The case against him was summed up in one word: WSA was a “sham-UN affiliate.” The word was never defined at trial, and it is still being used without a definition.
The jury was told WSA was a “sham-UN affiliate.” No one ever told the jury, or the court, what “affiliate” means.
“Affiliate” has a fixed meaning in law. Everyone who used the word at trial meant something different by it, and the one person who asked what it meant was not told.
- 17 C.F.R. § 230.405An affiliate “controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with” another. (United States v. Landesman, 17 F.4th 298, 319 (2d Cir. 2021))
- DX 29 at 2 · in evidenceThe same definition, in a contract the jury had.
- AppliedThe UN did not control WSA, and WSA did not control the UN. By the legal definition, WSA was not a UN affiliate, and the motion says nowhere in the record did he claim it was.
- UN NGO Branch · Tr. 308–09“Affiliation” means a granted application: consultative status for an NGO, observer status for an IGO. About 5,500 NGOs have it; asked if most do not, she answered, “That is correct.”
- UN ECOSOC officer · Tr. 210An IGO without observer status can still work with the UN: “Correct.”
- Defense witness · Tr. 784–85UNGSII is “absolutely” affiliated, with no consultative status and no UN funding. “It depends on how you define affiliation.”
- Saint Clair · Tr. 1020Affiliate means “underneath,” like Fox 5 under Fox. WSA was a peer, “IGO to IGO.”
The prosecution opened on “partnership.” “Affiliate” entered through a third person’s words, was restated by the prosecutor, and came back in closing as the defendant’s own claim.
The Justice Department’s press release calls WSA a “sham U.N. affiliate.”
Tr. 926The prosecution’s word is “partnership”: he “knew full well that WSA had no partnership with the United Nations.” Not “affiliate.”
Tr. 29First use at trial. Investor A recalls what a third person, not Saint Clair, told him: the organization “had an affiliation.” Admitted not for its truth.
Tr. 41–42Asked about the relationship: “Just that it was affiliated with United Nations in general.” His one call with Saint Clair, he said, repeated the white paper.
Tr. 51The prosecutor restates it: “Mr. Saint Clair mentioned … that WSA was affiliated with the United Nations.”
Tr. 53The NGO Branch deputy chief: “no formal affiliation.” On cross, “affiliation” means consultative status for an NGO, observer status for an IGO.
Tr. 303, 308“[H]e works with the United Nations, that he’s somehow affiliated with them.” How much did it matter? “A little.”
Tr. 588, 590Is UNGSII affiliated with the UN? “Yes. It depends on how you define affiliation, but it absolutely is.” No consultative status, no UN funding.
Tr. 784–85Saint Clair: “Please define affiliation.” … “Can you define that word so I can answer the question properly?”
Tr. 959, 961No definition is given.
Tr. 959–61“Again, define the word ‘affiliated.’” … “I never said the word ‘affiliate’ as I recall.”
Tr. 1000No definition is given.
Tr. 1000“Fox 5 is an affiliate of the greater Fox network. They are underneath Fox. We are not nor have we ever represented to be underneath the UN. … We have a peer relationship IGO to IGO.”
Tr. 1020“[W]orks for the United Nations,” though Investor B said “works with.” Then: “the government sticks by our words. … WSA was a sham-UN affiliate.”
Tr. 1037, 1085The Government repeats the term in its § 2255 opposition. The court denies relief: challenging the word “would have befuddled the jury.”
ECF 146 at 26 · ECF 206 at 18Scroll sideways to see the whole timeline.
In closing the jury heard that “all of them, all of them believed that Asa Saint Clair was currently affiliated with the United Nations.” (Tr. 1086)
- Investor A · Tr. 41–42, 51, 53First heard it from a third person. Said Saint Clair’s one call repeated the white paper. The prosecutor then restated his answer as Saint Clair’s words.
- Investor B · Tr. 588, 590“[H]e works with the United Nations, that he’s somehow affiliated.” It mattered “a little.” In closing it became “works for.” (Tr. 1037)
- Investor C · Tr. 359–60His UN information came from the internet. “It wasn’t from anything Mr. Saint Clair told you? A. No.”
- Investor D · Tr. 153, 181Never spoke to Saint Clair before investing. “You never heard that from Mr. Saint Clair though; correct? A. Not specifically, no.”
- Investor E · Tr. 746–54“[B]ehind the umbrella,” from a friend and the websites. He never used the word.
The July 23, 2026 denial treats one cross-examination answer as decisive. Here is that answer with the words around it.
- Tr. 961“Q. … if you told an investor that WSA was affiliated with the United Nations, that would be untrue; correct? A. Correct.”
- ECF 206 at 18“[I]t likely would have befuddled the jury for Buza to have challenged his own client’s adoption of the government’s use of the word affiliation.”
- Tr. 959His first answer to the question: “Please define affiliation.”
- Tr. 960“We’ve all always maintained that the World Sports Alliance was formed in a private public partnership with the United Nations —” (cut off)
- Tr. 961, same page“[T]here was no affiliation as per the definition of the word affiliation. … Can you define that word so I can answer the question properly?”
- Tr. 1020 · redirectDefense counsel did challenge the word, with the Fox 5 answer.
- Tr. 784 · earlierAnd before that, through a defense witness: “It depends on how you define affiliation.”
The federal government does define “affiliate.” The SEC’s Rule 405, the definition the motion relies on, says:
“An affiliate of, or person affiliated with, a specified person, is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person specified.”
“The term control … means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.”
17 C.F.R. § 230.405 · United States v. Landesman, 17 F.4th 298, 319 (2d Cir. 2021) · DX 29 at 2
Under that definition the question is control. The United Nations did not direct WSA’s management or policies, and WSA did not direct the UN’s. On the Government’s own definition, WSA was not a UN affiliate, and the motion says nothing in the record shows he ever claimed it was. (Memorandum § XI)
The jury was asked to decide whether WSA’s relationship with the UN was falsely described. The word at the center of that question was never defined for the jurors. The witnesses gave it four different meanings. When the defendant asked for its meaning under oath, no one answered. The court has not supplied a definition since, and in 2026 it held that challenging the word “would have befuddled the jury.” (ECF 206 at 18)
A verdict is only as reliable as the question the jury answered. A conviction that turns on a word no one defined cannot show the jury found what the law requires.
The July 23, 2026 denial uses “affiliate” as its deciding word and never says what it means. Below, four of its sentences are shown as written, then with each meaning substituted in brackets. The bracketed words are substitutions, not the court’s.
As written“Indeed, on cross-examination at trial, Saint Clair abandoned any claim that WSA was affiliated with the United Nations.”
With the UN witnesses’ meaning“Indeed, on cross-examination at trial, Saint Clair abandoned any claim that WSA [had observer status with] the United Nations.”
With the legal definition“Indeed, on cross-examination at trial, Saint Clair abandoned any claim that WSA [was controlled by, or under common control with,] the United Nations.”
As written“the government’s theory of the case, namely that the statements made to investors in words or substance that WSA was affiliated with the UN were not true, which Saint Clair acknowledged at trial.”
With the UN witnesses’ meaning“the government’s theory of the case, namely that the statements made to investors in words or substance that WSA [had observer status with] the UN were not true, which Saint Clair acknowledged at trial.”
With the legal definition“the government’s theory of the case, namely that the statements made to investors in words or substance that WSA [was controlled by, or under common control with,] the UN were not true, which Saint Clair acknowledged at trial.”
As written“given Saint Clair’s concession that WSA had no affiliation with the UN, and the strength of the government’s evidence, Saint Clair was not prejudiced …”
With the UN witnesses’ meaning“given Saint Clair’s concession that WSA [had no observer status with] the UN, and the strength of the government’s evidence, Saint Clair was not prejudiced …”
With the legal definition“given Saint Clair’s concession that WSA [was not controlled by, and not under common control with,] the UN, and the strength of the government’s evidence, Saint Clair was not prejudiced …”
As written“given the testimony of government witnesses — unrebutted in this motion — that Saint Clair induced them to enter transactions through his representation that WSA was affiliated with the UN, coupled with Saint Clair’s own testimony — unrebutted in this motion — that such a statement would be untrue, he cannot claim that he has demonstrated actual innocence …”
With the UN witnesses’ meaning“given the testimony of government witnesses — unrebutted in this motion — that Saint Clair induced them to enter transactions through his representation that WSA [had observer status with] the UN, coupled with Saint Clair’s own testimony — unrebutted in this motion — that such a statement would be untrue, he cannot claim that he has demonstrated actual innocence …”
With the legal definition“given the testimony of government witnesses — unrebutted in this motion — that Saint Clair induced them to enter transactions through his representation that WSA [was controlled by, or under common control with,] the UN, coupled with Saint Clair’s own testimony — unrebutted in this motion — that such a statement would be untrue, he cannot claim that he has demonstrated actual innocence …”
With the UN witnesses’ meaning, the sentences turn on observer status. No one claimed WSA had observer status, and the ECOSOC officer agreed an organization can work with the UN without it. (Tr. 210)
With the legal definition, the sentences turn on control. His answer that such a statement “would be untrue” is then simply accurate: the UN did not control WSA. And the ruling’s last sentence would need testimony that he told investors the UN controlled WSA. No investor gave that testimony. Two of five used the word “affiliated” at all. Three did not, and two of those three said their UN information did not come from him. (Tr. 51, 588, 181, 359–60, 746–54)
The same sentences mean different things depending on the definition, and the ruling does not say which one it applied.
The ruling gives one reason the word was never challenged at trial: doing so “likely would have befuddled the jury.” (ECF 206 at 18) If explaining the word would have confused the jury, the jury decided the case without knowing what the word meant.
Which leaves one question. How does giving a jury the definition of the word its verdict turned on confuse it?