Part 3 · § VIII

The Government’s own witnesses

The motion says the Government’s witnesses refute its arguments: one saw him inside the UN, one admitted it on cross, and the case agent described a man who came in to explain.

Memorandum § VIII.A–B

“The Government’s witnesses refute its arguments”

“… during 2017 to 2019 when Asa Saint Clair was at the WSA, the closest he got to the UN was having an apartment office across the street.” (Rebuttal summation, Tr. 1087)

A. A Government witness, inside UN headquarters

Tr. 574–75 · Tr. 1040, 1087

What the jury was told in closing

Tr. 1087“[T]he closest he got to the UN was having an apartment office across the street.”
Tr. 1040He “had no affiliation of any type with the United Nations in 2017 or 2018.”

What the Government’s own witness testified

2018 · a Government witness, on directShe went with him into UN headquarters to view event space for a WSA fundraiser, saw him interact with UN staff, and described it as “nothing abnormal.” (Tr. 574–75)

“Both cannot be true.” The motion says the Government “affirmatively substituted a false narrative for sworn testimony it knew contradicted its theory.”

B. The Government’s cooperating insider

Tr. 442 · Tr. 511–12 · Tr. 444–71

On direct

Tr. 442He denied knowledge of Saint Clair’s UN involvement.

On cross, and on the substance

2018 · the Government’s cooperating insider, on crossHe had been inside UN headquarters with Saint Clair at a UN conference: “You understood that there was a relationship between the U.N. and World Sports Alliance; right? A. Yes, that was my understanding.” (Tr. 511–12)
Tr. 444–47, 465–66, 471Genuine work, budgets built together, sporadic compensation, and authorized business expenses.

The motion says the Government knew the direct testimony was materially incomplete and “let the false impression stand.” (Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959))

Memorandum § VIII.C

The Government’s case agent

The only law-enforcement officer the Government called.

“He tried to hide it from law enforcement”

Tr. 1053 · Tr. 648–49, 656, 669–70

What the jury was told in closing

Tr. 1053“Last, he tried to hide it from law enforcement.”

What the case agent swore

VoluntaryHe came in voluntarily and was not under arrest. (Tr. 648–49)
No counselHe had no lawyer and answered questions. (Tr. 669–70)
His phoneHe surrendered it for a forensic search. (Tr. 648–49, 669–70)
Passwords and UN contactsHe gave both. (ECF 150-1 at 32, 37)
The most adverse wordsHe was “a little arrogant. … He came in as if he was going to explain to us what was going on.” (Tr. 656)
Never saidAt no point did the agent testify that he made a false statement.

“The man who ‘hid’ is the man who handed law enforcement his phone, passwords, UN contacts, and location.”

The investors

What the investors signed and read, before they said anything at trial

The investors’ trial testimony has to be weighed against the documents every one of them signed and received before investing. Those documents were written years before trial, and they have not changed.

The documents came first

GX 800 · GX 2800-1 · Tr. 29–30, 1086

What the jury was told the investors were promised

Opening · Tr. 30“This promise was written in every single investor agreement that the defendant signed, investment guaranteed, no strings attached.”
Opening · Tr. 29The defendant “knew full well that WSA had no partnership with the United Nations, but he told his victims that it did anyway.”
Closing · Tr. 1086“[A]ll of them, all of them believed that Asa Saint Clair was currently affiliated with the United Nations.”

What every investor signed · the notes (GX 800 and the series)

The coin · GX 800 § 2(a)The organization’s “planned, but not yet existing, digital coin offering.” The investor acknowledges “the inherent risk that the ICO may be delayed or cancelled for any reason.”
No personal promise · GX 800 § 8“In no event shall any … Officer … of the Organization be liable for any amounts due.”
“Guarantee” · GX 800 § 2(a)The word appears once, to say the organization “does not guarantee” there will be buyers for the coin.
First pageHolders “are advised to seek legal and/or financial counsel.”

The notes are a series with “substantially similar terms.” Every investor signed one. Shown below: GX 800, one of the notes, with the holder’s name blacked out.

GX 800 page 1, highlighted: potential holders are advised to seek legal and/or financial counsel; this note is one of a series of convertible notes containing substantially similar terms. Holder name blacked out. — Tap an image to see it full size.

GX 800 page 2, Section 2(a) highlighted: the Organization’s planned, but not yet existing, digital coin offering; no guarantee of counterparties; the ICO may be delayed or cancelled. — Tap an image to see it full size.

The white paper they received

GX 2800-1

What the jury was told

Opening · Tr. 29“[N]o partnership with the United Nations.”

What the Government’s own exhibit told the investors

The UN · GX 2800-1 at 50WSA “was formed as a result of a public-private partnership within the framework of the United Nations (UN-DESA).”
WSA’s partners · GX 2800-1 at 50Listed by name: “the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) NGO Section” and “the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations Informal Regional Network (UN‑NGO‑IRENE).”
The risk · GX 2800-1 at 1“[L]osing all principal amounts being exchanged for iGObit tokens.” The offering “could lead to a partial or total loss of principal.”
The terms · GX 2800-1 at 1“The Issuer reserves the right to modify and/or change any of the terms.”
The money · GX 2800-1 at 32“Use of funds includes ICO marketing campaign, Pre-ICO deliverables and general WSA expenses.”

The white paper is dated February 24, 2018, and carries the Government’s own exhibit sticker.

Cover of the iGObit Technical Overview, February 24th, 2018, with the Government Exhibit 2800-1 sticker. — Tap an image to see it full size.

White paper notice page, highlighted: risk of losing all principal; partial or total loss of principal; the Issuer reserves the right to modify the terms. — Tap an image to see it full size.

Then the Government contacted them

Tr. 666 · Tr. 41–42

Before trial

The case agent · Tr. 666The investigation “reached out to people” across every investment Saint Clair ever “marketed or pitched.”

What that meant at trial

The word “affiliated”It was the Government’s word. One investor said he heard it from someone else first (Tr. 41–42). Two said the UN information did not come from Saint Clair at all (Tr. 181, 359–60).
The UN officialsThe same investigation never contacted the UN officials in the prosecutor’s own notes. (ECF 199; ECF 150-1 at 32)

What they said on the stand

Even on the stand, their testimony does not carry the Government’s theory. Tap a row to read their words. (Names are not used here; they are in the transcript at the pages shown.)

Investor	Talked to Saint Clair before investing?	Where their UN info came from	Used the word “affiliated”?	Page
Investor A	Yes, one call	Said the call just repeated the white paper. Heard the word from someone else first (Tr. 41–42)	Yes, when asked	Tr. 51, 53
“Just that it was affiliated with United Nations in general.” (Tr. 51) He said his one call with Saint Clair just repeated what was in the white paper.
Investor B	Yes, one call	Saint Clair, but unsure. She invested mainly for the payback terms (Tr. 591, 593)	“somehow affiliated”	Tr. 588, 590
“he works with the United Nations, that he’s somehow affiliated with them.” (Tr. 588) · How much did it matter? “A little.” (Tr. 590) She said “works with.” In the closing speech, the prosecutor told the jury she said “works for” (Tr. 1037).
Investor C	Not where he got it	The internet, the website, and the white paper	No	Tr. 359–60
“Q. So the information that you got about the relationship between the UN specifically and the World Sports Alliance, that came from the internet; right? A. Correct. Q. It wasn’t from anything Mr. Saint Clair told you? A. No.” Still counted by the prosecutor as one of “all five victims” (Tr. 1086).
Investor D	No	The Government’s own cooperating witness, not Saint Clair	No	Tr. 153, 181
“Q. did you have any direct conversations with Mr. Saint Clair prior to investing? A. No.” (Tr. 153) · “Q. You never heard that from Mr. Saint Clair though; correct? A. Not specifically, no.” (Tr. 181) He never talked to Saint Clair before investing.
Investor E	Not where he got it	A friend, and the websites	Never used the word	Tr. 746–54
“behind the umbrella” (Tr. 752) · quoting the website (Tr. 754) The word “affiliate” never comes up in his testimony.

What the jury was told at the very end

Tr. 1086

What the jury heard

Closing · Tr. 1086“[Investor C], [Investor D], [Investor E] — all of them, all of them believed that Asa Saint Clair was currently affiliated with the United Nations … you have to believe that all five victims got it wrong.”

What those same investors said

Investors C and DBoth swore the information did not come from him. (Tr. 181, 359–60)
Investor EHe got it from a friend and the websites. (Tr. 746–54)

What people believed, from anywhere, was argued as proof of what he said. What they signed and read is in the documents above.

NextThe coin →§ IX · The blockchain, and “not paid”