Part 1 · §§ IV–V

What the Government knew, and the bail hearing

Before there was an indictment, Saint Clair voluntarily gave the Government his phone, his password, the names of his UN contacts and his plans to move to Arizona. All of it is in the prosecutor’s own notes. Three weeks later, at the very first proceeding in the case, the court was told the opposite. The motion says this is the pattern of the entire case: the Government arguing against its own evidence.

Memorandum § IV

“The Government’s pre-indictment knowledge”

The prosecutor’s notes of the September 26, 2019 call: talked to UN, told me to cooperate; number 2 man Michael Muller, called last Feb through advisor Mr. Schatz.

The prosecutor’s notes: Shd talk to Mr Schatz. Runs UN GSII, advisor to number 2.

The prosecutor’s notes, highlighted: plans to move to AZ next week; plans to live in Scottsdale, AZ.

Highlighting was added when the notes were filed.

September 26, 2019 · by phone from RomeAfter the search of WSA’s New York office, “on an unrelated matter predating his employment,” he voluntarily sought out the Government and spoke with the prosecutor. He told her he was at the Vatican. (Tr. 669; Saint Clair Decl. ¶ 2)
September 30, 2019 · in person, at her requestHe “voluntarily came into the U.S. Attorney’s Office” (Tr. 648), was “absolutely” free to leave (Tr. 669), came without counsel and answered questions (Tr. 670), and surrendered his phone for forensic examination (Tr. 649, 670). (Saint Clair Decl. ¶¶ 2–3)
The passwordHe gave the prosecutor the password to his cloud-synced drive: UN instruments, member-state accession documents, contracts and blockchain records. (ECF 197; ECF 150-1 at 37)
The notes, page oneTwo UN contacts, Michael Møller and Roland Schatz, and that UN officials told him to cooperate. (ECF 150-1 at 32)
The notes, later pagesHis cryptocurrency work, his Madagascar operations, and his relocation: “plans to move to AZ next week” and “plans to live in Scottsdale, AZ,” alongside a “$50K check” notation. (ECF 150-1 at 37, 39)
The leads“The Government contacted neither Møller nor Schatz, sought no records, and pursued neither lead,” though, by the case agent’s account, the investigation “reached out to people” across every investment he ever “marketed or pitched.” (Tr. 666)
Sworn sinceSchatz has sworn no U.S. investigator ever contacted him or Møller. (PX 700; ECF 199; ECF 135 at 49)

Memorandum § V

“The Government’s false bail hearing statement(s)”

This was the first proceeding in the case, before the first judge to hear it. The motion alleges that what the Government told the court there was contradicted by its own evidence: the prosecutor’s notes and the check its agents had seized. In the motion’s words, “Once that misrepresentation was made, the pattern did not vary.”

The flight-risk argument

ECF 34 at 28 · ECF 10 at 8 · ECF 150-1 at 29–30, 37–39

What the court was told

Oct. 23, 2019 · to the magistrate judge“He indicated that he lived in New York, that he intended to continue to live in New York.” (ECF 34 at 28)
Same hearing“At no point did he disclose this residence in Scottsdale, Arizona.” (ECF 34 at 28)
Nov. 13, 2019 · to the district judgeThe same flight-risk narrative, continued. (ECF 10 at 8)

What the Government’s own record shows

The prosecutor’s notes, weeks earlier“plans to move to AZ next week”; “plans to live in Scottsdale, AZ”; a “$50K check.” (ECF 150-1 at 37–39)
The seized checkThe $50,000 relocation check, dated September 17 and seized September 26, bore the Scottsdale address. (PX 08; ECF 150-1 at 29–30)
The search-warrant affidavitWSA “was required to vacate” its New York premises by September 30, 2019. (ECF 30-1; ECF 30-3 at 2)

In 2025: recast, not corrected

ECF 146 at 17 · ECF 146-1

What the Government’s response said

ECF 146 at 17He “had disclosed … that he intended to move to Arizona” but “had not disclosed that he had a residence there as of July 2019.”

What the motion answers

UnswornNo declaration, affidavit or testimony from any person supports that reading: not from the prosecutor, and not from the Government’s only affiant, whose affidavit does not address it. (ECF 146-1)
The law“[A]n attorney’s unsworn statements in a brief are not evidence.” (Kulhawik v. Holder, 571 F.3d 296, 298 (2d Cir. 2009))
The motion’s conclusionThe bail statement “stands unrebutted as a matter of law — and it is how this case began: the first proceeding, the first judicial officer, … before any trial strategy existed.”

The exhibit

The $50,000 relocation check dated 9/17/2019, payable to Asa Saint Clair at a Scottsdale, AZ address, referencing 845 United Nations Plaza. Street address, account numbers and signature blacked out.

Addresses, phone numbers, emails, account numbers and signatures are blacked out. Tap a page to read it full size.

September 24, 2025 · ECF 159

The Appearance of Justice

In September 2025, while his § 2255 motion was pending, Saint Clair told the court that the former prosecutor whose conduct the motion challenges had become a partner at the law firm where the presiding judge was a partner before he took the bench. The judge answered in a footnote to the ruling. Saint Clair did not raise the point in his appeal.

One filing, one footnote

ECF 159 at 1–2 · ECF 206 at 22 & n.6

What Saint Clair’s notice said

The fact · ECF 159 at 1The former prosecutor, “whose conduct is at issue in Ground Four,” had joined the firm as a partner in its white-collar defense practice. The firm’s announcement was attached as Exhibit A.
What he did not claim · ECF 159 at 2Because the judge left the firm more than twenty years ago, “Petitioner does not allege a statutory conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455.”
What he did say · ECF 159 at 2The development “underscores the appearance of partiality.” He cited Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954): “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”
What he asked for · ECF 159 at 2That the court take judicial notice of the fact (Fed. R. Evid. 201) and consider it with the motion.

What the court answered

How the ruling describes it · ECF 206 at 22One of the “unauthorized submissions”: a notice “stating that a prosecutor in the case against him had joined the firm in which the undersigned had been a partner until October 31, 2003.”
The footnote · ECF 206 at 22 n.6“While the undersigned cannot discount the possibility that he has exchanged pleasantries with the individual at a public event, he had no conversations regarding her decision to join the law firm or the substance of this case. The undersigned left the particular law firm over twenty-two years ago.”
On appealThe application for a certificate of appealability (2d Cir. No. 26-2228, Dkt. 10) does not raise this point. It is set out here because it is part of the record.

NextThe UN →§§ VI–VII · The documents, and the “ten-year void”