which ordered inclusion of business expense records already produced in the earlier fraud trial. These records, in government possession, showed legitimate deductible expenses that disproved the alleged tax loss. The government never placed them on the discovery laptop or produced them separately, depriving Petitioner of exculpatory evidence necessary to rebut the charges. The court declined to enforce compliance, resulting in trial based on an incomplete record.

Record Seizure of laptop at FDC Philadelphia Court Order (ECF #35) Defense motions to compel (ECF #112, #137, #149) Tax trial transcript lacking expense documentation

Controlling Law Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E); Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Right to Present a Complete Defense)

The seized FDC Philadelphia laptop contained confidential defense strategy, attorney-client communications, and draft pleadings. Without privilege filters, court supervision, or a taint team, prosecutors and agents accessed these contents, gaining knowledge of defense theories and legal arguments. The court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing or impose remedies. This intrusion into the defense camp provided the government a strategic advantage and constitutes a structural violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Record Seized laptop containing privileged work product Defense objections (ECF #137, #149) No taint team or privilege review implemented

Controlling Law Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2003) United States v. Neill, 952 F. Supp. 834 (D.D.C. 1997)

Constitution Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel; Privilege) Fifth Amendment (Due Process)

The prosecution made repeated false and misleading representations that affected discovery and trial rulings in the tax case, including: (1) claiming compliance with ECF #35 by stating business-expense records from the earlier fraud matter were produced on the discovery laptop when they were not; (2) denying the existence/authenticity of IRS Forms 1042-S and accusing the defense (in an ex parte sidebar) of fabricating them despite government Bates-stamped forms; (3) asserting full Brady/Rule 16/DPPA compliance while withholding exculpatory records and controlling authority; and (4) telling the court the defense had equal access to seized/controlled records (servers, email, accounting) when access was denied or never produced.

Record ECF #35 (ordered inclusion of business expenses on discovery laptop) Trial transcript (sidebar accusation re: 1042-S) Bates-stamped 1042-S forms (government production) Defense motions: ECF #112, #137, #149 Correspondence to standby counsel documenting non-production

Controlling Law Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Fed. R. Crim. P. 16; Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) (DPPA)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

Despite evidence that the prosecution withheld discovery, made false representations, and accused the defense of fabricating government-issued evidence, the court declined to hold evidentiary hearings, compel production, or correct the record. The court repeatedly credited prosecution assertions over documented proof, refused to address authenticity of Bates-stamped exculpatory forms, and denied motions raising Brady/Napue violations—demonstrating bias and denying a neutral arbiter.

Record Defense motions for hearings/sanctions: ECF #137, #149 Trial transcript reflecting sidebar accusation and refusal to revisit Denials without findings; no corrective order

Controlling Law 28 U.S.C. § 455 (judicial impartiality) Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process — Impartial Tribunal) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

Official transcripts were altered or redacted to remove statements evidencing judicial bias, including the TRO hearing remark: “I consider this a crime against the courts.” That statement and other passages were later missing from certified transcripts (e.g., ECF #45, #46 in 21-cv-4845 and the June 6, 2023 sentencing transcript), concealing bias and impeding appellate review.

Record ECF #45, #46 (21-cv-4845) — hearing transcripts with omissions Sentencing Transcript (June 6, 2023) — missing bias statement Defense objections and requests for correction

Controlling Law 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (verbatim record requirement) In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 1995) Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)

Constitution First Amendment (Public Access to Judicial Records) Fifth Amendment (Due Process — Accurate, Reviewable Record)

The court resolved contested issues using unsworn proffers, hearsay, and materials outside the record—accepting prosecution assertions about discovery compliance, authenticity of 1042-S forms, and sentencing factors without exhibits or sworn testimony. Deciding facts outside the evidentiary record denied confrontation and meaningful testing.

Record Motion and trial transcripts reflecting reliance on proffers Defense requests for evidentiary hearings: ECF #112, #137, #149 Sentencing Transcript (ECF #220)

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 802, 901 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Fair Trial)

During the tax trial, the prosecution made an ex parte sidebar accusation that the defense had fabricated IRS Forms 1042-S. Although the government itself possessed Bates-stamped 1042-S forms, the court accepted the accusation without an evidentiary hearing, declined to require authentication proceedings, and restricted the defense’s use of the forms and related proof. By adopting the sidebar accusation and refusing to compel production or authentication, the court suppressed or chilled exculpatory evidence central to the defense.

Record Tax-trial transcript (sidebar accusation re: 1042-S) Bates-stamped 1042-S forms (government production) Defense requests for authentication hearing: ECF #112, #137, #149 Rulings limiting use of 1042-S evidence; absence of authenticity findings

Controlling Law Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) Brady; Kyles; Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401–403, 901

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Sixth Amendment (Right to Present a Defense; Confrontation)

In Third Circuit Case No. 24-1381, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of Evidence 201(c)(2) and (e) on May 27 2025 (ECF No. 72), requesting that the Court take judicial notice of indisputable adjudicative facts and controlling law demonstrating lack of jurisdiction and multiple due-process violations in the proceedings below. Despite proper filing and certification, and a docket entry reflecting the motion was “SENT TO MERITS PANEL” on May 28 2025, the Third Circuit has never ruled on the motion. Under Rule 201(c)(2), a court must take judicial notice when properly requested and provided with the necessary information, and must issue a ruling. The prolonged refusal to act deprives Petitioner of due process and violates the Court’s constitutional duty to exercise jurisdiction and decide properly presented matters.

Record Case No. 24-1381 (3d Cir.) ECF No. 72 – Motion for Judicial Notice (filed May 27 2025; 22 pages; referred to merits panel; no order issued) Docket entry dated May 28 2025 noting “SENT TO MERITS PANEL”

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2), (e) United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994) In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (1992) Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Article III (Judicial Duty to Adjudicate)

In Third Circuit Case No. 24-1983, Petitioner terminated appellate counsel and counsel moved to withdraw. Petitioner simultaneously filed a Motion for Appointment of Substitute Counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Fed. R. App. P. 46, explaining that the government's asset freeze—expired November 2021—left him unable to retain private counsel. The Court took no action before the reply-brief deadline on August 25, 2025. To preserve his rights, Petitioner filed a pro se reply brief that morning. Only after the deadline passed, the Clerk entered ECF No. 66 (Aug 25, 2025, 3:11 PM), denying the substitution and appointment request, prohibiting pro se filings, and compelling the previously discharged counsel to remain—despite clear conflict and nonpayment. This sequence deprived Petitioner of representation at a critical stage and demonstrates intentional prejudice.

Record ECF No. 66 (Aug 25, 2025) – Clerk’s Order denying appointment/substitution; rejecting pro se filing ECF No. 67 (Sep 5, 2025) – Reply brief filed without appointed counsel Earlier motions for withdrawal and appointment (mid-2025) unresolved prior to deadline Asset freeze expired Nov 2021 (see 21-cv-4845, 24-1381)

Controlling Law 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (mandatory appointment of counsel) Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)

Constitution Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel on Direct Appeal) Fifth Amendment (Due Process; Meaningful Appellate Review)

In Third Circuit Case No. 24-1381, Petitioner filed multiple substantive motions demonstrating lack of jurisdiction and ongoing due-process violations, including:
• ECF No. 72 – Motion for Judicial Notice (filed May 27, 2025, under Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2) & (e)),
• A contemporaneous Motion to Lift Stay (late May 2025),
Each was referred to the merits panel yet never ruled upon, leaving the appeal paralyzed and the constitutional violations unremedied.

In the companion mandamus docket (Case No. 25-1188), Petitioner filed:
• ECF No. 1 – an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus explicitly requesting expedited review under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and Fed. R. App. P. 21,
• ECF No. 2 – Motion to Expedite,
• and several follow-up and supplemental motions throughout 2025 reiterating the urgency and ongoing prejudice.

The government filed no opposition and denied none of the allegations, yet the Court has issued no order, scheduled no briefing, and taken no action. By ignoring unopposed, time-sensitive filings in both dockets—including an emergency petition seeking immediate relief—the Third Circuit has not merely failed to act; it has become complicit in obstructing justice, violating its Article III duty and Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Record 24-1381 – Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF 72, May 27 2025; referred, no ruling) 24-1381 – Motion to Lift Stay (May 2025; referred, no ruling) 25-1188 – Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF 1, Feb 5 2025; seeks expedited review; unopposed) 25-1188 – Motion to Expedite (ECF 2, Feb 5 2025; unopposed) 25-1188 – Multiple follow-up and supplemental filings through mid-2025 (all unopposed, unresolved) No rulings or orders issued as of September 2025

Controlling Law Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) Fed. R. App. P. 2, 21, 27 Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831) In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (1992)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Article III (Judicial Duty to Adjudicate)

In Third Circuit Case No. 24-1983, Petitioner terminated appellate counsel and sought substitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A after an asset freeze—expired November 2021—made private retention impossible. The docket reveals a deliberate sequence ensuring Petitioner was unrepresented at a critical stage:

• ECF 63 (Aug 4 2025) – Motion to discharge counsel
• ECF 64 (Aug 6 2025) – Counsel’s motion to withdraw
• ECF 65 (Aug 25 2025, morning) – Pro se reply brief filed before deadline
• ECF 66 (Aug 25 2025, 3:11 PM) – Order denying substitution/appointment, striking pro se brief, and forcing discharged counsel to remain
• ECF 67–71 (Sept 5–12 2025) – Reply briefs docketed without appointed substitute counsel

By waiting until after the filing deadline to deny relief and bar pro se participation, the Court engineered a representation gap and deprived Petitioner of meaningful appellate advocacy, violating both statutory and constitutional guarantees.

Record ECF 63–71 (24-1983 docket) Asset freeze expiration (Nov 2021) – 21-cv-4845; 24-1381

Controlling Law 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (mandatory appointment of counsel) Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)

Constitution Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel on Direct Appeal) Fifth Amendment (Due Process; Meaningful Review)

Across multiple Third Circuit dockets, the Court has adopted a pattern of issuing unreasoned, one-line denials and failing to adjudicate dispositive motions, resulting in denial of meaningful appellate review and the obstruction of justice.

24-1381 — SEC Asset-Freeze Appeal

• ECF 68–70 (Apr–May 2025) — Emergency motion to release frozen assets; no reasoning recorded
• ECF 71 (May 19, 2025) — Order denying relief via single-line entry
• ECF 72 (May 27, 2025) — Motion for Judicial Notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2); sent to merits panel, no ruling
• Contemporaneous Motion to Lift Stay (May 2025) — no order issued

23-2110 — Direct Criminal Appeal

• ECF 69 (May 1, 2025) — Pro se amended rehearing petition raising jurisdiction and innocence
• ECF 70 — Clerk rejected filing; never reviewed by a judge
• ECF 72 (June 3, 2025) — Rehearing granted in part (restitution only), ignoring jurisdictional arguments
• ECF 83 (Aug 12, 2025) — En banc denied — one-line entry, no reasoning
• ECF 86 (Sept 29, 2025) — Motion under Rule 12(b)(2) challenging jurisdiction — denied in a single word, no citations

24-1983 — Criminal Tax Appeal

• ECF 66 (Aug 25, 2025) — Clerk’s order denying substitution and striking pro se brief — no legal reasoning, boilerplate L.A.R. citation

Taken together, these actions evade appellate scrutiny and conceal constitutional violations across dockets, violating Article III and the Fifth Amendment.

Record 23-2110 — ECF 69, 70, 72, 83, 86 24-1381 — ECF 68–72 24-1983 — ECF 66

Controlling Law Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831) In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (1992) Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Article III (Judicial Duty to Decide)

In Third Circuit Case No. 25-1188, Petitioner filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and Fed. R. App. P. 21, expressly requesting expedited review to correct jurisdictional defects and conflicts of interest. Despite the emergency designation and complete lack of opposition, the Court has issued no rulings or orders for more than seven months.

Key Filings

• ECF 1 (Feb 2025) — Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus requesting expedited review
• ECF 2 — Motion to Expedite
• ECF 12 (Mar 24 2025) — Motion to Transfer to Second Circuit citing conflict (SEC prosecutor John Donnelly’s spouse Jean Donnelly in Third Circuit Executive Office)
• ECF 13 (Apr 14 2025) — Notice of No Opposition
• Multiple supplemental filings reiterating urgency and lack of opposition

The Court’s total inaction—failing to docket orders, schedule briefing, or address any motion— constitutes a constructive denial and a dereliction of judicial duty. Such refusal to act on an unopposed emergency petition violates the Court’s Article III obligation to adjudicate properly presented cases and Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to timely review.

Record ECF 1, 2, 12, 13 (25-1188 docket) All unopposed; no rulings issued as of Oct 2025

Controlling Law 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) Fed. R. App. P. 21 Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190 (1831) In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (1992)

Constitution Fifth Amendment (Due Process) Article III (Duty to Decide)