Keith Raniere’s Amazing Prison Email to Suneel Accusing Prosecutors of Corruption

I suppose Keith Alan Raniere should know by now that they are reading his emails.  Yet that did not stop him from writing an unbelievable email to his follower Suneel Chakravorty, in order to have Suneel confront the prosecutors in his case – and demand that they answer a series of questions in the form of an affidavit, under penalty of perjury.

Of course, there is no legal requirement for the prosecution to submit to the demands of Raniere or his followers – or to sign his affidavit.

Here is the entire, astonishing email written from prison by Raniere to Suneel. [My comments in bold and black]

FROM: 57005177 [Raniere’s federal prisoner number] RANIERE, KEITH ALAN
TO: “Suneel Chakravorty” >
SUBJECT: Affidavit points
DATE: 06/09/2020 03:03 PM

[In his email, Raniere actually wrote the affidavit he wanted Suneel to bring to prosecutors – which Suneel did yesterday.]

We the Prosecutors of United States vs. Raniere et al, specifically [Former US Attorney] Richard Donoghue, [Assistant US Attorneys] Mark Lesko, Tanya Hajjar, Moira Kim Penza, in upholding our vow of office, and sacred duty to the people of the United States, do hereby affirm and personally initial all that are true with respect to this case (if any of these are denied, please initial, write, “denied” next to your initials and, optionally, attach an explanation):

1. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make, or allow to be made, any false statements to the court.
RD_______ ML_______ TH_______ MKP_______

2. We the Prosecutors have never tampered with evidence. All evidence presented had a well documented chain of
custody with no gaps. All evidence in our custody was secure and remained untouched until forensic analysis.

[Raniere has accused the prosecutors of tampering with some of the evidence.]

3. We the Prosecutors did not allow any of our witnesses to commit perjury about events and/or evidence known to,
or possessed by, us.

[Raniere has accused the prosecutors of suborning perjury.]

4. We the Prosecutors handled all potential witnesses properly. No witness was ever shown any discovery, or in any
way challenged to augment or change his or her opinions or beliefs by us.

[Raniere has accused the prosecutors of intimidating witnesses.]

5. We the Prosecutors never threatened any potential witness with indictment in an attempt to dissuade him or her
from participating in, or supporting, the defense.

[Raniere said the prosecutors threatened several of his supporters that if they testified for him, they would be indicted.]

6. We the Prosecutors properly investigated, and had no reason to suspect, collusion amongst our witness or any
hidden financial motives. We the Prosecutors did not block, or in any way object to, an investigation into such things by the defense.

[Raniere made a motion for a new trial based on claims that witnesses Daniella and Nicole perjured themselves when they denied, under cross-examination, that they were going to be part of the Neil Glazer-led Nxivm civil lawsuit. They wound up being part of the lawsuit. Judge Nicholas Garaufis denied the motion, ruling that Raniere had not proven perjury and that they may not have planned at the time of testifying to be part of the then unfiled lawsuit and later changed their minds.]

7. We the Prosecutors have stated in open court we have victims who feared for their lives. We knew this was a valid
fear because the claims were properly investigated. It was discovered, in each case, there were legitimate threats to the life of the witness.

[Raniere has scoffed at prosecutors’ claims that several witnesses felt that Raniere was a literal threat to their safety. However, his history shows he is a danger. He tried to lure his female enemies to Mexico, where he intended to have them falsely imprisoned – and several women that were close to him have died under mysterious circumstances. The fear of Nxivm defectors was real.]

8. We the Prosecutors did not know of, and had no reason to suspect, a potential civil law suite [sic] through Neil Glazer
involving trial witnesses other than Mark Vicente.

[He is referring to Daniella and Nicole and possibly Sylvie and Jay.]

9. We the Prosecutors have stated, and allowed to be stated, by sworn affidavit, to the court and elsewhere, Mr. Raniere left the U.S.A. only once to travel to Mexico and never returned until his arrest.

10. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make any false or misleading statements to the public or media.

[After writing the affidavit, Raniere goes on to explain what happened to him and his greater purpose. While it is true that prosecutorial misconduct is epidemic in the USA, he is probably not the greatest poster boy victim.]

The prosecutors in the case of United States vs. Raniere et al (Richard Donoghue, Mark Lesko, Tanya Hajjar, Moira Kim Penza) have each been served a variation of the following cover letter and ten points to initial.

Every prosecutor in the United States of America should be able to affirm each of these points with confidence. Any point not upheld is an unacceptable violation of due process.

Each prosecutor has three options: 1. Affirm each point; 2. Deny points with or without an explanation; or 3. Ignore the
communication which is an immoral refusal to be accountable to the people he or she serves.

We hope the press and media will provide the appropriate pressure to hold these prosecutors accountable and get answers to their behavior, not just for this case, but for all cases they pursue. It is time a different mechanism of public accountability be created beyond the grand jury.

[He is right about that.]

This public media pressure could aid in creating that mechanism and bring justice back to our court rooms.

United States vs. Raniere et al is a case of extreme prejudice and social repugnance, but it just happens to illustrate the
ugliness hidden behind the false ascendancy of prosecutors and judges.

Notes to the ten points served upon the prosecution:

[Here Raniere gives his thinking about the 10 points in his affidavit, For ease of understanding his point, I will repeat the point in the affidavit. From Raniere’s affidavit [above] 1. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make, or allow to be made, any false statements to the court. RD_______ ML_______ TH_______ MKP_______]

1. This is direct perjury by the prosecution (for an example of this see 9 below, and statements about the use of Mr.
Raniere’s cell phone.)

Evidence: Filed documents relating to flight risk, transcripts about visa and cell phone use.

[He is claiming the prosecution lied about his activities including the use of a burner phone to enhance the appearance of him being a flight risk.] 

[2. We the Prosecutors have never tampered with evidence. All evidence presented had a well documented chain of custody with no gaps. All evidence in our custody was secure and remained untouched until forensic analysis.

2. The computer and camera evidence had a broken chain of custody. While in the custody of the prosecution, but
before forensic analysis, the evidence was mysteriously accessed and altered.

Evidence: Suneel

[I am not sure what Suneel knows about this but Raniere is apparently claiming the prosecution actually tampered with his hard drive where nude pictures of 15-year-old Camilla were found – which was possibly the single most damning piece of evidence against him. He claims he did not even own the hard drive.]

3. The prosecution suborned perjury (See Appendix). This was also quite visible with the testimony of Mark Vicente
in relationship to an SOP training. In testimony elicited by the prosecution, Mr. Vicente stated Mr. Raniere discovered a
certain SOP training was improper and just left forcing Mr. Vicente, amongst others, to deal with the fallout.

The truth is very different than the testimony. Mr. Raniere stayed and directly addressed the group taking responsibility and offering an additional training. The questions are: Did Mr. Vicente not remember this? Did the prosecution know this? The answer resides in a video of the event, filmed by Mr. Vicente himself, and in the possession of the prosecution.

Evidence: Marc A. [Agnifilo] motion, SOP video.

[This relates to an incident where Raniere was to be present at an expensive Society of Protectors weekend, which prompted some 98 members to sign up. According to Vicente, Raniere had previously said he would do it on condition that 100 members signed up and paid. After learning that they were two short, and despite the fact that people had flown in from all over North America to attend, getting hotels, flights and paying for the SOP weekend because Raniere was teaching, Raniere chose not to teach the weekend because they were two people short. He left Mark to take the blame. While Raniere may have been available to some of the very unhappy travelers, he put the blame on Mark.]

[From the proposed affidavit above: 4. We the Prosecutors handled all potential witnesses properly. No witness was ever shown any discovery, or in any way challenged to augment or change his or her opinions or beliefs by us.]

4. This is a corruption of truth, due process, and a violation of the Defendant’s constitutional rights. This also causes
irreparable damage to the truth. The prosecutor’s job is to investigate the situation, not create the situation, or manipulate it, so they can win at trial. The truth should win at trial, not a prosecutorial strategy or prosecutorial coercion, manipulation or “spin”.

Evidence: Michelle [Hatchette], Samantha [LeBaron], Siobhan [Hotaling], India [Oxenberg], Mark Elliot speech.

[It sounds like Raniere is claiming that Michele and Samantha were shown some of the evidence that the government had gathered in an attempt to get them to change their testimony — and become witnesses for the prosecution.]

[From the affidavit: 5. We the Prosecutors never threatened any potential witness with indictment in an attempt to dissuade him or her from participating in, or supporting, the defense.]

5. This violates the Defendant’s constitutional rights. Here are the situations:

Evidence: India convo? Michelle? Nicki? Mark Elliot speech? Siobhan? Sam [Samantha]? Mark A. motion

[6. We the Prosecutors properly investigated, and had no reason to suspect, collusion amongst our witness or any hidden financial motives. We the Prosecutors did not block, or in any way object to, an investigation into such things by the defense.]

6. This is prosecutorial obstruction of justice. It is not the prosecution’s job to be as a normal attorney and object to
anything potentially objectionable. If there is a valid pursuit of truth, even if it exonerates someone the prosecution believes is a criminal, it is the prosecution’s duty to require, allow, uphold, and facilitate investigation to uncover any hidden financial motive or collusion amongst witnesses and informants. The prosecution should have suspected a class action suit, even collusion, when Neil Glazer, a civil class action attorney, was the witness attorney during 33 interviews with many, many, of the potential witnesses. As such, the prosecution needed to investigate, and allow the transparent investigation, for financial motive and collusion. By not allowing this investigation, the prosecution becomes party to the crime.

Evidence: Marc A. motion

7. The legitimate claim of fearing for one’s life is a grave claim. As such, it was used in bail hearings to ensure Mr.
Raniere would not be released, and to inspire the court to create a unique, high level of anonymity throughout the
proceedings and trial. This claim helped turn a normal, white collar, non-violent, process into an exaggerated mystery of life and death situations. The use of such a claim, if not verified and legitimate, constitutes a strategic lie and perjury. In every case, the prosecution should have investigated each claim of life threat, and found it to be both legitimate and real. In this case, there were no threats, no violence, at most the “fear” of release of collateral. Note: Mr. Raniere and NXIVM lead a peace movement in Mexico and are committed to non-violence.

Evidence: Trial and bail hearing transcripts, no violence, no threats, peace movement

[8. We the Prosecutors did not know of, and had no reason to suspect, a potential civil law suite [sic] through Neil Glazer involving trial witnesses other than Mark Vicente. Raniere claims that Daniella and Nicole all along planned to sue civilly despite denying it during cross examination.]

8. If they [the prosecution] did know, it would be their duty to inform the defense team, court, and jury, given the testimony of their witnesses was otherwise. If they did suspect, it would be their duty to investigate it and inform the defense team, court, and jury. It goes beyond credibility, given the evidence, that the prosecution did not outright know, question, or suspect this.

Evidence: Marc A. motion

9. In order to not commit perjury the prosecution must have no knowledge, or reason to believe, Mr. Raniere traveled back to the United States. They had Mr. Raniere’s visa records and did find two trips to Fiji before his trip to Mexico. The visa records reveal Mr. Raniere did travel back to the United states and should also reveal Mr. Raniere’s application to enter Mexico only asked for a few weeks stay. He was granted six months.

Evidence: visa records (truth), [Catherine] Oxenberg’s book.

10. The prosecution subverted and ignored justice, the collateral effects of their actions, and the purpose of their office,
to garner praise for themselves politically. The prosecution should never gloat, exaggerate, speak with dishonor, or in any way uphold winning over justice. They should have nothing to add or interpret over the proceedings and verdict. If anything it should be a somber statement that it is sad crime exists, and that the situation at hand came to a point where use of the criminal justice system was necessary. Here are a few examples directly from the EDNY press release:

Evidence: EDNY press release, Marc A. affirmation?

Summary: In this case, the prosecution committed perjury, suborned perjury, obstructed proper investigation of collusion, aided in this collusion amongst their key witnesses, and exalted, without investigation, unfounded malicious claims of fear of loss of life, thereby creating excessive bails, and unprecedented protections for the colluding witnesses. Potential witnesses for the defense were threatened, corrupted, and coerced along with the prosecution’s tampering with vital evidence. After all of this, the prosecution made inaccurate and inflammatory statements to the press, to justify, cover, and praise their actions.

Prosecutors and Judges should no longer be able to hide and shelter corruption, political agenda, and prejudicial injustice.

[Here Raniere gives a preamble to the affidavit which he wants prosecutors to read before answering the questions and signing the affidavit.]

Please initial each statement to which you agree, and return to the above address by 4/XX/20. Copies of this have been sent to the major news outlets covering this case. Simply affirm, deny (with possible explanation) or ignore each statement. In our eyes, as a government employee sworn to serve us, it is a moral imperative that you do not ignore this. Ignoring this is a show of neglect of responsibility, accountability, and defiance of your ultimate employers, we the people.

Please be both responsible and accountable to the people you serve.

With hopes for a forward moving, justice building, relationship of mutual respect. Thank you.

[Aside from the fact that this is not going to help him with the judge, will probably make the prosecution even more determined to argue for a life sentence, and likely cause the Bureau of Prisons to consider assigning him to the worst prison in America, Raniere is delusional if he thinks the media and the general public are going to get on board with him being a victim.]

Frank Parlato