Another Raniere Tapped Prison Call: Judge Garaufis ‘Rolled His Eyes and Made All Kinds of Faces to Influence the Jury’

This is our fifth transcript of tapped phone calls Keith Alan Raniere made from prison to his devotee, Suneel Chakravorty.

Raniere has been at the Metropolitan Detention Center [MDC] since April 2018.  It appears that some of his phone calls made from the prison phones have been recorded by the government.

It is not known whether any of the calls he made on the burner phones he was caught with at MDC were also recorded (He even had one that could make international calls).

Chakravorty is a member of Make Justice Blind [AKA the Nxivm-5] who seek to “prosecute the prosecutors” and have demanded that prosecutors in Raniere’s case sign an affidavit swearing they did not commit acts of prosecutorial misconduct before, during and after his trial.

He is also a member of The Forgotten Ones, the dancers who dance and twerk in front of the MDC on Friday nights. In fact, readers will be happy to know that the dancers were out Friday night twerking for their Vanguard.

Now back to the tapped phone calls. Here are the ones we have already published.

Amazing Tapped Phone Conversation Between Prisoner Raniere and Suneel: ‘Branding, the Room, and My Sex Polyamory Type Thing’

Another Tapped Prison Phone Call Between Keith Raniere and Suneel – Denies Cami Child Porn, Wants to Prove He Is Physically Ill

Another Tapped Raniere Prison Conversation — ‘Suneel Plays Good Cop, Nicki Clyne Plays Bad Cop With My Lawyers’ and ‘The Judge Needs to Know He Is Being Watched’

Another Tapped Raniere Prison Phone Call: Suneel Is Dazzled by His Master’s Genius

And now, for our readers’ delight, here is the next in our series. My comments are in [bold and in brackets.]

RECORDING: 57005177 [Keith Raniere’s prison ID number.]

DATE: April 27, 2020
TIME: 10:07:26 A.M.
PARTICIPANTS: Keith Raniere [RANIERE]
Suneel Chakravorty [CHAKRAVORTY]

CHAKRAVORTY: Hey, Keith.

RANIERE: Hey, what’s going on?

CHAKRAVORTY: Uh, uh not much. Just, uh, getting started with a few things. How are you?

RANIERE: Well, O.K. Not much? What do you mean “not much”?

CHAKRAVORTY: Oh, I mean, I don’t know, I just, uh, maybe it’s like a bad phrase. I was, I was writing a little bit of code actually.

RANIERE: Oh, O.K. That’s for your business. Yes?

CHAKRAVORTY: That’s just for my business. Pay, pay some of the rent. I guess that’s what I meant by not much. Yes on the [U/I]
[Voices overlap]

RANIERE: What does your business do exactly?

CHAKRAVORTY: Um, right now, I’m just doing some consulting. So I’m consulting on some data science projects, and getting a better, uh, R & B or like prototyping for, uh, for some software products. Like, uh….

RANIERE: Do you do mainly software consultant type stuff, or is it more generally mathematical type consulting? [U/I]

CHAKRAVORTY: 70/30. It’s 70 software, 30 math and stuff.

RANIERE: Uh, huh. O.K. Do you do operations research type stuff and things?

CHAKRAVORTY: Um, no, it’s, it’s mainly like product development, so, uh, I’ll… like, in this case, I’m looking at some data sets, doing, uh, building some predictive models and seeing if it hits the you know enough accuracy and then, if it does, productionize it and put it up in the cloud.

RANIERE: [shifting to his planned podcast meant to establish his innocence] I see. I had an idea. You know, there’s the trailer. Does the trailer… ‘cause, I haven’t heard this. Does it have the challenge in it? [the challenge is apparently something people are challenged to do to learn more about Raniere’s innocence and the prosecutors’ misconduct.]

CHAKRAVORTY: [Clears throat] Currently it does not. I, um…

RANIERE: I, I think there should have a separate trailer for the challenge. And you know, instead of, uhm, you know, maybe have a collage of, what you might call testimonials. But they’re more reactions to the data [in the challenge]. Finding out about what people will find out about when they do the challenge. You know, “When I did the challenge and then when I saw the additional data”, blah, blah, blah, blah. “I read…”, “I couldn’t believe…”, “I was totally sure”, you know, “If this is true, this is unbelievable.” You know, you know, just, a whole bunch of things like that.

CHAKRAVORTY: Yeah, O.K. that’s cool. Yeah, definitely.

RANIERE: [giving the sales pitch for the challenge] Can you really resist knowing? You know, that sort of a thing?

CHAKRAVORTY: Yeah, cool.

RANIERE: Forbidden knowledge. You know?

CHAKRAVORTY: Yeah, I… that’s awesome. Um, cool and it sort of parallels the current [U/I] too in some ways. Like what you think but like what it really is. Cause it’s like, you know…

RANIERE: Oh, it’s. O.K. Yeah, yeah, because those are the things that draw people, the difference like that. Oh, my God, they show some sort of late-night commercial or something. You know, just a bunch of people going, “Oh. Oh, my goodness I can’t believe…. “No, you’re kidding”. You know, come and see what they’re all talking about. So they [U/I] and if it’s, you know, it’s an infomercial for a tricycle or something.

CHAKRAVORTY: Yes. Are you’re thinking of this as an audio trailer or potentially a video trailer?

RANIERE: Oh, I don’t know. I mean you guys decide. I think it has to be done quickly, so I have no idea.

CHAKRAVORTY: O.K. O.K. Got it.

RANIERE: So what else? Other news on judges [for the contest Raniere wants], things like that.

CHAKRAVORTY: Yes, I can give you…I got a rundown ready for you. So, judges, um, no word from Sima yet. I emailed her on Friday. I’ll call up again today. Um, Ashley, uh, Marc E. is calling over today. She hadn’t responded. She had like a family sickness so she might just be out for that. This weekend she was. Um, we have a call with Lisa who’s an attorney this afternoon at 3:00. And Mary hasn’t responded to any of the last couple of attempts so I’m going to speak with Marc and see what we can try or what, what an option is, but, uhm, and then Nicole she was going to read through that stuff yesterday so today Marc going to touch base and schedule, uhm, a follow-up, sooner than Thursday ideally. [It sounds like most of the lawyers they approached to be judges of the Raniere contest were not too eager to participate.]

RANIERE: I wonder if Mary’s somehow not getting the communication or something. ‘Cause I mean, you would think she’d at least say, stop calling me.

CHAKRAVORTY: Yeah, hmm. You know, we could call or try from a different email or something. Yeah.

[It seems like Mary has already given her answer.]

RANIERE: Or say, you know what, please, just tell us to stop. I, I have a joke about attorney classes that they have to take and excel at. And the number one. One is the response class. They have to learn to not respond. So like you have a class of students and the teacher asks a simple question. Someone raises their hand and they immediately are punished and disciplined. No, you can’t respond. The very final exam is, you know, the whole side of the classroom is blown out with a bomb and they just have to be just like something happened. So what it is… Yes, unresponsiveness.

CHAKRAVORTY: It is impressive, I haven’t encountered that in the software world at all. People are you the opposite, they respond like within minutes. That’s the way it is.

RANIERE: What’s it? What? Who responds within minutes?

CHAKRAVORTY: Like in the tech startup world people respond very quickly. You know, I found it to be the opposite of, like, the lawyer situation.

RANIERE: In which world? I’m not hearing.

CHAKRAVORTY: Oh, sorry in the tech startup world.

RANIERE: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then there’s another one about derrière osculation.

CHAKRAVORTY: Derrière osculation?

RANIERE: Derrière osculation. Butt-kissing.

CHAKRAVORTY: [Laughs]. Yeah, I was. I got the derrière.

RANIERE: So, yeah, uh, osculation is the general term for kissing.

CHAKRAVORTY: Oh, O.K.

RANIERE: You walk into that class and it has one of these CPR type dummies except it’s just that part. And it’s like someone with a clipboard there and they’re doing like, you know, uh, some sort of skills evaluation test. You know things like that. And then there’s another one, they are… there’s a whole bunch of little chicks in a box and they all have to watch the chicks and then eventually each of them get a chick of their own that they have to study and you know, do a complete chick study. And be like the chick and understand the chick. You know?

CHAKRAVORTY: [Laughs]

RANIERE: Study of being a chicken. And then there’s another one where there’s a limbo pole and they’re doing what looks like limbo, and it’s groveling.

CHAKRAVORTY: I was thinking finalist or something. But yeah,

RANIERE: Yeah, so. So, the legal studies.

CHAKRAVORTY: Uh, huh. Got it.

RANIERE: So, um, yeah, I was also going to do a continuation of the last one, with the prosecutors, judge, uh, defense attorney system. I’m going to talk more about the judge. Cause I think…you know, I think part of the, the thing when someone gets into… takes the challenge and then gets into our world where they get the additional data that was never allowed in court, [in his trial] goes through the judge’s decisions and they can vote on them. You know what I mean? So, in other words they can read the data, the decision.

Maybe even some of the basis, like when it’s a hearsay thing or something, what the hearsay rules are so they can actually, um, learn about that and then, you know, take… look at the decision and say, “Was this a good decision or a bad decision?” Do they think the judge, [Judge Nicholas Garaufis, Raniere’s trial judge] you know [is], a good judge, a bad judge, a corrupt judge. You know what I mean? So.

CHAKRAVORTY: You want to do the countdown? Sorry.

RANIERE: What? Do the countdown whenever.

CHAKRAVORTY: 3-2-1 go.

[Raniere is now being recorded by Suneel for the podcast.]

RANIERE: In our society, judges are held out in a very special way. As they should be. I believe it was around the turn of the century judges were actually exempt from taxation, because it was believed if they were part of the taxation system it would impart a type of bias to them.

In a sense, judges have to be impervious to politics, to all sorts of different things so that they can stay in a very stoic and pristine state to be able to execute justice and be the voice of the law.

But sadly it is impossible to have that sort of a pristine state, especially in the age of global media, social media, the politics that go on and the intense nature of what some of the decisions mean. Some of these decisions literally weigh on world businesses and do all sorts of things. If you look at the Arthur Andersen business that is 85,000 people that were, essentially, displaced because of legal things, because of criminal things that just weren’t true.

[Raniere is referring to the federal case against Arthur Andersen LLP, an accounting firm founded in 1913, one of the Big Five accounting firms, convicted of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron. The United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Andersen conviction because the trial judge did not properly portray the law Arthur Andersen was charged with breaking to the jury. Even after the conviction was overturned, the damage to Arthur Andersen’s reputation was such that it did not return as a viable business. The false charges and the judge’s blunder ruined one of the largest accounting firms in America,] 

So there needs to be an evaluation of judges. Judges tend not to be evaluated in media, and it’s interesting even apparently in social situations, you know, when people are speaking to a judge, there’s all these different concerns. As there should be. You know, you don’t want to influence a judge, you don’t to be seen as trying to influence a judge, even accidently.

Uh, in some ways maybe judges shouldn’t be in social circumstances like that. Should a judge be able to socialize? Should a judge have these things? Well, if you want a human judge, there needs to be a way to allow, not only judges to do these things, but to evaluate the judge. There needs to be a judgment of the judges, beyond the appeal court.

One of the things that can happen, what I learned from my trial. If I were a judge now, I could go and sway a verdict. If I were corrupt or if I were biased from the beginning, I could sway in the jury selection, because I would knock out certain jury members. I would also sway, throughout the whole thing, my reaction to the evidence, my reaction to the different, the prosecutors, my reaction to the defense attorney, my reaction to even the defendant. By making that evidence, I impart a bias upon the jury and in my particular case, my judge is a very… people call him a mercurial judge, he switches, he has these emotional reactions, rolling his eyes which affect the jury.

And, yes, a judge can affect the jury. Somedays there may be an AI [Artificial Intelligence] that either aids with the judge or replaces the judge that really helps with these things. But the scariest thing that was ever told to me and has been told to me and has been told to me several times over the past 20 years is, not only the fate of what will happen to me and the fate was always they will create public outrage in the media and it will be untrue but it doesn’t matter, that public outrage will cause political pressure which will cause pressure on the justice system.

They will indict you, they will convict you, they will put you in prison for life and in prison, it’s possible you will reach, have a very bad demise. And it’s pretty awful some of the things that were told to me.

And some of the things that happened that showed that to be true and showed that we don’t have what we think of as a justice system. There’s a whole… a lot of people do have a certain degree of justice in the justice system. But there is a channel where the whole justice system can be circumvented, perverted and used. And it appears that is true. You know, what I was told is that these people who are the political pushers of judges and media, they don’t need to be able to influence a particular judge.

All they have to do is influence the judge assigned to the case. So if they have a certain number of judges that are under their control in the Second Circuit, all they have to do is make sure that your case gets in front of one of those judges. And when those judges make bad decisions all they have to do is make sure that your case gets in front of the appropriate appeal board. And they don’t have to affect all of the judges. At all. And that’s one of the difficult things.

So, if I were the sort of a judge who made all of these faces and I had all sorts of reactions, and I influenced the decision, if you looked at my transcript it would look completely legitimate from an appeals perspective. It would look very legitimate because you wouldn’t see the intonations. You wouldn’t see the faces and things like that, that I,.I did.

{Raniere stops. There is silence for a moment.]

CHAKRAVORTY: Hello?

RANIERE: Hey, so we only have a few seconds or a half of minute so I stopped. Alright, anything else that’s important? I’ll probably call on Wednesday from what it seems like. Monday, Wednesday, Friday.

CHAKRAVORTY: Sounds good, I’ll follow up with the trailer and then he’s trying to sort through legal logistics and what we can post in the challenge, what transcripts.

[END OF CALL]

Frank Parlato