Joseph Cammarata is a Wall Street entrepreneur who built and sold a company that executed 2–3% of all daily U.S. equity exchange volume. He had no prior convictions, no regulatory violations, and thirty years of clean service in one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. In November 2021, the coordinated resources of the FBI, DOJ, SEC, and IRS came down on him simultaneously — in a prosecution built on a legal theory that a unanimous Supreme Court decision had foreclosed thirteen years earlier.
This is not a complicated case. The conduct at issue — assigning securities class action settlement claims to business entities — was established as entirely lawful by the Supreme Court in Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008), decided unanimously, thirteen years before the first charge was filed. Sprint was not a technicality raised after conviction. It was the defense raised at trial, presented to the jury, briefed on appeal, and submitted to the Supreme Court. Not one court — not the district court, not the Third Circuit, not the Supreme Court — has ever explained why Sprint does not make this conduct legal. Not once in four years.
They cannot answer the question because the answer proves the prosecution was wrong from the first day.
March 23, 2026: A civil RICO complaint was filed and docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama — Case No. 2:26-cv-00209-ECM-CWB against former Attorney General Merrick Garland, former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, and former FBI Director Christopher Wray — in their individual capacities — for a coordinated multi-agency enterprise that caused over $150 million in documented damages. Trebled RICO damages demanded: over $450 million.
How It Happened
When the government realized its legal theory was foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent, it could not stop. Six agencies had committed years of resources, millions in taxpayer dollars, and 5.5 million pages of documents to a case with no crime at its center. So they achieved a conviction at any cost.
On November 3, 2021 — the day of the arrest — the SEC simultaneously filed a civil enforcement complaint. The next day, a judge who declared "I consider this a crime against the courts" before seeing a single piece of evidence signed a 900-page ex parte order freezing every asset Mr. Cammarata had ever accumulated — over $78 million — without making the finding of irreparable harm that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) requires as a mandatory prerequisite. The word "irreparable" does not appear in the order.
That freeze was the mechanism. It ensured Mr. Cammarata could not hire counsel of his choosing for 20 of the first 24 months. His elderly parents — his father now battling cancer — refinanced the home they had lived in for 50 years to borrow $250,000 to hire attorneys less than five weeks before trial. Over $59 million in assets the government later admitted were entirely untainted sat frozen throughout.
And when Mr. Cammarata began documenting the misconduct from prison — filing pro se motions the district court itself called "very well written and compelling" — the cover-up escalated. From the district court. To the Third Circuit. To the Supreme Court. Every institution chose silence over an honest answer.
The Documented Misconduct
Every item below is drawn from public federal dockets, sworn trial testimony, FBI Form 302 memoranda, and official government filings.
Computers Left With Cooperating Witness
The FBI deliberately left three of Mr. Cammarata's computers with the government's paid cooperating witness for two weeks post-raid. He physically disassembled the hard drives and transmitted them to FBI Agent Conway while actively corresponding with him by text and photograph.
Fabricated Bail Revocation
SA Lanthorn testified at the March 10, 2022 bail revocation hearing that he always possessed the satellite phones. His own FBI Form 302 and the original property inventory — listing only a cell phone — prove this false. He took Mr. Cammarata's passport at arrest, placed it in his Redwell folder, and used it to retrieve the bags. Bail was revoked on fabricated grounds.
FBI Agent Suppressed as Defense Witness
SA Richard Bloodgood — an active FBI agent and the only remaining defense witness — would have proven his colleagues lied under oath. The government used Touhy regulations to pressure him not to testify. Confirmed on the trial record. He walked away. The perjury went unchallenged.
Forced Palantir Liquidation — $66M Loss
A court with no jurisdiction ordered the forced sale of 367,667 shares of Palantir Technologies from an irrevocable foreign trust at $7/share — generating $2.35M — while $5M in admitted untainted domestic assets sat available. Those shares are worth approximately $66 million at recent highs.
The Donnelly Conflict — Never Disclosed
Lead SEC prosecutor John V. Donnelly III is married to an active attorney in the Executive Office of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — the court reviewing all four pending appeals. Never disclosed. All twelve Third Circuit judges voted unanimously to deny disqualification without a single word of explanation.
Transcripts Altered
On-the-record statements reflecting judicial bias — including the judge's declaration that "I consider this a crime against the courts" before seeing any evidence — were removed from official transcripts across multiple hearings. Fifteen witnesses, including criminal defense counsel, can confirm what was said and what disappeared.
The Cover-Up — Four Buried Appeals
The same court where the lead prosecutor's wife works as an active attorney has presided over four separate appeals. In every one, the pattern is identical: the government refuses to respond, or the court refuses to engage with the substance.
And when Mr. Cammarata sought relief from the United States Supreme Court, the Solicitor General of the United States waived the government's right to respond rather than put its legal theory in writing under Rule 11. The Supreme Court denied the petition without a word of explanation.
This is a court system that knows what the answer is — and has decided it will never say it out loud.
Active Proceedings — March 2026
March 11, 2026: Emergency Application filed to Justice Samuel Alito as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit — asking for a stay of forfeiture orders, transfer of all four appeals to a conflict-free circuit, and formal disqualification of the Third Circuit. Served on the SEC and DOJ Solicitor General.
March 14, 2026: 28 U.S.C. § 351 Judicial Misconduct Complaints filed to both the Third and Second Circuits documenting the Donnelly structural conflict and pattern of non-adjudication.
March 18, 2026: SEC Ombudsman Complaint filed — Matter ID 20260318-00019112 — formally notifying the SEC of the Donnelly conflict, the unanswered appeal, and the void TRO.
March 23, 2026: Civil RICO Complaint filed, Middle District of Alabama — Cammarata v. Garland, Gensler & Wray — demanding over $450 million in trebled damages for coordinated multi-agency racketeering enterprise.
What We Are Asking Congress to Do
Three specific, actionable requests. Not sympathy — accountability.
Refer to Attorney General Pam Bondi and DOJ
Forward this documented record to the Attorney General with a congressional request for a full independent review of the prosecution of Joseph Cammarata, Case No. 21-cr-427 (E.D. Pa.) — with specific attention to the Sprint precedent, the Donnelly structural conflict, the FBI misconduct at the bail revocation hearing, and the pattern of four unanswered appeals.
Support a Presidential Pardon
Bring this record to President Trump's attention for consideration of a presidential pardon. No victims. No loss. A prosecution built on conduct the Supreme Court established was lawful. A conflicted appellate court. Fabricated evidence. Altered transcripts. Four years of imprisonment. This is precisely the case that presidential clemency was designed to remedy.
Demand Written Answers
Send congressional inquiry letters to the Department of Justice and the Third Circuit demanding written responses to two questions that four years of federal proceedings have refused to answer: Why does Sprint v. APCC Services not make this conduct legal? And why has a structural conflict of this magnitude gone unaddressed for four years?