On Friday, seven supporters of Keith Alan Raniere, who call themselves Make Justice Blind, emailed Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis to request that Raniere’s Tuesday sentencing hearing be adjourned.
Their argument: The nude photos of 15-year-old Camila that were admitted into evidence at Raniere’s trial were taken from a hard drive and media card that were tampered with by the FBI — after they seized the devices from Raniere’s library in March 2018.
Raniere was convicted in June 2019.
His supporters claim and produce reports by forensic experts that the FBI tampered with files in devices where Camila’s photos were transferred and stored, even photoshopping one image and changing dates of dozen of others, months after the FBI seized the devices and had sole custody of them.
It is not seen as likely that the judge will adjourn sentencing.
In our next post we will delve into how Camila’s decision to make a victim statement at sentencing may complicate matters. Camila did not testify at trial.
The Make Justice Blind group is focused on presenting the judge with evidence of tampering they claim occurred at Raniere’s trial in the hope that it will be persuasive in securing a new trial for Raniere.
Their email to the judge, followed by the reports of forensic experts, are presented exactly as they were presented to the judge on Friday
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
Here is the complete letter from Make Justice Blind:
Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis
United States District Judge Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: United States v. Keith Raniere, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG)
Dear Judge Garaufis
We are writing to make you aware of and present to you relevant and important information in the instant case. It was recently shown that a key piece of evidence used in the trial (i.e., the hard drive to evidence the underlying overt act of possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor) was tampered with while in the possession of the government and/or prosecutors.
The proof of tampering is supported by four independent forensic experts. The forensic experts demonstrated that the government and their expert witness lied and/or misrepresented the reliability of this key information, and that this evidence should never have been admitted as part of the trial. (See attached Exhibit 1).
The reason we are sharing this information is because the child pornography evidence was greatly prejudicial in Keith Raniere’s trial and his media coverage. This ultimately resulted in several co-defendants taking plea deals. Ultimately, this charge was used to destroy a great community of people, their reputations, livelihoods and families.
We ask you to consider postponing Keith Raniere’s sentencing so the evidence and proof of tampering can be reviewed in more detail to shed light on these crimes, gross misconduct and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
We are in a time of strong distrust in the government and legal system. There is a strong call to action, a demand and need for social justice and judicial reform. To proceed with Keith Raniere’s sentencing in light of this new evidence would be interpreted by the public, media and citizens everywhere that it does not matter if the government or prosecution cheated, lied or committed crimes to convict a person. This must not be allowed to continue.
While the judicial system cannot be changed overnight, the direction of change to improve it can be changed by your choosing to consider this new evidence and ask the government and prosecution why they lied and committed crimes? To ignore such egregious behavior and pretend that this criminal behavior by the prosecution and/or government does not make a difference, would be to condone such behavior and make everyone who is aware complicit in this criminal behavior.
We are a group of concerned citizens who are dedicated to exposing prosecutorial misconduct with the ultimate goal of improving the judicial system. We are sharing this information with you because we strongly believe, as Martin Luther King stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” By exposing this egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct, your decision on this matter could have long-term ramifications throughout the legal system by giving prosecutors and the government officials across the nation notice that such misconduct will not go unnoticed and that it will not be allowed to continue as it currently does.
We respectfully ask you to consider this information and order the government and prosecution to be held accountable and respond. Please do not condone corruption or injustice by allowing the sentencing to continue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Make Justice Blind
The email was signed by Eduardo Asunsolo, Marc Elliot, Michele Hatchette, Suneel Chakravorty, Brian Elliot, Justin Elliot and Linda Chung.
**
Attached to the email was the following exhibit:
Forensic experts show extensive, calculated tampering on Raniere’s devices that allegedly contained child pornography
If egregious and irrefutable evidence were exposed that America’s most hated defendant was framed, would people care? If you agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” then a corruption of massive proportions of the justice system should be of grave concern, regardless of who is the target.
Overt acts of possession and production of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor were used to support a conviction of racketeering of Keith Raniere on June 19, 2019, among other charges. The prosecution alleged he had 22 nude images on a device of an underage girl (identified in the trial as a woman named Camila, now age 30) who, according to the government, was 15 at the time they were taken.
Dr. Keshava Munegowda reviewed file system data of Raniere’s two devices. Dr. Munegowda holds a PhD in Computer Science, 5 related patents, has been published and cited in peer reviewed journals, and wrote a book on analyzing computer file systems. Dr. Munegowda issued a comprehensive report, which includes certifications from 2 other forensic experts, with the summary analysis dated October 23, 2020. To date, 3 additional digital forensics experts reviewed statements from the report and corroborated its conclusions. One of those corroborators, Steven Abrams, J.D., M.S. of Abrams Cyber Law & Forensics, is an award-winning forensics expert and a litigation attorney licensed to practice in South Carolina, District of Columbia, and New York.
The report contains detailed technical analyses that clearly show:
-
There was “extensive and calculated fabrication” on the hard drive, which contained the 22 images of alleged child pornography.
-
The prosecution’s FBI computer expert witness made a false statement to the jury about how difficult it is to tamper with a specific data type in question.
These facts are now also coupled with the following irregularities of the trial:
-
The prosecution’s FBI witness testified that an unknown person accessed Raniere’s device while it was in FBI custody.
-
After being asked, the government did not provide the defense a forensic clone of the devices. Forensic clones make tampering much easier to reveal.
The devices and files that the report deems as “manually altered” were used as evidence of overt acts (possession and production of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor) to support a conviction of racketeering. Twenty-two images on those devices were key evidence that the prosecution used to argue that the photos were taken in 2005, when the subject would have been underage.
Dr. Munegowda summarizes his report by saying, “It is my expert opinion that the government, or someone in concert with the government, likely tampered with the hard drive and media card .” In a summary corroboration statement, Mr. Abrams issues an even further statement saying that the evidence had an “invalidated chain of custody,” that “the dates and times associated with those digital photos cannot be . . . assumed to be accurate,” that the FBI “either purposely misled the fact finders or is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts to which he testified,” that the prosecution “purposefully misled the jury about the reliability of the digital photo evidence,” and that the government was “intentionally dishonest…in its closing statement to the jury.”
A summary of the report’s key findings are below, and the full technical report is available for the public to review here. Corroborations of the technical statements are here.
Summary
-
The camera’s media card was modified while in FBI custody by an unknown person before it was sent to the lab for analysis.
-
FBI Examiner Brian Booth testified at the trial that Raniere’s media card was accessed by an unknown person on September 19, 2018, which was after it was seized by the government on March 27, 2018.
-
The FBI witness also confirmed that an unknown person changed the media card’s file system data while it was in FBI custody, and there is no record of who changed it. This shows a break in the chain of custody.
-
A forensics tool to prevent changes to the device files and metadata is called a write blocker. It allows for viewing of a device without modifying files or file system data. The FBI witness’s testimony shows that a write blocker must not have been used at least once when the device was accessed while in FBI custody. This must be true because he testified above that the file system data was altered.
-
The dates in the testimony reveal that tampering happened after the device was seized on March 27, 2018, but before it reached the FBI’s forensics lab on February 22, 2019.
-
The above facts show that the media card was accessed and changed 6 months after the FBI took possession, and the FBI has no official record or explanation of who accessed the card and how that happened.
-
-
In a “breach of proper handling of electronic data“, the camera and media card arrived at the FBI forensics lab in an open, unsealed box and bag; this was after an unknown person had accessed the media card months prior.
-
FBI Examiner Booth testified multiple times that Raniere’s camera arrived in an unsealed box and bag, and the media card arrived in an unsealed bag.
-
-
According to the report’s Statement 1A, “at least 94 pictures on the hard drive” were “altered.” These pictures are on the same hard drive and under the same folder that contained the 22 allegedly contraband photos.
-
The report shows that the person who altered the photos made several errors with respect to calculating and accounting for Daylight Savings Time:
-
First, the report shows that the camera, a Canon EOS 20D, is “not time zone aware.” This means the camera “does not store any information on the compact flash card that would allow the time to be adjusted from one time zone to another.” The specific file systems on the media card (FAT-16) and hard drive (FAT-32) are also not time-zone aware.
-
File modified times were shifted back 1 hour before Daylight Savings Time ended, 2 hours for some pictures on the very day that Day Light Savings ended, 0 hours for others on that day, and then 0 hours after that day.
-
All of the pictures were copied to the hard drive in a 2 minute period, which means someone could not have crossed time zones multiple times when the files were backed up to the hard drive.
-
As noted in Statement 1B, an addendum to Statement 1A, the only rational explanation for the time shifts is that someone tried to make it look like Daylight Savings Time adjusted the times naturally, but the tamperer made human errors.
-
-
-
According to the report’s Statement 5 and Statement 10, someone made one picture look like it had originated from Raniere’s camera. This alteration suggests it may have come from another source from what the government report indicates.
-
A photo on the hard drive was edited after it was downloaded from the media card. This is known because the file’s metadata (EXIF data) showed that Photoshop had been used on the photo.
-
When a photo gets taken, the file creation and last file modified date are typically very close, within seconds.
-
In a highly technical explanation, the report explains how, for this particular photo, the file’s last modified date must have been “altered manually.”
-
The report further explains that this manual alteration was likely done to give the appearance that the photo came from the camera. That the alteration was done suggests it may not have.
-
-
According to the report’s Statement 7, the FBI’s computer expert witness made four false statements to the jury, incorrectly stating that tampering with photo metadata (which includes photo creation dates) is difficult.
-
Dr. Munegowda’s report states that FBI Examiner Booth “knowingly lied” under oath about the difficulty of changing metadata on photos (EXIF data, like dates/times) when he said: “it’s not easy to change.”
-
The report further states that the exact opposite is true by saying, “EXIF data being easily modifiable is a well-known fact that anyone familiar with technology, especially a forensic examiner, would know.” The report goes on to say a “simple Google or YouTube search” proves how easy it is for even a “lay person” to change EXIF data (see: sample Google search here).
-
The report includes an additional opinion from another forensics examiner, Steven Burgess of Burgess Forensics, who corroborates the claim that EXIF data is, in fact, easy to alter.
-
The government did not provide the defense with a “forensic image” of Raniere’s devices. According to the report, by not providing “forensic images” of the devices in question, the defense was given “forensically unreliable” evidence.
-
According to the report, forensic images are “the gold standard” to make a “bit-by-bit copy” of all the contents of the device.
-
A forensic image is a frozen-in-time copy and it allows both the prosecution and the defense to have access to the same data-rich evidence to examine.
-
The defense requested a forensic image of Raniere’s devices (in a confidential email on April 18, 2019), with specific instructions on how to redact the 22 allegedly contraband images.
-
The prosecution never gave the defense forensic images of the devices (evidence of this exists in a confidential email sent on October 5, 2020). Instead, the defense only received PDF reports of the file system of the media card and a simple copy of the hard drive.
-
This letter in the report states that having only a copy of the hard drive is “not a forensically reliable way to preserve the contents of a hard drive or storage device and is of little value when there is a dispute about the reliability of the data or questions about metadata such as date and time stamps.”
-
In addition to not having a forensic copy of the devices, according to a motion filed by Raniere’s attorneys 15 days before the start of the trial, the defense still had not provided “reports concerning the search of the backup hard drive from which the child pornography was allegedly recovered,” even though the defense had repeatedly asked.
-
-
The devices in question were critical elements of the arguments the prosecution used to convict Raniere of Racketeering Counts 2, 3, and 4.
-
In the prosecution’s closing statements for Counts 2 and 3 (Sexual Exploitation of a Child), the prosecution established Camila’s age using the lack of an appearance of a scar on her body (which she did not have when she was a minor) and the creation dates of the files.
-
Regarding the creation dates of the files, the prosecution told the jury that the photos “were taken exactly when the folders stated they were taken.” The prosecution’s FBI expert witness said the exact opposite of this statement in his earlier testimony by saying, “the file system metadata for those dates and times are not accurate.”
-
Regarding the absence of the scar to prove Camila was underage, the tampering of the photo with the Photoshop tag outlined in the report, along with other tampering on the hard drive, raises real questions of the authenticity of the 22 photos’ contents.
-
-
In the prosecution’s closing statements for Count 4 (Possession of Child Pornography), the prosecution argued that Raniere had “control over the images . . . [and] you know the defendant did, because again, the defendant took those photos.”
-
Given the extensive tampering uncovered in the report, the validity of this argument is also affected by the questionable data integrity of the devices.
Expert Conclusions
Dr. Munegowda concludes that:
“Considering the above points and that the only beneficiary of the tampering is the party that brings the charge – the government – it is my opinion that the government, or someone in concert with the government, likely tampered with the hard drive and media card.”
“The only purpose that such an extensive and calculated fabrication would serve is to support the allegation that 22 contraband pictures were found on the hard drive as presented. That such a fabrication was necessary implies that the contraband pictures were not found as presented [by the government].”
He also explains the likely motivation the tamperer had to alter files on both devices:
“It is my opinion that these alterations were done to make it seem that the dates of the pictures on the hard drive were authentic and the pictures came from the media card. “
In his conclusion, Steven Abrams J.D., M.S., writes the following:
“In conclusion, it is my expert opinion that the digital photo evidence, based on the abovementioned materials I reviewed, was tampered with and should have been excluded as unreliable, and should not have been used to support any charges. Further, based on my reviews of the above mentioned materials it appears that the government … was intentionally dishonest about the reliability of said digital photo evidence in its closing statement to the jury.”
The irregularities of the evidence handling by the FBI and Dr. Munegowda’s analysis of tampering raise serious questions about the validity of the evidence used to convict Raniere of three counts of racketeering on the basis of production and possession of child pornography. Notably, this child pornography “evidence” had a major impact on the case, not just for Raniere but for his co-defendants. All of Raniere’s co-defendants but one plead guilty AFTER the child pornography charge was publicly announced. If the defense had been provided forensic images of Raniere’s devices before the trial, perhaps their team would have been able to expose the likely tampering of evidence that a world-class expert was only able to figure out after the trial had ended.
Had a hard drive and media card been taken from Raniere upon arrest, sealed and kept in a secure chain of custody, and taken to a crime lab where they found child pornography on it (using photo dates to show the woman’s age) . . . those clean facts, if true, would likely have meant Raniere committed a serious crime. However, the reality was far from that scenario: The devices were seized from Raniere, were left by the FBI in an open box and an unsealed evidence bag, were accessed by an unknown person before being analyzed, and then months later, child pornography was found on the hard drive when it was analyzed for the first time.
In addition, Dr. Munegowda’s corroborated report shows the devices the FBI analyzed had manually altered photos, had tampering with a file that had been edited in Photoshop, and had manually altered photo dates. The prosecution later argued that the photo dates showed the woman’s age based on the creation dates shown in the devices, which is the opposite of what the prosecution’s witness testified. In addition, that same FBI computer expert witness gave false statements on the stand with regards to the difficulty of tampering.
Based on Dr. Munegowda’s report showing proof of tampering, with corroborations by Steven Abrams J.D., M.S. and other experts, and the irregularities in the handling of Raniere’s devices, including a break in their chain of custody, the reliability of the devices that held the alleged contraband photos is now called into question. The contents on these devices were used to establish that the subject in the photos was underage, and as outlined above, technical findings now show that the evidence presented to the Court to convict Keith Raniere was certifiably compromised.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] would first direct Bangkok to review the evidence presented in this Frank Report exclusive published prior to Raniere’s […]
I worked at Consumers Buyline. I was just out of college and was hired to be the assistant to a Very Important Person.
I never understood how anyone could not see what was going on, truly. It was a cult when I worked there in the early 1990s.
Please, expand on what you said. LOL
Thank you so much sharing. What was the work atmosphere like? Crazy post college job?
The Make Justice Remain Blind group is more like it.
What happened to Nicki Clyne?
Why isn’t her name on the petition?
Did the story about her attorney Sapone and the blackmail material spook her?
Lol wouldn’t that be funny if this “ expert “ started off as a robo call from India, lort I sure get enough of them.
Reminds me of Nxivm moving the servers to another district to falsify their court case. Instant karma’s gonna get you!
Just creating a record for appeal.
Is it just me, or does Dr. Munagowda look like Borat?… Seriously.
Of course Vanguard is requesting a new trial. These are just the desperate, predictable machinations of Vanguard et al. Predictable and tired just like Vanguard’s tech and playbook. We all see through these feeble, transparent attempts. Who cares?
It will be poetic justice for Vanguard aka Keith, who weaponized the court/legal system for years as a strategy to perpetuate his evil and to intimidate and terrorize whistleblowers and defectors, to be rendered impotent and invisible by being sent to the Super Max by the judicial system. He has earned his seat there. He can use his “tech” to cope with his consequence/penance of serving life in Super Max.
Tick tock. Tick tock. That is the sound of Vanguard’s futile machinations grinding down to the ground. Game over Vanguard.
Tick tock. Tick tock.
Maybe they could claim it was Russian intel forces tampering as they are with Biden’s evidence. For that matter, ask for a new trial for Anthony Weiner. Russian interference. Try that on the jury…
It has to get to a jury for that to happen and right now it doesn’t look like the judge is interested in going in that direction. LOL
If the photos were re-dated, if it was pre-owned, even if it was manipulated, Cami had a surgical scar when she was 16, as I had read it here in the Frank Report. And that’s evidence. Or not?
I think they’re trying to say that the scar may have been removed — photoshopped.
This is very very very late in the day in legal terms. Courts, although they always want justice to be done, have to have timetables and the defence could have raised all this much earlier. Even if there were anything substantive in it, it’s too late in my view and it’s de minimis. It is very hard to stop cults and convict anyone and only about 0.001% of the damage they do tends to be in any legal proceedings. If the picture were of her aged 16 not 15, I still don’t agree she gave informed consent and he still did loads of other bad things of which he has been convicted.
Also, this cult has been involved in 40 pieces of vindictive litigation where they tampered with things – e.g., the device put on to read all of Mr. Bronfman’s emails.
I think there is evidence she is underage elsewhere even if the pictures did not prove that.
The first issue here is that the group has no standing in Raniere’s trial and verdict, so the court won’t consider their request. However, even if it wanted to, it couldn’t.
Evidence is presented at trial, not in a request for adjournment. If an inmate, whether before or after sentencing, believes he/she is unlawfully incarcerated, the remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. If the court is satisfied with the argument in favor of the writ, for instance, if the court believes it is reasonable that purported new evidence could have affected the verdict, then it orders a hearing to determine the veracity of the new evidence. After the hearing, the court will weigh all of the evidence, and the standard is whether it has “grave doubt” about whether the error the error had a significant effect on the verdict. If so, it can vacate the conviction and order a new trial. Both parties can appeal this ruling.
PHC takes years start to finish, and is different from an appeal where the parties argue from the record. Since no new evidence can be presented in an appeal, appellate counsel often file the appeal and PHC simultaneously, challenging both the evidence presented at trial, and arguing that new evidence casts grave doubt on the guilty verdict.
This is why I think they’re going for Ineffective Assistance; why wasn’t this brought up before angle.
Many thanks, RAC. This info is what is sorely needed here.
And to think of all that time and money that lawyers waste on going to law school, and learning, well, law.
Hahaha!
I am suspect of reports without knowing how much they were paid to write them, and how much they were paid.
I’d also like to know why this so-called expert is saying “likely” tampered with. Either there is evidence it was or there isn’t. Sounds like expensive, wishy / washy bullshit to me.
“Expert witnesses” often use wishy washy language like that to account for any possible future explanation that they didnt think of. I hear a lot of “it is my opinion that etc etc etc”, as long as they sound confident then a juror will follow that and even admit that their confidence was the reason they did it.
I was looking up the credentials of these people (that work for private cyber tech firms) and one dude listed out all of his tech experience line by line by topic making it look like he had taken many years of courses and seminars when in reality it was over the course of a 6 day seminar where the topic was too vague to actually convince me that they know anything about this stuff. I can never trust expert witnesses if they aren’t vetted for bias and ulterior motives like money.
Why wasn’t this presented at trial? How I view this is that the prosecution had maybe a computer expert who was not as involved in cybersecurity and, hence, did not do the steps of ensuring the files are not modified, etc. Although I do wonder that should be a standard procedure for the prosecution to do. I wonder why they did not do it. I believe they had a lot going on and did not execute well. But I doubt they tampered with evidence.
I don’t understand why Raniere did not present this at trial.
ML – Maybe because of the appendectomy scar evidence, or because of the text traffic between KAR and Cami. He is guilty, he knows it, and is trying to squirm out of the net.
Brilliant point “Appendectomy scar.”
It is very strange indeed that that did not happen – and makes anyone think they invented it after as a last ditch attempt.
Yeah. I don’t understand either. These are some good points they are making here — (given their paid experts are not just saying what they are being paid to say). So, why was this not presented during the trial? Why wouldn’t Agnifilo make a bigger deal out of the fact that the prosecution did not provide them with a “forensic copy” of the evidence?
It reads:
“The defense requested a forensic image of Raniere’s devices (in a confidential email on April 18, 2019), with specific instructions on how to redact the 22 allegedly contraband images.
The prosecution never gave the defense forensic images of the devices (evidence of this exists in a confidential email sent on October 5, 2020). Instead, the defense only received PDF reports of the file system of the media card and a simple copy of the hard drive.
This letter in the report states that having only a copy of the hard drive is “not a forensically reliable way to preserve the contents of a hard drive or storage device and is of little value when there is a dispute about the reliability of the data or questions about metadata such as date and time stamps.”
In addition to not having a forensic copy of the devices, according to a motion filed by Raniere’s attorneys 15 days before the start of the trial, the defense still had not provided “reports concerning the search of the backup hard drive from which the child pornography was allegedly recovered,” even though the defense had repeatedly asked.”
My question is, is this normal? Was it illegal for the prosecution to not provide the defense with these things? And if so, why did Agnifilo not bring this up? He just let it slide?
I mean, here are some points that would have been perfect for a defense during the trial. Why decide not to offer any defense at all? Why not call witnesses? Ok, they were intimidated … whatever. But to not call them at all? I don’t understand what Agnifilo was doing.
Why all of this now at the eleventh hour when it just doesn’t matter anymore?
Agnifilo decided he could get more billable hours with a conviction. LOL
I’m hoping their next attempt is the introduction of a secret evil twin or repeated volleyball strikes to his head.
They’re just not giving enough value to the people. Borat would be a great addition to their team and could be the spokesperson for the elevated principles of NXIVM.
I LIKE the secret evil twin angle:
–One was sleeping, f ***ing and pigging out all day
–The other was furiously working nonstop to better the world.
George Carlin: “They mention it’s a nonstop flight. Well I don’t care for that sort of thing. Call me old fashioned, but I insist my flight stop. Preferably at an airport.”
…Or in K’s case, at a federal prison.
https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-MODEL/dp/B0002XQJFA
Photoshop elements is standard on the camera. This is a bogus claim. The card just doesn’t have all the fields the camera did in the exgif metadata.
Please stop standing up for pedophiles and traffickers (not you Frank, the ‘experts’ defeated by Amazon’s market listing).
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/10/blind-item-8_24.html
Bangkok you are needed!!!
Follow the link to your future.
Where was this concern for legal integrity when Vantard was suing as bloodsport with Bronfman money?
The desperation is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.
Ivy Nevares on Twitter, she says:
@BlindfoldHer, you guys are REALLY grasping at straws! Your “bombshell evidence” is anything but. Can’t wait for Camila to give her statement on Tues. and set the record straight with her own words. It’ll be consistent with the prosecution’s account, but with real bombshells.”
It’s very strange that their internet security expert is using Dropbox, to the point that it’s probably intentional. I would use methods to circumvent access to your computer files.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-warned-of-dropbox-hack-2014-10%3famp
From Dropbox, you can also use other tools to get the IP addresses of who is visiting certain documents. They want to spy on the government.
They want to spy on everyone. Especially witnesses.
I would love to know what is going through Marc Agnifolo’s mind when these clowns take over with emails to the judge.
I will be publishing my interview with Marc Agnifilo today
Brilliant Frank! I look forward to that. This must be keeping you busier than you ever imagined!
Edward Snowden doesnt recommend Dropbox, don’t access it from this link. It’s no coincidence their “expert” that hasn’t had a gig outside of India is using it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/17/edward-snowden-dropbox-privacy-spideroak
There was also that text exchange where Vanguard said he was “happy to be your husband for 8.5 years” or whatever…putting her under age when he first had sex with her. He’s getting sentenced on Tuesday, you fools. Start accepting it.
So, somebody help me out with criminal legal procedure…
This is not a motion – it’s an email – on the eve of sentencing. What impact does that have on sentencing?
Why was this not raised during trial or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter?
If this is “newly discovered” exculpatory evidence, shouldn’t that be the topic of an appeal and not a basis for postponing sentencing? (It seems he is disputing his conviction and not his sentence.)
Sorry to be dense, but I deal in civil, not criminal litigation, which is a whole different animal.
In Federal court, depending on the local rules, courts frequently accept letter motions and requests.
This is basically a request for a stay of sentencing based on new evidence.
I am not familiar with the lower court proceedings and transcripts enough to cast merit.
I am not sure why it was not brought up earlier, and imagine it’s trying to create, an enhanced appealable point.
I would love to see the testimony and foundation and cross examination, but am loathe to spend the time on a point I assume is moot.
“This is not a motion – it’s an email – on the eve of sentencing. What impact does that have on sentencing?”
No procedural impact. It doesn’t mean the attorneys won’t try at the sentencing on Tuesday to introduce it at the 11th hour. The judge will shoot it down, though. KR has already been convicted. Any new evidence that might contravene the basis of that conviction will need to be brought forward in the appeals process.
This is all for the benefit of public discourse to shame and muddy the waters of the trial. When it’s affective, it works well – see the the Adnan Sayed murder case in terms of public outrage and generating momentum in the courts to have things re-examined.
“Why was this not raised during trial or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter?”
It’s possible that they just didn’t know before but really, the issue boils down to the following: do procedural breaks in the chain of evidence trump the fact that these photos existed in the first place?
If the breaks are serious enough, it would get these photos taken out of play but it wouldn’t have actually changed much of the substance of the case. There was no effort to do so before this moment, likely because the attorney involved with KR’s case didn’t think it was a strong enough argument in court to do so. The argument weight in the public court of opinion is way easier to bring this into, which they’re doing now.
Also, finally, not introducing it can give ‘weight’ to the idea that KR’s attorneys were ineffective at the jobs as counsel which is another tactical approach for attempting to get another trial. KR’s attorneys likely left this door open themselves on purpose as a tactical choice.
“If this is “newly discovered” exculpatory evidence, shouldn’t that be the topic of an appeal and not a basis for postponing sentencing?”
No, that would be covered under post-conviction relief. KR has already been convicted, so it requires a different process.
Frank, since you are retrying the case and acting as judge, prosecutor, and defender, can you please describe exactly what you are doing with respect to the following?
1) Are parties supposed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
2) What authority do you have to issue rulings and enforce them?
3) Why is is that the pro-se idiots are bypassing their lawyers and sending in in all of their “discoveries” and “wisdom” to the judge via e-mail? Why is it that Raniere’s lawyers aren’t directly filing all of this junk in the form of motions,
4) Wouldn’t it be much easier to just provide a link to the original PACER documents instead of going through all the trouble of transcribing all the drivel that the the idiots are writing?
5) Why are you putting on a show of pretending that such e-mails actually have some force of law to compel the judge to “do something”, when the judge and prosecutor can just ignore this stuff.
I think the readers will be interested in this information and very few have Pacer accounts.
I personally really love that Frank Report is making all of these court proceedings accessible to everyone. I would not know how to access PACER documents. This was helpful and very entertaining! I am hooked on Frank Report!! What will Keith with his minions be up to next ???!
Nice reporting, Frank Report team!
I find it very interesting to see it on the Frank Report and also it can be quicker here to see it.
Readers will be very interested in some kind of resolution to this decades-long horror. But apparently that is far from the horizon. Keith has a new goal – to join the ranks of the wrongly convicted. Go talk to Michael Morton (Texas). God bless those who continue to suffer.
Sentencing is on Tuesday. After Keith is buried, then there will be focus on the others. If this is all they have to offer, just sit back and laugh.
Imagine their decades of doing this to others and their inability to navigate a system unless a mentally impaired dupe funds their endless series of mistakes.
Where is the evidence that the actual content of the photos were “altered” or that the EXIF data related to them were doctored in such a way that pictures were actually taken three years after they were supposed to have been (when Cami was eighteen or older) and not when she was fifteen? That some things may have been modified on the transfer of data or whatever doesn’t mean that the content of the evidence was altered in any significant way to deny the allegations of the prosecution. Another wrench in this allegation of prosecutorial misconduct is the emphasis by the prosecution on the non-existence of Cami’s appendectomy scar in the photos as evidence that Cami was underage when those photographs were taken. The defense would have to cast reasonable doubt that the content of those photographs are not authentic and were doctored in some way. Throwing suspicion onto one photo does not necessarily throw suspicion onto the whole lot of them. From my understanding, it is very easy to prove that the content of photographs (and not metadata associated with them) has been doctored and I don’t see anything that alleges this.
Of course, the truth is Raniere did have a sexual relationship with an underage Cami, just like he had with several other young women who had already come forth on record to testify that this was the case. This just seems to me to be a last-ditch effort to generally say evidence was “altered” (and maliciously so), and, therefore, the entire lot must be thrown out.
Do they really think Raniere didn’t sleep with Cami until she was 18, or do they just not care?
Sadly they don’t care.
That’s a fact. Frank would confirm himself.
Ah, the good ‘ole days of Polaroid pictures. LOL
Now we have a double whammy – not only lawyers, but also geeks getting involved. LOL
What we have are claims, it will be interesting to hear the prosecutor’s retort. LOL
The 11th hour timing of this is interesting, I’m sure Raniere appreciates spending all this time in jail instead of this coming up over a year after the trial, let alone before/during the trial. LOL
I’m not sure the purpose of changing the time of day for Daylight Saving Time, that is something we should have done away with long ago, perhaps Trump should add that to his “to do” list in his second term, it would put him over the top in getting votes if he announced it today. LOL
Was the time changed while transferring the files from one format to another? LOL
Was the FBI told to make the evidence “perfect” and they screwed it up? LOL
Perhaps the FBI person was younger and wasn’t aware of the older file capabilities and limitations, and made an honest [incompetent] mistake, which is typical for the government. LOL
I have no expertise in this area, so I’ll await the prosecutor’s response. LOL
There were references to the files being photoshopped, but no specific descriptions of what parts of the pictures were photoshopped, at least from the links I looked at. LOL
I’m sure Frank is curious how his own case will proceed given all of this controversy. LOL
—Was the FBI told to make the evidence “perfect” and they screwed it up?
Good point Scott. Did the deep-state FBI photoshop the images? Scary stuff. Anything is possible. We should leave politics out.
—Ah, the good ‘ole days of Polaroid pictures.
How many mail in Polaroid submissions to Hustler Beaver Hunt did you make during the good ‘ole days?
Were any of the submissions family members?
First, this e-mail to the judge is not a court filing, it has no legal standing and, therefore, is irrelevant
Second, how would any of these people have access to physical evidence like hard drives that contain illegal material, child pornography? So how could they have had them analyzed?
Dr. Munegowda lives and works in India, according to Linked In.
Third, the tone of this email to Judge Garaufis is bizarre. Challenging, arrogant, and offensive. Like these people are in a position to tell him what to do.
He has absolutely no obligation to listen to their complaints. He doesn’t answer to them. Their allegations are impertinent, baseless, and without merit.
And they have the odor of Nxivm rhetoric all over them. Raniere lectured just that way, that same condescending tone, “I’m going to help you understand how you ought to behave, how to live an ethical life by doing whatever I tell you to do.”
Start with a reasonable proposition (The US justice system ought to be open to scrutiny by the citizens) and skipping to an unfounded conclusion (Raniere’s conviction should be thrown out).
Start with a reasonable premise (Injustice sometimes happens) and jump to an unreasonable conclusion (This particular conviction is unjust)
This kind of abuse of reason and logical process may have worked with the Nxivm clientele, the gullible souls who signed up to be ripped off paying for “intensives”. It’s certainly not going to work with Judge Garaufis. Or with anyone who has a grain of common sense.
Every District has local rules, but letter Motions are frequently accepted.
I am wondering who uploaded it.
Himself said it!!!
Yes, it is a lesson in how not to talk to a judge. How not to bring up this stuff [hint never at the last minute]. How to annoy a court. Also, they suggest the US justice system is not trusted. Whilst a few people may have problems with it, in the main it stands up fine when compared to places like here in the UK where, compared to so many other places from Russian to China, the systems there are totally unfair. The US and UK are a beacon of light for good justice systems – not perfect but some of the best on the planet.
I imagine should Cami speak at his sentencing and state that, yes, those photos were her at age 15, a lot of the Make Justice Blind arguments would be rendered moot. Would Keith’s attorneys still plan to appeal? Who is paying for Keith’s attorneys? Is Clare still bankrolling them?
Excellent point. I also wonder if she validated them as authentic at trial.
Excellent points, IMO. I think the remaining NXIVM loyalists and KR are desperate for any crumb that might mitigate the mountain of evidence that led to his conviction. Separately, the collateral maneuver that Nicki Clyne made, in concert with her attorney, is troubling, for sure.
I doubt Cami can present new evidence at the hearing, she is going to be there to describe the impact the crimes Raniere was convicted for impacted her life, as there is no opportunity for cross examination during the sentencing hearings. LOL
From the horses mouth:
“KEITH: I took great pains to legitimize our relationship from the start. I asked permission from both your sisters [to have sex with Cami when she was child]. I kept on asking you why you turned out different from them, etc. [when she was 15.]”
“Cami: I am angry at you because you couldn’t see how being with me at such a young age was probably taking away from my life and opportunities.”
https://frankreport.com/2019/07/06/part-6-keith-and-cami-texts-collateral-mi-papa-hector-es-gay/
These people are in complete denial and so desperate it’s sickening. Imagine if Nicki put this much effort in finding a new job maybe she wouldn’t have to sit around crying over a pedo.
Is this Plan C, D, E, F? I can’t quite keep up with the drivel. I can’t imagine how tired the judge is of all this.
Perhaps Camilla can clear this all up. I hope she puts the final nail in his coffin.
Photoshop Elements comes standard issue with that model of camera, not to mention the bizarre timezone arguments holds no weight based on what they said if you consider it was consistently one number or the other with a large number of files as “potential human error”. X and Y but never Z.
Beyond that, wasn’t it Camilla who had stayed with NXIVM? Why would she have testified in that case? It’s different than say another member of her family, but it’s not like there was a hidden reason there.
This all seems rather unhinged. Very disappointed people standing up for slavery and pedophelia 🙁 sad for the victims, their families and anyone else who was harmed during the racketeering and legal ramifications of some people with way too much money and not enough conscience.
I wonder if the Judge is as sick of reading their drivel as I am? I wonder if they are getting paid for this full time job?!
I was thinking the same thing: the judge must be like who are All these people representing themselves in front of the court?
Everyone in a courtroom, except for the defendant and some of the witnesses, is getting paid as part of their full time jobs. LOL
That’s one of many things that struck Scott after Amway sued him and he went to some court hearings. LOL
OK, so now these criminals are projecting their vicious modus operandi onto the government.
No Nxivm. This is not how most people’s family lives, professional lives, religious lives, sporting lives, work. In the Nxivm clique, exploitation, manipulation, cruelty, by any vile means necessary, is de riguer. Out here, in life, there are consequences for such criminal behaviour.
I hope John Tighe and his family are well and looking forward to Christmas. Thoughts and prayers to them.
Question 1: Has Raniere ever disputed that these were his photos? I don’t recall his lawyers ever disputing that he had underage nude pics on his computer at any time during the trial. So…doesn’t that render this whole argument irrelevant?
Question 2: The other co-defendants that took plea deals…they had a variety of other criminal charges leveled against them. Making it sound as though they were only entrapped by these 22 nude underage pics is misleading and distracts from their other crimes.
Answer 1: Raniere isn’t claiming the pictures weren’t originally on his camera, only that the pictures had been tampered with, to what extent is unknown. LOL
Answer 2: This could backfire on all of them if they attempt to withdraw their plea deals and convictions – not only is that very difficult to do, the DOJ may get pissed and go after additional charges. LOL
How much money was the forensic expert paid for this? We all know how Nxivm works.
One of them stated he is paid $350/hour plus expenses. LOL
At least he has a reputation to protect, unlike NXIVM. LOL
350/hour plus??????
Wow that’s almost as much as my wife bills an hour.
Before discovering this website, I did not know anything about the NXIVM case. Thanks to Frank Parlato’s posts, I started to soak up all this dirty stuff. As most of those who comment here, at first Keith Raniere seemed someone despicable, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but as I delved into his case, I began to intuit that perhaps not everything was as it was told. Suspicions that KR was a scapegoat were growing. Today I no longer have any doubts. The strange elements that have managed to infiltrate the American Justice system, after many previous attempts, neo-Marxist elements, disguised as tolerance and democracy, have convinced the masses, who allow themselves to be carried away by their visceral opinions and their tendency to lynch, that Raniere he is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. I don’t think he’s guilty. I mean it sincerely. What I do believe is that he is a victim of this rotten and decadent system, which puts a dirty ideology before the truth. Raniere will be imprisoned not for what he allegedly did, but for a totalitarian agenda that seeks the destruction of a part of society, which does not bow to his gender propaganda.
You will have your reasons for willfully ignoring facts. And we will never know them, because you will never be able to speak in anything less than irreconcilable riddles.
Thanks for your “sincere” change of opinion obvious NXIVM acolyte (who has given himself away by saying all the things they do) pretending to be an unbiased observer.
Welcome to the cult, friend. Please send in your collateral as soon as possible and don’t eat any calories until you hear from someone.
Both can be true – Raniere broke laws AND the government misbehaved – it’s not necessarily an either/or. LOL
Thanks 4 the insight dude!!!!!
Simple explanation for you.
1. Yes somebody accessed the data without using a write blocker, either forgetting to or not knowing they had to. This would alter some metadata but not the dates the photos were taken. It’s a mistake the prosecution cops to anyway and was told to the jury during testimony.
2. The forensic experts the NXIdiots used were not analyzing data from a forensic copy – which they keep repeating they never received. Knowing that NXIVM has a track record of fucking with data, the likely case is they themselves fucked with the data on the copy of the drive they received before turning it over to the experts. It wasn’t a forensic copy so anyone with access to that copy could have messed with it, and then given it to the forensic experts.
3. The defense never argued anything about the admissibility of the data in court. If they had doubts over it, clearly they would have brought it up. Any decent attorney would have had that covered.
Your intuition is incorrect. You can’t tell from reading their evidence and a cursory look at their “experts” that it’s an empty fabrication, can you?
What your comment suggests is that you’re sympathetic to the predatory nature of KRs actions and you don’t know what Marxism is. Literally, every single person that references Marxism in these comments hasn’t applied it correctly once. It’s a word you don’t understand to describe things you don’t like, in this case justice for a man that created a capitalistic feudalistic pyramid scheme, based on the teachings of well known psychopaths.
No, not at all although you are entitled to believe that if you like.
I have been the opposite. I first came on here thinking like my usual devil’s advocate – consent, people chose, BDSM is lawful, etc., etc…. but the evidence from both sides actually has convinced me to the contrary.
Listen new guy, “vanguard” has been pulling this shit since the early 90s. And he insisted on everything being recorded. He indicted himself because there is a library of him rolling his crimes out IN HIS OWN WORDS. Stop defending reprehensible sociopaths.
—Raniere will be imprisoned not for what he allegedly did, but for a totalitarian agenda that seeks the destruction of a part of society, which does not bow to his gender propaganda.
Your statements are not conflicting or contradictory as much as they are mutually exclusive and nonconforming. In other words please make less esoteric comments.
“The email was signed by Eduardo Asunsolo, Marc Elliot, Michele Hatchette, Suneel Chakravorty, Brian Elliot, Justin Elliot and Linda Chung.”
I note that Nicole Clyne alias Nicki Clyne is not one of the signatories of the email. Is Nicole too busy saving her own skin to care about the fate of her beloved Vanguard?
Clyne couldn’t stop dancing. LOL