Part 6 · §§ XII–XIII

After trial: the response, the argument, the ruling

“The fraud that secured the conviction is now being used to defend it.” Confronted with the record in 2025, the Government admitted there was no “revenue positive” term, and corrected nothing else.

Memorandum § XII

“The post-conviction perpetuation”

Confronted with the record in 2025, the Government admitted one misstatement and corrected nothing else.

What it admitted, and what it still maintains

ECF 146

What the Government admitted

“Revenue positive”No contract contains the term. (ECF 146 at 21)
The 2007 agreementIt existed, though called “cumulative.” (ECF 146 at 22)
ReimbursementHis authority to be reimbursed is “not in dispute.” (ECF 146 at 25)

What it still maintains, against its own record

BailHe disclosed a plan to move, not a residence. Unsworn; the notes and the seized check are not addressed. (ECF 146 at 17) See the evidence: the bail hearing
The Schatz DeclarationDescribed as showing “no UN-associated work by WSA prior to April 2019.” (ECF 146 at 13–14) See the evidence: the declaration, side by side Who Schatz is
UNGSII“Not part of the UN” (ECF 146 at 23–24), without addressing the joint venture at UN Geneva. See the evidence: UNGSII and UN Geneva
“Affiliate”The same theory, still undefined. (ECF 146 at 26) See the evidence: Affiliate
The coinThe Government has never disputed the September 18 and 23, 2019 blockchain dates it quoted itself (ECF 73 at 10 n.3; DX 35), and has never corrected its “not until 2020” timeline (ECF 73 at 6–7) or the white paper cover dated 2020 (ECF 73-1). (Memorandum § IX.A) See the evidence: the coin timeline
SilentNo mention of WSA’s letter on GX 2706 (PX 11) or WSA’s declaration on his authority (ECF 135 at 46–47). See the evidence: the letter, GX 2706 See the evidence: his authority

The Schatz Declaration: what the Government said it says, and what it says

ECF 146 at 13–14 · ECF 135 at 50–52

The Government, July 2025 · ECF 146 at 13–14

Its description“Roland Schatz Decl. (similar; describing introductions to UN officials but no UN-associated work by WSA prior to April 2019 ‘Safe Ground’ event, significantly after IGObit solicitations had concluded (Tr. 1014-15)).”

The declaration itself, filed February 2025 · ECF 135 at 50–52

2013–2019 · at 50“From 2013-2019 I was Sr. Advisor to then UN Director-General Michael Moller in the Geneva Office.”
July 2017 · ¶ 16A partnership MOU between UNGSII and WSA covering “fundraising for the remodeling of the UN Geneva Palais de Nasions, la villa Bocage.”
August 2017 · ¶ 19He attends a “Sustainable Entrepreneurs” conference “held inside of the UN-Headquarter in New York City.”
August 2017 · ¶ 21Schatz introduces him “to then UN Director-General Michael Moller … in furtherance of the UNGSII-WSA relationship.”
September 2017 · ¶ 22At the UN General Assembly, Schatz introduces him “to additional UN staff.”
October 2017 · ¶ 23A meeting at the UN Geneva campus between Director-General Møller and WSA’s Secretary-General about “World Sports Alliance taking an office at the UN-Geneva Campus.”
January 2018 · ¶ 27At Davos he has “an opportunity to deepen WSA’s relationship with UN Director-General Moller.”

The declaration dates WSA’s UN engagement to August 2017, three months before the first investment. The Government puts the investments “[b]etween approximately November 2017 and June 2018” (ECF 146 at 6). Its description of the declaration moves the UN work to April 2019, after them.

Roland Schatz’s United Nations grounds pass, reading United Nations, Director-General, Roland Schatz, 31 Dec 2015.

The affidavit the Government adopted

ECF 146-1 · ECF 150 at 16–17 · Tr. 1082

What trial counsel’s affidavit says

On the issuesHe “never raised these issues.”
On the investorsThey believed he was “backing up their investment personally.”
On the UN witnessesThey were his “friends.”
On the UNHe “admitted” WSA had “no relationship with the UN.”

What the record shows

The issuesHe raised them on direct appeal. (ECF 150 at 16)
The investorsNo witness said so, and the notes disclaim personal liability. (GX 800 § 8)
The witnessesTheir documented roles within the UN and WSA. (ECF 150 at 17)
Counsel at trialThe statements were “…all true and it’s in evidence.” (Tr. 1082)

Memorandum § XIII · the argument

“The Government manufactured a false factual universe”

The motion’s argument: the Government built three pillars, a “sham UN-affiliate,” an embezzler who took money he was not owed, and a coin that did not exist, and “the documentary record … destroys every pillar.”

The document	What it proves, per the motion	The Government’s conduct, per the motion
UN‑NGO‑IRENE MOU · ECF 135 at 116–18	WSA was a formal UN partner; never terminated.	Concealed; withheld from the jury.
Rabat Declaration · DX 2	Official UN ECOSOC document on sovereign accession and the UN–WSA partnership.	Dismissed as an “NGO statement.”
WSA Charter · GX 306	WSA “concluded a partnership with … UNDESA … through UN‑NGO‑IRENE.”	Introduced, then argued against.
UNGSII Joint Venture · ECF 150-1 at 21–24	Formalized joint projects at UN Geneva.	Held before indictment; never disclosed.
UNMAS signage · PX 34	WSA was a “Collaborative Partner.”	Shown to the jury with the words removed (DX 19).

“The Pattern: The Government systematically suppressed evidence (the MOU, the UNGSII JV), physically altered evidence (GX 2706), introduced contradictory evidence without context (GX 306), and made demonstrably false arguments (the “revenue positive” term, the “post-search” timeline).”
Memorandum § XIII.D
“The Pre-Indictment Knowledge: … Petitioner voluntarily disclosed his UN contacts (Møller and Schatz) on September 26, 2019. … The Government never contacted them.”
Memorandum § XIII.D
“The Post-Conviction Perpetuation: The Government does not correct its errors. It perpetuates them.”
Memorandum § XIII.D

July 23, 2026 · ECF 206

What the court decided

“In that motion, Saint Clair largely recycles arguments presented in conjunction with his claims of government misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. For the same reasons these arguments failed …, they fail under Saint Clair’s new chosen label.”
ECF 206 at 26

The motion had said it was “not a renewal” of his earlier request to vacate on the papers, denied on October 15, 2025 (ECF 160), because it asked “a different question, under a different authority, on a different record,” supported by materials filed after that denial: PX 700, PX 810, PX 820, PX 830, PX 850–851, PX 878–879, PX 888, and Exhibits A–E.

What the appeal says the ruling missed

From Saint Clair’s application for a certificate of appealability, 2d Cir. No. 26-2228, Dkt. 10 (filed September 4, 2026). Each point is the application’s claim, in its own terms.

Issue	What the ruling did (ECF 206)	What the appeal says it missed	COA at
Fraud upon the court	Dismissed the fraud motion in two sentences as “recycled” (ECF 206 at 26).	Cited Hazel-Atlas once but applied none of its elements. Did not address the pattern the motion laid out (GX 2706, the bail statement, three blockchain timelines, the summation statements) or weigh the prosecutor’s handwritten notes (ECF 150-1 at 37–40). The Government had not opposed the motion.	5–6
The bail statement	Found “no discernable prejudice” (ECF 206 at 15).	Never applied Napue, Berger or Hazel-Atlas. Did not account for the handwritten notes (“plans to move to AZ next week,” “plans to live in Scottsdale, AZ,” the $50K check), the strict bail terms, or the effect downstream at trial.	6–8
GX 2706 and the “fax”	“The fax may have cut off some of the document” (ECF 206 at 17).	No affidavit, chain of custody, original or hearing supports it. Did not weigh WSA’s written confirmation that the page “appears to be altered” (PX 11; ECF 150-1 at 41–42).	8–9
Eight summation statements	Treated “the closest he got to the UN” as a “rhetorical flourish.”	Did not consider the combined effect of eight statements set against the record (Tr. 1086, 1087, 1053, 1092, 948, 1048, 1094).	9–11
Three blockchain timelines	Not separately resolved.	Did not reconcile the three pretrial positions (ECF 73 at 4, 6–7, 11) with the blockchain records (DX 35, PX 851) and the September 26, 2019 white paper (PX 199; ECF 191).	11–12
“Affiliate” and the MOU	The legal definition would have “befuddled” the jury (ECF 206 at 18).	The word was never defined (Tr. 959, 1000); the definition requires control (17 C.F.R. § 230.405; Landesman). Did not consider the UN-NGO-IRENE MOU naming WSA a “Partner” (ECF 135 at 116–18, 126–27) or GX 306’s partnership clause.	12–15
Page one and page four	Did not address the concessions (ECF 206 at 17–18).	The jury saw § 1(a) of the contract but not § 2(b) on page four, the treasurer letter (ASC 102) or the 2019 agreement (PX 1). Passed over two Government concessions: no “revenue positive” term (ECF 146 at 21) and expenses “not … in dispute” (ECF 146 at 25).	15–17
The FINRA stipulation	“Not improper”; no objection was “a reasonable strategic choice” (ECF 206 at 16).	Did not address the written objection (PX 20; ECF 135 at 166–67), the missing “without admitting or denying” clause, or the “barred” and “unpaid fines” statements against the FINRA list (PX 23).	17–19
Trial counsel: Strickland vs. Cronic	Judged counsel only under Strickland and credited counsel’s affidavit (ECF 146-1) without a hearing.	Never reached the Cronic claim, which presumes harm when counsel “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” The record behind it is on the The Attorney page.	19–20
Cumulative effect	Dismissed cumulative prejudice in conclusory terms.	Did not weigh the errors together (Kyles; Al-Moayad).	21

Where things stand. The motion was filed on July 15, 2026. The court denied it on July 23, 2026 (ECF 206). Saint Clair filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit on August 6, 2026, and his application for a certificate of appealability on September 4, 2026 (No. 26-2228). The appeal is pending.

NextSources →The filings and exhibits