The Proof — Click to Examine
Six documented violations. Every quote sourced to court records. Every citation verifiable on PACER. Click any card to see the evidence no court has been willing to address.
The government called it "fraud" because Quartis and Nimello filed settlement claims in their own names. The government called all documentation "falsified" because it was in the names of Quartis and Nimello. Sprint establishes they had the legal right to file in their own names as first-party assignees. The entire basis for the indictment was conduct the Supreme Court ruled is legal.
Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008). W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte, 549 F.3d 100, 108 (2d Cir. 2008). Pennsylvania Assignment of Claims Act (1939), 69 P.S. §§ 521-523. Third Circuit docket 23-2110: ECF 59, 69, 70, 77, 86.
SEC filed a 900-page ex parte TRO application (ECF 2-3, 21-cv-4845) that omitted any allegation or finding of irreparable injury. Judge Kenney signed the order (ECF 4) verbatim as proposed by SEC — including the same typographical and pagination errors — without a hearing, without record evidence, and without the word "irreparable" appearing anywhere.
Nov 8, 2021: USM-285 (ECF 10) falsely claims "personal service" in U.S. Marshal's cellblock at 10:50 AM.
Reality: Cammarata was detained in Miami, not Philadelphia. Actually served November 9 at 10:50 AM — AFTER the criminal bail hearing, AFTER the TRO hearing in Philadelphia had already ended. Handwritten date on the form appears altered from "9" to "8."
Court's own order (ECF 4) required parties to meet and confer at least 24 hours before the hearing — impossible since Cammarata was not served until after it ended.
Nov 9, 2021: Judge Kenney conducted the TRO hearing in Philadelphia at 9 AM while Cammarata was at his criminal bail hearing in Miami. The same judge oversaw both the criminal case (21-cr-427) and the SEC case (21-cv-4845) — he knew Cammarata couldn't be in both places. Never noticed, never present, never represented at the hearing that froze every asset.
Rule 65(b)(2): A TRO "expires at the time after entry — not to exceed 14 days — that the court sets."
Even accepting the November 10 extension order (which was itself invalid): Nov 10 + 14 = November 24, 2021 at 11:59 PM. No hearing was held before November 24. No consent was granted to extend. The TRO expired irrevocably as a matter of law on November 24, 2021.
Still enforced as of February 2026: 1,544+ days past expiration. Neither SEC nor the district court has ever disputed this math.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). ECF 2-3, ECF 4, ECF 10 (USM-285), ECF 16 (21-cv-4845). Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Granny Goose Foods v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974). Miami Bail Hearing Transcript, Nov 9, 2021.
September 22, 2022: Prosecutor Shapiro tells grand jury income was from "the fraud scheme" — stated as established, proven fact.
October 13, 2022: Fraud trial begins — 21 days later.
No court had determined fraud. No conviction existed. Not once in 50 pages does the prosecutor use "alleged," "accused," or "charged with."
| Page/Line | Prosecutor's Words |
|---|---|
| p.22, l.25 | "to explain the fraud scheme" |
| p.25, l.3-4 | "they made phony claims" |
| p.25, l.7-10 | "made false and fraudulent claims" |
| p.26, l.8-9 | "proceeds from the fraud scheme" |
| p.27, l.6-7 | "proceeds from the fraud scheme" |
| p.38, l.22-23 | "Alpha Plus' fraudulent operations" |
| p.39, l.16 | "the fraudulent income" |
| p.42, l.22-23 | "They...stole the money?" — "They did." |
| p.43, l.1-2 | "this stolen money" — "Correct." |
| p.46, l.1-2 | "the fraud scheme was uncovered" — "Yes." |
Selected examples from 18+ instances across 50 pages. Full transcript: USA000192–USA000241.
Grand Jury Transcript, Trenton Division, Sept 22, 2022 (USA000192–USA000241). Superseding Indictment returned Sept 8, 2022. Fraud trial began Oct 13, 2022. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935).
Government denied the forms existed in writing before trial. When defendant introduced Bates-stamped forms from the government's own fraud case discovery, prosecutors held an ex parte sidebar accusing him of fabricating the forms.
Once the government's own Bates stamps proved they had the forms, they coached cooperator Punturieri to testify they were "only a handful" showing "only $12k taxes withheld."
Reality: 68 forms submitted to the IRS showing over $375,330 properly reported and taxes paid — from just two cases in one year alone.
Check statements from settlement administrators attached to every payment informed recipients the payments were "generally not taxable income." Government denied these existed. If Cammarata relied on these statements, willfulness is negated under Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
Over $19 million in documented business deductions offsetting the alleged $16 million in "income." Court ordered production (ECF #30, March 23, 2023). Government claimed compliance but never actually put them on the discovery laptop.
IRS agent Mr. Mazur testified the tax calculation was "incorrect without expenses" and that he had not been provided any of the business account deductions.
Fraud Case (EDPA) Index
Tax Case Index (Post-ECF #30)
Deleted accounts: Bank of America credit cards, Sandy Cay LLC, ETrade brokerage, Merrill Lynch (3 files including "Checks, Deposits, and Wires"), Morgan Stanley (PB Trade LLC), Ameritrade, and TD Bank business accounts #14–21. The government did not remove all TD Bank accounts — just the business accounts that had expenses.
ECF 155, pages 11-13 (22-cr-639). ECF 139, Exhibit D (discovery index comparison). ECF 65 (24-1983). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004). Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
Congress passed this in direct response to endemic Brady violations — to end prosecutorial "gamesmanship" and reinforce that Brady obligations are ongoing, affirmative, and judicially enforceable.
Fraud Case (21-cr-427, E.D. Pa. — Judge Kenney): No docket entry, no minute order, no transcript reference showing a Rule 5(f) order was ever issued.
Tax Case (22-cr-639, D.N.J. — Judge Sheridan/Kugler): Same result — no docket entry, no minute order, no transcript reference showing compliance.
The same prosecutorial team (Paul Shapiro et al.) handled both cases. Neither court ever advised them of their Brady obligations. Those same prosecutors then suppressed Sprint, the PA Assignment Act, 1042-S forms, check statements, and \$19M in business expenses across both cases.
No Rule 5(f) order → No Brady enforcement → Sprint suppressed → 1042-S forms suppressed → \$19M expenses deleted → Convictions obtained → Three courts refuse to address it
Due Process Protections Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-182. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f). Dockets: 21-cr-427, 22-cr-639 (no Rule 5(f) entry). Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 470 (2009). United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 249 (3d Cir. 2012).
SEC lead trial counsel John V. Donnelly III is married to Jean M. Donnelly, an attorney employed in the Third Circuit's Office of the Executive — the office responsible for processing judicial misconduct complaints.
When a misconduct complaint was filed against Judge Kenney and prosecutor John Donnelly, it was transmitted to the Executive Office — where the prosecutor's own wife handled review. Result: summary denial without addressing a single allegation.
Judge Kenney presided over both the criminal fraud case (21-cr-427) and the SEC civil action (21-cv-4845) simultaneously. He made the on-the-record statement "I consider this a crime against the courts" — later deleted from the transcript (ECF 46, 21-cv-4845) and replaced with "inaudible." The standard under § 455(a) is mandatory ("shall") and requires only that a reasonable person would question impartiality — not that actual bias be proven.
28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a). Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, Canons 2, 3F(1), 3F(3). Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954). ECF 22 (24-1381). ECF 5, 12, 13, 15 (25-1188). ECF 87 (23-2110).
Four Years of Strategic Silence
For Journalists & Investigators
Quick Verification
Every claim on this page can be verified through public court dockets on PACER. Key case numbers: 21-cr-427, 21-cv-4845, 22-cr-639 (E.D. Pa. & D.N.J.) and Third Circuit appeals 23-2110, 24-1381, 24-1983, 25-1188. Sprint v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008) is available on any legal database.
Available for Interview
Complete document packages available on request, including grand jury transcripts, court filings, read receipts, docket sheets, and the full 93-violation documentation with legal citations. Contact contact@exposejustice.com for press inquiries.
The Systemic Story
This isn't just one case. The federal system processes 80,000+ criminal cases annually. When courts can ignore mandatory rules, suppress controlling law, and enforce expired orders without consequence—the accountability gap affects every defendant in every federal courtroom.
📁 Full Documentation Available
This page summarizes the key evidence. For the complete record — including all 93 documented constitutional violations, detailed profiles of the judges and prosecutors involved, the full timeline, and every court filing — visit the main documentation site:
This Story Needs Investigation
Every claim is documented. Every date is on the docket. Every quote is from the transcript. The evidence is irrefutable. The silence is the cover-up.
Key Documents Available
Grand Jury Transcript
- September 22, 2022 - Tax Case (Trenton Division)
- Shows prosecutor told grand jury income was from "fraud" before fraud trial
- IRS Special Agent Leo Hughes testimony with leading questions
Critical Briefs & Motions
- ECF 22 (24-1381) - SEC jurisdictional defects brief (unopposed 598+ days)
- ECF 155 (22-cr-639) - Motion documenting ALL withheld evidence
- ECF 65 (24-1983) - Reply brief with three categories of suppression
- Petition for Rehearing En Banc (25-1188) - Opened but not docketed
Court Records
- Four Third Circuit dockets (23-2110, 24-1381, 24-1983, 25-1188)
- TRO and asset freeze orders showing November 18, 2021 expiration
- ECF 30 order requiring business expense production (ignored)
- Read receipts proving documents received and opened
The Accountability Gap: When There's No Mechanism for Correction
This case exposes a fundamental flaw in the federal justice system. What happens when prosecutors violate Brady? When judges ignore mandatory federal rules? When courts refuse to apply binding Supreme Court precedent? The answer: nothing—if the violations are documented but courts simply refuse to adjudicate them.
Strategic non-adjudication as policy. Don't rule against documented violations—just don't rule at all. Let briefing sit unopposed for 598+ days. Never require the government to respond. When motions are finally "decided," deny without reasoning or analysis. Result: violations are never corrected, precedents are never applied, rules are never enforced.
The federal system processes 80,000+ criminal cases annually. How many involve Brady violations that go unsanctioned? How many defendants face prosecutors who were never given the mandatory Rule 5(f) warnings? How many convictions rest on conduct that controlling law proves was legal—but courts won't address the law? We'll never know. When documentation doesn't lead to adjudication, the system becomes unaccountable.
Every violation here is documented. Every claim has a citation. Every date is on a docket. The question isn't whether these violations occurred—the record proves they did. The question is: what's the accountability mechanism when courts refuse to address documented violations? So far, the answer is there isn't one.
The Cover-Up Continues: FOIA Obstruction Across Five Agencies
When courts refuse to adjudicate, the Freedom of Information Act becomes the last avenue for transparency. So what happens when you file FOIA requests with the agencies involved? Every single one stonewalls.
The Pattern:
Reality: The SEC initiated Case 21-cv-4845. Discovery exceeded 5.5 million pages.
Reality: Exemption (b)(7)(A) claims "interference with enforcement" — but the prosecution is over.
Reality: Petitioner was the subject of their investigation. He's in the BOP system with a federal register number.
Reality: USMS executed the asset seizures. They have records of what they seized.
Reality: IRS Criminal Investigation was integral to Case 22-cr-639.
The Conflict No One Will Address
SEC Attorney John V. Donnelly III has entered appearances in multiple Cammarata proceedings. His spouse, Jeanne M. Donnelly, is employed as an attorney in the Third Circuit's Executive Office — the same court where all four appeals are pending, where the judicial misconduct complaint was filed, and where the mandamus petition has sat unopposed for over a year.
This conflict has never been disclosed, addressed, or investigated.
What These Records Would Reveal
- → How DOJ and SEC coordinated simultaneous filings on the same day
- → Communications between the prosecutor and the Third Circuit — where his wife works
- → Why motions sit unanswered for 21+ months
- → How $150 million in assets were seized without proper jurisdiction
- → The deliberations behind refusing to apply controlling Supreme Court precedent
🚨 This Is Not Coincidence — This Is Coordinated Obstruction
Five separate federal agencies. Five different excuses. One identical result: nothing produced.
The SEC claims "no records exist" about their own enforcement action. The FBI can't find the man they investigated and helped imprison. The DOJ cites "ongoing enforcement" for a prosecution that ended years ago. The Marshals go silent about seizures they personally executed.
Here's what makes this undeniable: The undersigned possesses inter-agency communications from the underlying proceedings — documents with government Bates stamps proving these records exist. The agencies know this. They know he has proof. And they're still claiming the records don't exist.
When every agency involved in a prosecution simultaneously refuses to produce records about that prosecution — while the courts refuse to rule on challenges to that prosecution — while the prosecutor's wife works at the appeals court handling that prosecution —
That's not bureaucratic delay. That's a conspiracy to obstruct the truth.
FOIA exists precisely to prevent this. When the oversight mechanism itself is captured, there is no internal remedy. The only path left is sunlight — and that's why this documentation exists.
The courts won't adjudicate. The agencies won't produce records.
The prosecutor's wife works at the appeals court.
Every direction you turn: silence.