The defense
The Government defended the conviction with the sworn word of Saint Clair’s own trial lawyer. Here is that affidavit, set against the trial record and the lawyer’s own words to the jury.
One sworn document
When the motion was filed, the Government answered it with a single piece of sworn evidence: the affidavit of Saint Clair’s own trial lawyer. The ruling then relied on that affidavit, quoting it again and again (ECF 206 at 5–6, 12–16).
The Government attached the affidavit as Exhibit A to its opposition (ECF 146 at 9). It runs 115 paragraphs. This page sets what it says beside what the same lawyer told the jury, what he admits he never did, and what the record shows.
The affidavit itself is not reproduced here. Its words are quoted where the Government’s opposition, the motion papers or the ruling quote them, and each quote is cited to the page where it appears.
What he told the jury, and what he swore later
In March 2022 trial counsel told the jury that everything Saint Clair said about the UN was true. In 2025 he swore the opposite.
The UN relationship
Tr. 1058; ECF 146-1 ¶ 66“The evidence in this case overwhelmingly shows that the World Sports Alliance is a real intergovernmental organization … and that every single thing that Asa Saint Clair and the documents that were generated by the World Sports Alliance that was sent to investors was true.” (Tr. 1058)
The witnesses “were unaware of Mr. Saint Clair’s admission that the WSA had no relationship with the UN.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 66, as quoted in ECF 150 at 11)
“No misstatements”
Tr. 1069–70“I found no misstatements — and neither will you if you look through the evidence — on the UN issue.” (Tr. 1069) “What’s in evidence is Asa Saint Clair didn’t lie about the UN relationship.” (Tr. 1070)
What Saint Clair said at trial: the relationship had gone “cold” by 2016, and WSA was not an “affiliate” in the sense of being under the UN (Tr. 650, 959, as cited in ECF 146 at 8). “They’re an IGO; we’re an IGO. We have a peer relationship IGO to IGO.” (Tr. 1020) Neither is an admission of “no relationship,” and with that testimony in, counsel told the jury he found no misstatement.
The coin
Tr. 1079–80; ECF 146-1 ¶ 26“They rebranded it, and they called it another cryptocurrency called GUMMEE … And it launched. It launched.” (Tr. 1079) “The thing launched.” (Tr. 1080)
Saint Clair “did not acknowledge then and does not acknowledge now that the actual issue at trial … was because he took money from numerous people who thought they were investing in a cryptocurrency that did not exist.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 26, as quoted in ECF 206 at 5)
“It’s all true”
Tr. 1082; ECF 146-1 ¶¶ 42–43, 66“He was in Davos. He actually did meet with the Pope. … It’s all true, and it’s in evidence.” (Tr. 1082)
One paragraph takes credit: “I was able to establish that the WSA was its own intergovernmental organization … created with the help of the UN.” (¶¶ 42–43) A later paragraph calls the UN relationship something Saint Clair admitted did not exist. (¶ 66) (Both as quoted in ECF 150 at 11)
What he admits he never did
Some of this comes from the affidavit, some from trial counsel’s own closing argument.
| What was not done | In his words | Source |
|---|---|---|
| An investigator or an expert | “Buza’s decision not to hire a private investigator or expert was reasonable in light of the his determination that they would not provide substantial assistance with the key issues at trial.” | The Government, describing the affidavit · ECF 146 at 12–13, citing ECF 146-1 ¶¶ 76, 108–115 |
| His reason | “None of Mr. Saint Clair’s actions were in dispute.” | ECF 146-1 ¶ 114, as quoted in ECF 150 at 14 |
| The Government’s cooperating insider | “I had never met [him]. I had never spoken to him. I had never sent anybody from my office to speak to him. I never had a conversation with him ever in my life.” | Trial counsel, in closing · Tr. 1072 |
| The Government’s UN witness | “My cross-examination of him probably lasted five minutes.” | Trial counsel, in closing · Tr. 1061 |
| The investors | “My cross-examinations of these five witnesses and [the two earlier investors] were short, and they were deliberately short.” | Trial counsel, in closing · Tr. 1078 |
The coin’s dates
Tr. 1055, 1057–83; DX 35; PX 851“The GUMMEE transfers, all that activity, that starts the day after the World Sports Alliance’s offices were searched.” (Tr. 1055)
First test transaction: September 18, 2019 (PX 851). First live transfer: September 23, 2019 (DX 35). The search: September 26, 2019. The defense itself had put DX 35 in evidence (ECF 146 at 12).
The certificate-of-appealability application adds that counsel issued no subpoenas and filed no CJA application for investigative funds, “despite telling Petitioner he in fact had done so.” (2d Cir. No. 26-2228, Dkt. 10 at 20, citing ECF 135 at 168–69 and ECF 146-1 ¶¶ 108–115) The motion says Saint Clair asked for investigative support in writing on February 24, 2022, and nothing followed. (ECF 150 at 14)
The case turned on whether WSA, an intergovernmental organization, had a real UN relationship, and whether a digital coin existed. No expert on either subject was consulted.
The affidavit is also silent on the bail statement. Saint Clair had sent counsel a written instruction to challenge it, with the prosecutor’s own notes (ECF 135 at 158–65). The affidavit does not mention it. (ECF 150 at 47)
Evidence in hand, never put before the jury
Ground Six of the § 2255 motion lists documents trial counsel had and did not introduce. Each one goes to whether Saint Clair’s UN statements were true.
| The document | What it shows | What happened | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| The UN-NGO-IRENE agreement, 2007 | Signed by the Chief of the NGO Section, UN DESA. Names WSA a “Partner,” in force until either side ends it. | Never offered. The Government later called it “cumulative” of testimony about it (ECF 146 at 22). | Ground Six · ECF 135 at 30; ECF 135 at 116–18, 126–27 |
| The WSA–UNGSII joint venture, July 24, 2017 | Joint projects at the UN Geneva campus with the institute founded by Director-General Møller and run by his Senior Advisor. | Never offered. The Government later called it “cumulative and unnecessary” (ECF 146 at 23). | Ground Six · ECF 135 at 32–34; ECF 150-1 at 21–24 |
| The UNMAS award, 2019 | A United Nations Mine Action Service award to Saint Clair personally, for the Safe Ground campaign. | His testimony about it was cut off by an objection. Counsel had a photo of the award, seized in the search and produced in discovery, and never offered it. | Ground Six · ECF 135 at 34–35; Tr. 910; ECF 136 at 6 |
| The original WSA letter (GX 2706) | The complete letter, with UN DESA, UN-NGO-IRENE and UNGSII listed as partners, and the member-state roster. | Saint Clair gave counsel the original. Counsel used the Government’s stripped version on direct. (Tr. 924) | ECF 150 at 63; ECF 136 at 2–5 |
| Page four of the contract (DX 29 § 2(b)) | Reimbursement of “all reasonable and necessary business expenses,” equipment and moving costs. | The Government showed the jury page one. The defense never turned to page four. | ECF 150 at 67–68; ECF 135 at 89 |
Leaving these documents out also let the Government describe them later on its own terms, with no exhibit in the record to check against. Once they were out of the trial, it was free to re-characterize them. UN-NGO-IRENE “has been defunct for over a decade” (ECF 146 at 5). UNGSII “was not part of the UN” (ECF 146 at 23). The partners missing from the WSA letter “did not come through clearly during the fax process” (ECF 146 at 20). None of those statements came with evidence, and the documents that answer them were never in front of the jury. The motion: “ ‘Defunct’ was not evidence; it was a rhetorical device.” (Memorandum § VI.A)
The Government’s answer to each was that the jury had heard enough about it already: “cumulative.” (ECF 146 at 22–24) The ruling accepted that the MOU, the Rabat Declaration and the WSA Charter were “cumulative or immaterial,” as the appeal describes it. (Dkt. 10 at 5) No one has explained how a signed UN partnership agreement the jury never saw could be cumulative of a prosecutor telling the jury there was “no partnership.” (Tr. 29)
UN documents, offered as “business records”
The defense’s strongest evidence was a set of official UN documents. Trial counsel swore he treated them as a company’s paperwork.
The Rabat Declaration (DX 2)
ECF 146-1 ¶ 24; Tr. 211–13, 217“Because I was able to download these documents directly from the UN, I knew that I could introduce them as business records.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 24, as quoted in ECF 150 at 22, 30)
An official United Nations document, symbol E/2007/NGO/1, published in the UN’s Official Document System. The Government’s own UN witness confirmed that system holds “every official document” the UN publishes. (Tr. 211–13) The Government’s exhibit GX 306 names it WSA’s “constitutive Act.” (GX 306 § 1(A))
DX 2 at 2 · E/2007/NGO/1Three sworn statements the record contradicts
The motion identifies three statements in the affidavit as false. Each is set beside the record it conflicts with.
1. “Did not raise any issues”
ECF 146-1 ¶¶ 15–17“He even hired new counsel just before his sentencing and this new counsel also did not raise any issues regarding my representation of him.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 16, as quoted in ECF 150 at 15) Neither Saint Clair nor his later lawyers, the affidavit says, ever raised ineffective assistance before the § 2255 motion.
Saint Clair raised counsel’s performance on direct appeal, where the Second Circuit was asked to consider ineffective assistance. (ECF 150 at 15, citing 2d Cir. No. 22-2100, Doc. 76 at 2)
2. “Backing up their investment personally”
ECF 146-1 ¶ 35; GX 800 § 8“Moreover, they testified that they believed because Mr. Saint Clair was backing up their investment personally, that their money would be safe with him.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 35, as quoted in ECF 150 at 15)
“In no event shall any Noteholder, Organization Sponsor, Officer, Board Member or Director of the Organization be liable for any amounts due or payable pursuant to this Note.” (GX 800 § 8) No investor testified to a personal guarantee, and the Government never argued one. (ECF 150 at 15–16)
GX 800 at 3 · § 83. “His friends”
ECF 146-1 ¶ 59“In essence, he wanted me to call his friends to testify on his behalf that the UN witnesses were lying about the WSA’s relationship with the UN.” (ECF 146-1 ¶ 59, as quoted in ECF 150 at 16)
A Senior Advisor to the Director-General of the UN Office at Geneva; a former chairman of NASDAQ; WSA’s appointed Goodwill Ambassador; WSA’s ambassador to Madagascar; the director of a foundation working with the UN on the Kinshasa Process. (ECF 150 at 16, 33–38; ECF 135 at 45–81)
“Merely a friend”?
The affidavit calls the defense’s institutional witnesses “his friends.” The Government repeated it. The first name on that list carried a United Nations pass.
Roland Schatz was Senior Advisor to Michael Møller, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, and ran UNGSII, the institute Møller founded. (ECF 135 at 52 ¶ 33; ECF 135 at 110)
His sworn declaration, filed with the § 2255 motion, says he introduced Saint Clair to Møller in August 2017, and that WSA “was a real intergovernmental organization” that “did in fact work with the United Nations.” (ECF 135 at 49–60; Memorandum § VII.A, citing ECF 135 at 51) He filed a copy of his UN pass with it. (ECF 135 at 173)
Trial counsel did not call him. The affidavit says Schatz “was completely unaware of the actual fraud that was alleged.” (ECF 146-1, as quoted in ECF 150 at 33)
Roland Schatz’s UN pass: “Director-General” · ECF 135 at 173The same lawyer, about a different “friend”
ECF 146 at 12; Tr. 1064Trial counsel’s “determination not to call Saint Clair’s friends, none of whom worked for WSA or had any personal knowledge of its operations — including its relationship with the UN …” was “a strategic decision.” (ECF 146 at 12, citing ECF 146-1 ¶¶ 59–67)
“Al Berkeley, who came here beyond reproach as an individual, American hero, president of NASDAQ, advisor to three presidents, explained to you exactly how it is and explained to you that Asa Saint Clair’s World Sports Alliance was trying to do things with them.” (Tr. 1064)
Strickland and Cronic
There are two ways to judge a lawyer’s failures. The appeal says the court used only one.
Strickland asks two questions: did the lawyer fall below a reasonable standard, and would the verdict probably have been different without the mistakes? The defendant has to prove both. (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984))
Cronic covers a different situation: a lawyer who “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Then harm is presumed, and the defendant does not have to prove the verdict would have changed. (United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984))
The ruling judged trial counsel only under Strickland, and credited his affidavit without a hearing. (ECF 206) The application for a certificate of appealability asks the Second Circuit whether the failures above, taken together, are the kind Cronic describes. (Dkt. 10 at 19–20)
“Reasonable jurists could debate … whether counsel’s complete failure to function as an advocate at critical stages … constituted a constructive denial of counsel under Cronic, requiring reversal without a showing of prejudice.”
Dkt. 10 at 20“… and whether counsel’s submission of an affidavit that contradicted his trial defense, adopted wholesale by the Government, constitutes a sham affidavit supporting fraud upon the court.”
Dkt. 10 at 20