Suneel Stands His Ground; Clarifies Why He Believes FBI Tampered With Cami Nude Pics

Camila by MK10ART

Editor’s note: Of late, Suneel Chakravorty has been defending his friend, convicted felon Keith Alan Raniere, and perhaps has an issue worth investigating: Were the Cami pictures used against Raniere at trial tampered with to sustain the child porn charge?

We have a long way to go to investigate this issue to even get to anything like a preponderance of evidence. But I think it is possible that we will be able to get closer to the truth. There are at least two likely scenarios: Either the FBI actually did find the Cami nude pics just before trial, on the hard drive they seized almost a year earlier and they were actually nude pics of Cami when she was 15, and they presented the truth as they knew it or they tampered with the hard drive or the Cami photos in some way to make it appear that this late found bombshell evidence that essentially singlehandedly ended the defense and the resolve of all the codefendants was authentic, even though it was not.  Suneel suggests they could have been pics of Cami when she was older, and legal, and the dates or the photos were altered to make it look like she was underage.

Recently, two commenters on Frank Report criticized Suneel and Suneel has once again taken the time to rebut his detractors.

Sherizzy wrote Suneel Is Wrong, Cami, Raniere, Agnifilo, None Disputed Nudes Were of 15 Year Old

Bangkok wrote: We Are Going to Need a Full Psych Team to Deprogram Suneel

Here is Suneel’s reply:

By Suneel Chakravorty

First, I’d like to respond to Bangkok:

In Bangkok’s rebuttal, I don’t think he responded directly to any of the points I raised. Instead, he made claims that were unrelated to my argument.

For example, Bangkok writes, “In Suneel’s case, he has established that it’s BEYOND THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY (totally impossible) that Keith could have broken the law and/or bedded a 15-year-old minor.”

This is false. I haven’t made any claims about Keith’s actions regarding the veracity of the underage sex allegation with Camila, and I have stated before that if any such allegation were true, I would support charges being brought and prosecuted fairly.

My claim is about FBI agents tampering with digital evidence to bring a child pornography charge.

Here are a few of the points, restated:

  1. The break in the chain of custody, camera card arriving in an unsealed bag
  2. The alteration of data on the camera card on 9/19/18, by an unknown person, with no documentation around the incident
  3. The alteration of metadata and dates on the hard drive, which happens to support the government’s argument
  4. What appears to be [and I know it is a strong word] “Perjury” on the part of FBI senior forensic examiner Brian S Booth, regarding the reliability of EXIF data, which was the forensic crux of the government’s case. 

Bangkok also made speculations about my personal life that are wholly irrelevant to my arguments. Why not address my actual arguments? 

I may share more of my personal and professional background in future articles, so the readership gets to know me better.

However, the purpose of these particular articles is to raise public awareness of possible government corruption regarding the child pornography charge in USA v. Keith Raniere, and for us to honestly and vigorously debate the issue.

To that end, if I have made a logical leap at any juncture or have stated something improperly as a fact when it is not, just point it out specifically.

Now for Sherizzy’s post.

Sherizzy writes, “First, you are claiming that you know more than an expert. Not buying it.”

Where did I make this claim?

“Second, the fact that the photos were accessed does not mean that they were significantly tampered with and the dates altered.”

I agree that improper access does not mean they were tampered with. The point I made was that it had been established by forsensic experts, Dr. Munegowda and Steve Abrams, that EXIF metadata, including dates, of pictures on the hard drive had been manually altered, in their October 2020 reports.

“As far as planting photos on Raniere’s hard drive and creating a 2005 folder, that is just ridiculous and does not deserve a reply.”

The folder names containing 2005 dates were brought up as forensic evidence. That is ridiculous, as folder names can be easily altered.

“Third, the reliability of the photos goes to the weight of the evidence and not admissibility.”

From former FBI agents familiar with the evidence handling protocols, I have been told that not write-blocking is a critical issue that sometimes can affect the admissibility of the evidence.

“Fourth, Raniere’s defense team was heavily influenced by his input, if not completely controlled by it.”

I find this very unlikely. What is your basis for this? In a February 5, 2019 bail hearing, it was established that Keith was denied legal visits for much of January, even prior to the fire at MDC that resulted in the power outage. It is well known that inmates who get pre-trial detention have a much harder time preparing for and participating actively in their defense.

“At trial, Raniere did not dispute that they were from 2005. From what I remember, Raniere’s attorney Marc Agnifilo tried to get them thrown out because they were so old. Also, Agnifilo could have called his own experts at trial to challenge the prosecution’s expert.”

I believe this point is true. As an aside, let’s say it’s true that the defense could have more rigorously cross-examined and investigated. If FBI agents were involved in fabricating this evidence, as I claim, and have provided evidence for, that is far worse in my opinion than a failure of the defense counsel.

“I am sure if Raniere believed they were not from 2005, he would have made sure that his lawyers did this, but he did not. That is very telling.”

You are assuming Keith had significant input into or control of the process, which I challenge above. My experience with attorneys, and experts in general, is they like to run the show.

“Fifth, Closing arguments are just that, argument. They are not evidence. That means, aside from some basic rules, the prosecutor is permitted to argue what is in evidence. Raniere’s lawyers were free to do the same. Again, closing arguments are not evidence.”

I did not claim closing arguments are evidence, but it is interesting they repeated the lie about EXIF metadata. Remember, the falsehood alleged by Booth that EXIF metadata is difficult to modify was an essential fact that went to the reliability of the evidence.

“Prosecutors only charge what they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I recommend reading some of the below links. I am not a lawyer, but even I am aware that sometimes prosecutors overcharge in order to pressure a defendant into taking a guilty plea.

– Horizontal and Vertical Overcharging:

– An older article:

“If you are going to continue making baseless arguments, as I am sure you will, just remember that you lose credibility with every frivolous argument that you make.”

It is amazing to me that yours and Bangkok’s rebuttal do not mention Booth’s perjury about metadata, which was the key piece of the government’s forensic argument of when the pictures were taken.

“That is why you have lost nearly all credibility on FR.”

I don’t think I had much credibility to begin with, and my sense from the comments mainly being personal attacks from a select group of commenters is that my credibility with the general readership is rising. But I’ll let you all be the judge.

A final point: some commenters claim that I am bullying now-31-year-old Camila or bullying women in general, and calling for me to be canceled. 

Calling a man an abuser or a bully is the quickest way to discredit him, and should be done carefully and with evidence. I don’t believe I am doing any such thing. If you believe I am, please point out a specific instance of it so I can address or respond to it.

The stance I have taken is that the critical evidence in the case, the alleged child pornography, was tampered with – implying that the naked pictures of Camila were not on the hard drive with the dates as presented (otherwise there’s no need to tamper) – and FBI Examiner Brian S. Booth perjured himself about EXIF metadata, which was an essential fact of the government’s argument which AUSA Moira Penza and Mark Lesko repeated in their closing arguments.

For the record, I am NOT claiming that naked pictures of Camila were not ever taken in 2005 or that underage sex did NOT occur. There is no credible basis for me to claim this. 

However, if no naked pictures of Camila were taken in 2005 and the now 31-year-old Camila lied in her victim impact statement about this fact, rather than laying the blame at Camila’s feet, I would look to the prosecutors in the case (Moira Kim Penza, Tanya Hajjar, and Mark Lesko), who may have pressured Camila to do so. 

After all, federal prosecutors have the practically unchecked ability to do so by threatening indictment, whether justified or not.

Keith Raniere in his library where, subsequent to his arrest, the hard drive was found.

About the author

Guest View


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Suneel believes what he wants to believe, because it’s what he wants to believe. I believe that nobody is beyond rehabilitation, because it’s what I want to believe.

    People believe all kinds of logical and illogical things…

  • Hey, Suneel? Guess what? Your professional credentials don’t really matter that much.

    As you said, you’re not a lawyer.

    This leaves you in a position of a supporter. One of the nxivm 5 or whatever they call you.

    And to be honest? I’m so appalled at all of you. How can you put your time and effort into supporting this guy and still sleep at night?

    I’ll grant you that I was never on the inside, but I still believe Cami really was 15 and that you’re supporting a really bad person.

    Please consider some reading?

  • @suneeltheory

    I don’t feel badly for you, Suneel. After it has been publicly demonstrated that KR is a manipulator of the worst kind, you still get sucked into his lies. You deserve the embarrassment and shame you have coming when you learn you have been giving your voice and your reputation to a pedophile and abuser. A new trial will prove this, so go for it! Can’t wait…

    I am going to let this play out because I already know how it ends, but mark my words: I told you so.


  • Suneel,

    My last comment on your articles:

    “The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950,[2] is a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.”

    You are such a broken-record-cliché; Suneel, you, would never pass the Turing test at this point-in-time.

    In-other-words you are a poor man’s Automaton.


    x = 0.1
    while x != 1:
    x += 0.1

    Gotta love Python 🐍

  • My points are these (1) these issues being raised are all just small side issues none of which are big enough to make the finding of guilt wrong and (2) it is far too late – at trials you bring everything up early on, even well before the trial – that is how the system works – you simply do not get lots of bites at the cherry.

  • Suneel-

    Even if you are successful in getting Keith Raniere a second trial, more wittiness, who are no longer scared of Keith and Clare, will come forward. A new trial will be more evidence not less.

  • Apparently, NXIVM courses don’t actually make people better critical thinkers. All they do is enhance the predisposition to narcissism that people already have and make them believe they’re better critical thinkers. Apparently, it also magnifies their latent hubris and makes them believe that they are better than mere mortals and can treat them in whatever manner they see fit, e.g., lie, cheat, deceive, waste their time, condescend, etc., just like their leader believes himself to be and does.

  • Keith (the world’s most ethical child rapist) nicknamed Cami “the virgin Camilla”.

    Keith wanted her to be some kind of vessel? Anyway, Cami’s highly valued by Raniere (world’s smartest child pornographer) and her “purity” was much discussed.

    Keith makes it crystal clear repeatedly that Cami had only ever been with him sexually. Until she “committed an “ethical breach” much later.

    By Keith’s (world’s best commodities trader failure) own multiple assertions, he was the father of the child Cami aborted as a young teenager.

    Suneel doesn’t actually care that Raniere (world’s worst real estate developer) raped Cami repeatedly as a child. Or took graphic photos of this girl. Suneel now says he wants a trial for these crimes. When Raniere (world’s most terrible gambler) is found guilty in this fantasy trial, Suneel will claim it was an unfair trial and move the goal posts again.

  • Suneel, also, what do you say of the text messages that went back and forth between Keith and Cami in which she refers to the fact that he slept with her when she was underage? He doesn’t deny it in those private conversations with Cami. I’d say that’s pretty clear evidence that he had sex with her when she was a minor. Because she refers to it and he doesn’t refute it.

    Why do you continue to defend a pedophile?

  • Suneel keeps harping about a time stamp. But there’s still the glaring issue of Cami’s appendectomy scar which did not appear in that underage picture of her and means that she was 16 or younger when the photo was taken. Yes, the scar could also be photoshopped out. But it is not difficult to find out if a photograph has been photoshopped. And I never heard anything from the Forensic Experts Steven Abrams or the other guy about this.

  • If you are so sure it was tampered with and have evidence, then take them to court. As for: “You are assuming Keith had significant input into or control of the process, which I challenge above. My experience with attorneys, and experts in general, is they like to run the show.” Sure, your experience with attorneys as Joe Blog may not have been entirely under your control, but we are talking here of a genius who is trying to save the world – how can he do that if he doesn’t even have ‘significant input’ into or control of a process to save his own skin, or over lawyers that he pays?

  • I would like to consider something here. Suneel’s motives may have changed along the way and he may now be beholden to his new set of friends rather than Keith’s cause. He has stood up for Keith and faced the wrath of FR readers and others may be in his personal life, or on Twitter. Real friends may have distanced themselves. This may have pushed him further in with the likes of the NXIVM 5 and now he may feel he does not want to do anything to lose this set of people from his life. We don’t know his personality. He may need to be loved and feel he belongs, perhaps people know this and are taking advantage. Maybe he is being carried along this course through fear of not belonging. I am trying to rationalize this prolonged defense of Keith and wonder if it’s something more.

  • NXIVM has a long history of using the legal system to terrorize people. The same legal system the loyalists say is corrupt. Does that mean they have been participating in corruption?

  • Suneel, it’s not personal. I’ve been called a thousand worse things than you.

    I’ve had members wish for my death. 🙂

    I’ve had members accuse my mom of dropping me on my head when I was a baby, to explain why I’m so mentally fucked up.

    Actually, that may have happened cuz I was an unruly little bastard and probably deserved it. 🙂

    I am sad to report that I won’t be able to hurl insults at you any longer, for a little while, as duty calls and I won’t be posting here for a little while.

    I shall return this summer to continue opposing you.

    I must rely on Niceguy to step up and begin opposing you, in my absence. He needs to prove his manhood again. He needs to assert himself as a vocal opponent of all things NXIVM. If Niceguy doesn’t step up to fill this role, he’s a pussy.

    Have a fine day. 🙂

  • What the hell?!

    I’m reading the post, then looking at the responses calling the author all sorts of really vile things. To me that is not the response of those who are comfortable with what they think is true.

    I mean, really: saying the author is “comfortable with pedophilia?!” This is like the worst caricature of every hyperbolic Internet argument ever made. The libel of someone you disagree with? Childish.

    Is that what this site is about?

    How about wondering why a key piece of evidence was improperly accessed and what that means in the context of the justice system? That’s kind of an issue, isn’t it? No curiosity about that? People have had convictions reversed for such things. If the FBI is playing this loose with evidence, then I can’t help but wonder what other corners they are cutting.

    I see a lot of interesting questions being asked, and they are being responded to with abuse and ridicule.

    • The author is comfortable with pedophilia. He is not taking issue with the fact that Keith had the photos of Cami naked at the age of 15 and testimony of Cami having sex with Keith underage. Suneel is taking issue with the FBI allegedly tampering with the metadata of the photos.

      Overall. Suneel is OK with Keith’s activity with underage girls (pedophilia). He wants us to be outraged by how the FBI acted instead.

      So this is true: “comfortable with pedophilia”

      Let’s call things as they are.

      • Exactly. You can see video of Keith teaching people to deconceptualize their attitudes of, and the social stigma associated with….pedophilia.

      • You have no idea what Suneel is or isn’t comfortable with. So let’s indeed call things as they are. You’re tossing vile accusations at someone because he is asking questions about something you don’t want him to. That how things are.

        And I think you’re doing it out of spite.

        So let’s see. Making accusations you don’t know to be accurate out of malice. I think there’s s word for that.

        • No one cares if this fool continues to “ask questions”. I actually find it hilarious. Hope he spends the next 120 years working tirelessly to free Keith Raniere.

          Suneel constantly accuses women of lying and calls upstanding citizens idiots. Also, he attacks the integrity of people he knows nothing about because they are doing their jobs in the court of law.

          He’s a clown. And a pedophile appologist.

        • Maybe these accusations would be inappropriate if Suneel had honestly addressed Raniere’s admissions of sex with Cami in his texts and emails with her. But he has yet to do that and I doubt he ever will.

          So, until he does, these accusations are completely appropriate.

          • Ok. Burn the witch. Guilt by association. Delete the bad man!

            What hysteria here. All that’s missing is the spittle flying everywhere.

        • Anonymouse, maybe you’re right that it’s unfair to say Suneel supports pedophilia.

          The problem is that he takes huge issue with this singular image and claims that it was supposedly tampered with. Never mind the texts or her victim impact statement and the testimony of her sister that corroborate its authenticity.

          He chooses to throw his weight behind having this charge appealed on a very questionable technicality.

          What if Cami was his sister or God forbid, his daughter? Would he be looking at the evidence in trial saying, “Geez, I’m not really sure about what happened with that picture? I know all the texts and her confession indicate the perp was abusing her at age 15 and she told me so, but, hmm. Maybe something went wrong with how this photo was handled and the charge should be appealed?”

          Said no one ever!!!!

          The reason people think he supports pedophilia is because he’s trying to appeal a charge of child pornography claiming that the photo was improperly accessed by the FBI.

          Meanwhile, all the other evidence makes it very clear what a nightmare this guy was to a girl 30 years his junior and only 15 at the time.

    • I, too, see a lot of interesting questions being asked. Most important one is, why is Suneel so persistently defending a scumbag felon like Raniere, a convicted sex trafficker and racketeer? A guy who ran a pyramid scheme, blackmailed women and conspired to have his initials branded onto their bodies?

      I mean, if Suneel is truly interested in defending wrongly convicted prison inmates, couldn’t he find a more worthwhile person? Somebody who might actually have been wrongfully convicted, someone who didn’t have a multimillion dollar war chest to fund his team of high powered defense attorneys?

      These are some of the questions I’m interested in.

      Why is Suneel hammering on this one trivial issue of the memory card having been accessed? It’s a trivial point regarding a peripheral piece of evidence. The matter was brought up in court and presented to the jury. It’s insignificant.

      Raniere is guilty as hell. The evidence against him was overwhelming, the case against him airtight. There was plentiful physical evidence presented at trial, since Raniere and his merry band of co-conspirators left a wide trail of emails, video and sound recordings. They were a most heedless bunch of felons. Multiple witnesses presented testimony presenting a clear and coherent tale of blackmail and trafficking, abuse and wanton cruelty. Insiders high up in the organization testified against Raniere.

      The man is clearly guilty. He was so found by an independent jury, unanimously and rapidly. His own defense team had… nothing.

      So why hammer on a mere triviality? Smoke and mirrors, that’s why. It’s a feeble attempt at gaslighting. A pitiful, sad attempt. Yet it’s all the sad, pitiful remnants of the cult have going for them.

      Gaslighting worked on a lot of the people in the cult when the cult was strong. Well, it don’t work now. Not on us. Not on the jury of 12 independent, objective citizens.

      The cult was exposed. Raniere was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Justice was done. Accept it.

  • Suneel, only one question. If Raniere had sex with Camilla when she was under the legal age of consent, would you renounce him?

    • Suneel writes “I agree that improper access does not mean they were tampered with. The point I made was that it had been established by forsensic experts, Dr. Munegowda and Steve Abrams, that EXIF metadata, including dates, of pictures on the hard drive had been manually altered, in their October 2020 reports.”

      This alleged report was produced at the behest of the Nxivm dead-enders. Created (obviously) after the trial ended, Raniere’s defense team had nothing to do with its creation. It has zero credibility in my opinion. Why? First, google Dr. Munegowda. He lives and works in India. So how does he have access to the relevant memory device that’s currently locked up as evidence in a US federal facility? Neither alleged expert is working for Raniere’s actual defense team, which means they would have no access to the evidence. Therefore, any “conclusions” they might have drawn are nothing more than pure speculation.

      Keep in mind that the memory drive in question contains child pornography. Merely having possession of it is illegal. So can Suneel explain how his two alleged experts supposedly got their hands on it? When they aren’t even part of Raniere’s official legal team?

      ‘Cuz if it’s that easy for Joe Blow to come in off the street and check out stuff from the Feds’ evidence room, I’d like to check out some of the cocaine from that big drug bust. Y’know, to run my own “tests” on it.

      Yeah. I have my doubts about this October 2020 “report”. Given Nxivm’s history of lies and phony claims, I’ll assume this report is pure fabrication.

      So where does that leave Suneel’s claims? The actual evidence, given in court, is that there was a lapse in custody and somebody evidently accessed the files. No evidence that anything was changed.

      One piece of evidence. Not missing, not altered, merely looked at out of how many pieces of evidence at that trial? Hundreds?

      Trivial. That’s what this whole furor is over, a trivial lapse. That was fully explored in court, in front of the jury. The point has been considered and dismissed. It’s a nothingburger.

      I expect Suneel will keep hammering at this bit of irrelevance because it’s all he’s got. Like I said before, he’d talk the ear off a dead dog. Because he desperately needs to believe Raniere is a victim of injustice.

      Well, the jury didn’t and neither do I.

  • “My credibility with the general readship is rising.” Lmao! He took this article and posted it on his Twitter page like a child put up a indistinguishable scribble drawing on his fridge. It got zero comments and 8 likes. It’s his own page!! His own clubhouse members did say a word. Sorry Suneel, no gold star for this paper.

  • Suneel, you forgot to mention that your “experts” never received a forensic copy of the data. That means that you and the other leftovers could have tampered with the copy that you have to fit whatever claim you are making (and exactly how are you in possession of child pornography and don’t you know that is illegal?).

    This fits perfectly into NXIVM’s MO of hacking into people’s computers and planting child pornography on the computers of your “enemies.” Nothing in your possession can be trusted.

  • ========================
    Suneel said: “For the record, I am NOT claiming that naked pictures of Camila were not ever taken in 2005 or that underage sex did NOT occur. There is no credible basis for me to claim this. ”

    I just caught Suneel in a contradiction.

    While I understand Suneel’s legal point for making this statement above (that underage sex was not charged in this indictment and has no bearing on Keith’s guilt or innocence of racketeering) ——- I’d like to point out that Suneel has just contradicted his own previous statements about why he still associates with Keith.

    Suneel previously said that he would NOT support anybody that, in his own judgment, may have harmed an underage child (which, IMO, would include having underage sex with a child who cannot realistically give consent; regardless of whether or not such sex can be charged as a crime).

    Also… Suneel is not screaming — from the top of his lungs — that Keith would never copulate with a 15 year old child. That puzzles me.

    For a man who claims that he’d never associate with anybody who may have harmed a child —– I’d expect him to scream, from the top of his lungs, that Keith would never have engaged in such a perverted, dirty and wanton act.

    Suneel previously claimed that he’d stand against anybody who ever harmed a child.

    I also interpret this to mean that, Suneel would disassociate himself from anybody who likely (or very well may have) engaged in such an act, regardless of whether or not criminal charges can be filed.

    Holy Shit! What is Suneel doing?

    Holy Cow! Why would Suneel choose to associate with such a man on a social basis?

    Even if Keith were wrongfully convicted due to fabricated evidence, as Suneel believes, WHY would Suneel support a man who may have had sex with an underage child?

    Suneel’s likely reply…

    Suneel will likely respond by saying that, until he can 100% confirm that such sex happened, he’ll continue to give Keith the benefit of the doubt.

    Yet, that’s just another way of saying that, until Vanguard admits he’s a pervert, Suneel will continue to support him.

    Again, Suneel’s critical thinking ability has fallen down a rabbit hole here.

    But I have no doubt that, if Suneel turned his intelligence and energy towards a more worthy project — such as feeding starving kids or helping homeless families — the world would be a better place.

    Instead of using his intellect for ‘good’ —– Suneel has chosen to devote his energy into supporting a man that, according to my Lord and Savior, will not be admitted thru the Pearly Gates and will wind up with a pitch fork up his ass for eternity, alongside his former wing-woman who already resides there, Pam Cafritz.

  • Suneel,

    I hate to burst your big bubble of baseless hope but even if you were right about the point you’re trying to make with regard to the possible alteration of Cami’s photo, it would not change the outcome of the trial.

    That’s because the photo in question was only relevant with respect to one of the eleven predicate acts concerning Count Two: Racketeering. That was Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography.

    The actual charge of Possession of Child Pornography was in Count Five of the second superseding indictment — and that charge was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and referred to the Hear-No-Evil, See-No-Evil, Not-Indict-Evil Northern District of New York.

    And even if the same photo was also linked to two other predicate acts — i.e., Racketeering Act 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 2, 2005 and Racketeering Act 3: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 24, 2005 — that still leaves eight other predicate acts that Keith was found to have committed with respect to the charge of Racketeering.

    In essence, you’re employing the same strategy that Derek Chauvin’s attorneys used in his recent trial: keep throwing shit ball alternative theories at the wall — and hope that some of them stick. And we all know how well that turned out.

    How about you take off the training wheels — and start dealing directly with the seven crimes that a jury of twelve independent
    people unanimously concluded Keith committed? Just to refresh your mind, those were:
    – Racketeering
    – Racketeering Conspiracy
    – Forced Labor Conspiracy
    – Wire Fraud Conspiracy
    – Sex Trafficking Conspiracy
    – Sex Trafficking of Nicole
    – Attempted Sex Trafficking of Jay

    PS: I wonder how your family feels about the undue amount of time you spend defending Keith Raniere. Has it ever occurred to you that every minute you spend doing that is a minute you take away from them?

    • KR Claviger: I believe that FBI tampering with key evidence would constitute a significant due process issue. Regarding the other predicate acts, I will delve into those more deeply soon. Also, why do you think the amount of time I am spending is “undue”? If Keith is in fact innocent of the charges he was convicted of (meaning the prosecution did not meet the requisite elements) and the prosecution also engaged in misconduct, I think trying to expose such an injustice is an endeavor well worth my time, and if successful could help more than just Keith.

      • Claviger – I think Suneel’s response to your comment proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he has not heard anything that you have said, ever.

        And, I don’t think he ever will.

        • Sherizzy,

          I think Suneel understands the points I make but because he can’t refute them, he either ignores them or he deflects them by responding about a different topic. As much as anything, I make my comments to be sure that Frank Report readers can see the holes in Suneel’s arguments: like thinking that the overturning on one predicate act would somehow undo the outcome of Keith’s entire trial.

          • And, thank God that you do, Claviger!

            I also find it hard to let his bullshit legal claims go unanswered even though I know that he will not listen.

            It’s important that FR readers see the frivolity of Suneel’s claims and also important that he not go unchallenged.

            But, his constant recycling of claims that have already been proved meritless on FR is exhausting. You are a very patient man.

      • Suneel-

        I believe you’re a good person; I also believe you’re now trolling K.R. Claviger.

    • Dear sir,
      Today while learning how to open up
      e-mails, at last one has been read, dated Feb 5th or so. Maybe one day soon I shall learn how to answer an e-mail, too.

      Teresa Russell, eh? That can only be Theresa Russell, only misspelled. An actress, you see. Whoops.

      Teresa Russell, whoever she is, thanks you for your moves, Mr. Claviger. You seem to have saved me from my very own subconscious. Good heavens. That was very nice of you.

      Suneel has chosen his cage. He cunt hear you. Hee hee

      • Ah Shivani, for months I have thought that email was an error in judgment — or perhaps more like a note-in-a-bottle tossed into the interweb sea. What a nice surprise to see that it was received — and, even better, that it was appreciated.

        It is just a matter of time, Shivani…just a matter of time.

    • K.R. Claviger,

      Thank you so much for putting-to-rest Suneel’s tampered photo obsession.

      Bless you!

    • K.R. Claviger-

      Apparently, there is a man in this world more obstinate than our own beloved, Mr. Johnson. It’s unfathomable to me such a person as Suneel exists.

  • As others have mentioned, I find it very frustrating that Suneel doesn’t engage with the larger moral issues with Keith. He isn’t Keith’s lawyer who is paid to defend particular legal theories. He is described as Keith’s friend. I certainly hope never to be in the situation where I have been friends with someone who has been convicted of all the crimes Keith has or engaged in the kind of large-scale harm that Keith has. But if I was, I hope I would only defend him if he accepted responsibility and worked to make amends. Keith has not done this. In fact, Keith has for decades been allowed to avoid responsibility partially because of enablers who protected him, attacked his enemies, lied for him, etc. I would be loathed to continue that for another day. If Keith wants to appeal in court, he certainly has every right to do that and has money from Claire to facilitate that. If Suneel continues to try to do P.R. for Keith, he needs to answer questions about the morality of that. And I hope he considers what it means to the victims that he isn’t acknowledging the harm they have suffered.

    • he said he had never even met keith until after his arrest or something like that. It boggles my mind why suneel wants to be friends with keith at all.

      suneel – there’s lots of people in the world, find new friends dude. keith does not care about you.

      • Hey Ice-nine, I had a few passing interactions with Keith prior to his arrest. I mentioned it a bit in this article (

        If I were doing all of this to be friends with Keith, I agree that that would be ridiculous and ill-advised. That’s not why I am doing this.

        The reality is that I went to the trial and felt it was a serious and intentional subversion of justice. At that point, it would have been in my benefit to just walk away and never get involved. After all, I had a very superficial association with ESP/NXIVM at that point and had a sterling reputation. I had much to lose and very little to gain, except that I would be doing something that I felt was important to me: exposing what I believe to be an injustice.

        Perhaps I am wrong. In a way it would be better if I am proven wrong. But I don’t think that will ultimately be the case.

  • Suneel, do you think all the women of DOS would have said “Yes” if the higher-ups had disclosed the truth about the brand’s meaning? Can you see how they didn’t give true consent since there was deception involved? Did you know that Danielle R. had expressed concern about consent to her higher-ups?

  • Honestly, this makes me want to puke. Evidence points to KR having a sexual relationship with a young girl beginning at 15… If you cannot say that this man is innocent of this (among many other amoral if not illegal activities), then you should really look at your motives and stop being so self-righteous.

    Also, while I don’t read this blog daily or read all the comments, I highly doubt your credibility among readers is growing.

  • Your rebuttal to my comment is unpersuasive.

    Of course, you never explicitly claimed to be an expert. The fact that you believe yourself to be more knowledgeable than the experts who testified at trial comes across through your words and tone.

    Post-it notes to defense counsel repeatedly and ferociously during cross-examinations reveal Raniere’s high level of input in his defense. It follows that he was just as passionate about his defense when alone with his attorneys. Further, the fact that Agnifilo would badger Lauren given his experience also serves as proof (Raniere was handing him notes throughout her cross).

    Also, let’s look at this logically. If Raniere knew they were not from 2005, don’t you think he would have brought that up? If you were a defendant and you knew that evidence was not authentic, wouldn’t you bring that up to your lawyers? Would you permit them to make an argument that concedes that they were authentic? This is also the first line of defense. It wasn’t mine, the cops planted it – OJ? Almost every gun and drug case where the evidence was not found on the person. If it was a valid issue, it would have been raised.

    I guess you did not read my clarification of my weight point. Any piece of evidence must be authenticated before it can be admitted as an exhibit at trial. Once the prosecutor lays a proper foundation, as they did here, any challenge to that evidence goes to its weight. The jury here weighed the evidence, including the cross of the expert about the break in the chain of custody, and they found that the photo was authentic. Raniere did not put experts on the stand so he cannot challenge the evidence now on appeal. The issue is unpreserved.

    Most importantly, despite your claim that you have “evidence” of tampering, all you have put forth is conjecture. Ifs and mays are not evidence. You must prove with factual evidence that the photos were tampered with by law enforcement. Your opinion that it is easy to tamper with the data is your opinion. The expert at trial held a different opinion, which is not perjury. You need to prove that you know for a fact that the photos are not authentic. You have not done that because you lack real evidence.

    Also, the evidence at trial belies your claim. Raniere’s anniversary with Cami established her age as 15 when they first had sex. Lauren’s testimony showed that he always set anniversary dates based on the first time he had sex with that person. Many witnesses testified about Raniere’s penchant for naked photos, especially close-ups of vaginas with a bit of face showing. Daniella found a folder of naked pictures around that time when she backed up his hard drive. And, of course, Cami’s victim statement confirmed that Raniere took naked pictures of her and had sex with her when she was 15.

    So, you are saying that each one of these people is lying. That the prosecutors made them lie. Where is your proof? Isn’t it more probable that Raniere, a man with a history of keeping naked photos and having sex with minors, kept a photo of Cami at 15?

    Lastly, I don’t know what comments you are reading, but the ones I have read – all of them – display your complete lack of credibility with FR readers.

    You are a math guy, Suneel. You should be able to see how your claim is illogical. Your idol worship of Raniere is making you blind to the evidence.

  • To Everyone & Suneel,

    Nicki Clyne, who appears to be the most intelligent person in the party of 5, has summed up Suneel’s verbiage, in a succinct perfect 21 words.

    “Powerful enemies + owned media + moral panic + professional victims + ambitious prosecutors + evidence/witness tampering + corrupt judge = 120 years in prison, aka the NXIVM Hoax”- Nicki Clyne

    Suneel, spare us your soliloquies, and simply cut and paste Nicki’s synopsis.

    • Looks like she stole my math equation about Keith and made some changes to suit her false narrative.

      Write your own material Clyne. No wonder you tanked at stand up.

  • The only thing Suneel is showing is his lack of morality and integrity. He clearly doesn’t care that Raniere persued 15-year-olds, he clearly doesn’t care that Raniere created a harem where the members didn’t know it was a harem, he clearly doesn’t care about creating a system that “encouraged” the women to not eat and lose an excessive amount of weight and maintain a weight that was medically dangerous. The list could go on. The thing is Ranere denies none of these despicable acts despite ample opportunity to do so. So Suneel KNOWS for a fact Raniere has done despicable and immoral things and his response is “but conspiracy!”. When people ignore such behavior, it means they condone it. You can also draw a proper conclusion that if they were in a position to do such behavior, they would. The only conclusion I can draw is Suneel supports pedophilia, he supports manipulating and mistreating women, and he supports the use of blackmail to get sexual favors.

    Besides that, the simple response to all his bullshit is real simple: “Where is your proof? Have you brought it to Raniere’s lawyers?” No proof? Then all his nonsense falls in the same category as QAnon, Flat-Earthers, Big Foot hunters, and so forth. It makes for (sometimes dangerous) entertainment but otherwise not worth much of response that requires any meaningful effort.

    • Great points. He acknowledges that Raniere did not fight that the pictures were from when Camilla was 15. But argues that because there was potential tampering of the evidence we should all be concerned and fight for Keith!

      You are right that the big takeaway from this is that Suneel supports pedophilia .

      • You would rather call Suneel a pedophile than address any of his actual points.

        I can probably expect the same from you.

        The FBI testified, under oath, that the evidence used to convict the defendant of production and possession of child pornography was tampered with..

        In the US, the defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence.

        So this will be appealed. And if Raniere really is a pedophile, there is a huge likelihood that he will skate on these charges because of this factual evidence tampering. If you are so concerned about punishing pedos, why aren’t you concerned with the FBI’s behavior here?

        • Nope. i never called Suneel a Pedophile. I said Suneel accepted that Rainere had photos of underage girls and thought that was OK because the biggest issue is how the FBI handled the data. I am referring to this text:

          ““At trial, Raniere did not dispute that they were from 2005. From what I remember, Raniere’s attorney Marc Agnifilo tried to get them thrown out because they were so old. Also, Agnifilo could have called his own experts at trial to challenge the prosecution’s expert.”

          I believe this point is true. As an aside, let’s say it’s true that the defense could have more rigorously cross-examined and investigated. If FBI agents were involved in fabricating this evidence, as I claim, and have provided evidence for, that is far worse in my opinion than a failure of the defense counsel.”

          Suneel is normalizing being a pedophile.
          I am sorry but this is incorrect thinking. He is justifying being a pedophile because the conspiracy of the FBI is allegedly worse…

          Worse according to whom? His morals are wrong.

          • ‘Mexican Lady’, I think you misunderstood what I was agreeing was true. I was not saying that it’s true that Raniere had pictures of a naked Camila taken in 2005. I was saying that it is true that in the trial Raniere and his attorneys did not argue that the pictures were planted or not from 2005. Is this an oversight? In my opinion, yes. But to me that is not the same as admitting pictures of Camila were taken in 2005 or normalizing pedophilia, which I do not condone. As I stated in this post, if there was underage sex or if underage pictures were legitimately taken and possessed, I would support charges being brought and prosecuted fairly.

          • This happens a lot with Crusading AntiCultists, so I just want to ask you:

            “Worse according to whom? His morals are wrong.”

            Who are you to enforce your morals on everyone else?

            Stick to legal vs illegal.

            Criminal vs not criminal.

            Minority religions and sub-cultures – by definition – have different morals than the mainstream. If something is legal – no matter how morally outrageous to you – it is legally protected behavior. In a free society, you don’t have the power to use criminal penalties such as incarceration to enforce your morals on others.

            The defense does not “investigate” in a criminal trial. They defend their client by raising reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s charges and evidence.

            The FBI property and evidence expert who was in charge of this evidence, testified, under oath, that the chain of custody on the evidence presented to support production and custody of child pornography was broken – and they have no idea who accessed the data. He’s lying that he has no idea.

            FBI Examiner Brain Booth’s whole job is to know who accesses what evidence when, and to document it.

            Brian Booth, a supposed expert, also lied about the difficulty that EXIF data can manipulated.

            Do a google search on “Changing EXIF data in graphics files”. See it for yourself.

            Why would he lie?

            You have to be fair, ML. You have to consider both sides.

            Please get off your moral high horse/character assassination trip/campaign and stick with what is legal vs what is illegal in this case.

            I DO believe crimes were committed by NXIVM executives here, and that they coordinated together, forming a conspiracy.

            But 120 years for a guy who has no criminal record? And a judge who says three times in court that the defense can launch an appeal on his actions of they don’t get an innocent verdict?

            There are lots of other very serious problems here. Don’t let your moral self-righteousness blind you from the legal matters which everyone – including you – has an interest in seeing corrected.

            Otherwise – you’re next.

            “If you do this to the worst of these, you do it to me”


          • Suneel, in your response you just said:
            “But to me that is not the same as admitting pictures of Camila were taken in 2005 or normalizing pedophilia, which I do not condone”

            You are directly saying that you do NOT condone pedophilia. Your subconscious is showing you as you are. Take a step back and reconsider who you are supporting. Who you are attacking. Morally, what does it mean? What does it mean for your soul long term?

          • Alanzo: I could not read all your text. Please learn to write in a more direct/simple matter. Thanks

        • Do you have information about the metadata related to the photoshop that Suneel claimed existed? You and Suneel have been dodging that question. I have not seen any other source share there was metadata related to photoshop in Keith’s folders

          • ‘Mexican Lady’: As for the metadata on the hard drive relating to Photoshop, there were .psa files, .tn.4.cache files, and in one of the files IMG_0175 (according to the expert analysis done in October 2020), there was a remnant of an EXIF tag left by Photoshop Adobe Elements. Regarding the .psa files, please refer to the following redirect of FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth, done by prosecutor Tanya Hajjar on June 13, 2019:

            Pages 4984 – 4985:

            Hajjar: I’m going to direct your attention to the bottom of Government Exhibit 550. The PSA file, did you look at the PSA files associated with each of these images to?

            Booth: Yes, I did.

            Hajjar: Can you talk a little bit about PSA files and what they are?

            Booth: They’re Photoshop album files and these are files that are generated by Adobe Elements. I don’t know if anyone has ever seen some of the software. It used to come embedded on a lot of Dell software. When you used to get a Dell computer you sometimes would get Adobe Elements would come along with it. But it’s a piece of software that can allow you to browse and look at a whole bunch of photos at one time like in Apple and associate music with the album. It’s, like, a digital photobomb of sorts, but just opening up some of the image files in Adobe will start to generate a PSA file like this, and what’s interesting about PSA files is they hold a lot of information. Some of it is your file structure. What else is in your file structure that’s associated with your file itself. When you open it up, it’s like an Excel spreadsheet and you can see all of the files that were associated at that date and time in there.

            Hajjar: What about the timing of the PSA files as it relate to the original image?

            Booth: They match. They’re the same times and dates.

            Hajjar: So the — a file created by Adobe matched roughly the EXIF data of the image creation time which, in this case, was 2005 throughout?

            Booth: Yes.

          • From reading past comments on FR, it appears that these photoshop remnants may appear from the camera upload onto the computer. Nothing to do with tampering.

          • Thanks for sharing that transcript Suneel. Is there a link to where they are uploaded or how can we know you are not editing the transcript you share?

            In what you share they are basically saying there is metadata from PSA files. But these were generated in 2005. It could be that Keith used adobe albums to manage his photos and that meta data was generated. Adobe albums were prettu common in 2005. “Files in the PSA format are data files created by Adobe’s Photoshop Elements or Photoshop Album. Photoshop Album is a program developed by Adobe to aid in the overall management of digital photo”;

            If Keith was a photo fan it would make sense he would use software to organize his digital albums.

            The metadata from the PSA file said it was from 2005. Are you saying that the FBI generated PSA files and then edited them so they appeared to come from 2005? Why not remove any trace of PSA files all together if they are going to fabricate evidence? That does not make sense.

        • Alanzo happens to be a “semi-pro” Scientology troll and has been doing his act for many, many years, barking his ass off about how great Scientology is.

          This is handy to bear in mind when observing his commentary here or anywhere else.

          Some are well aware of Alanzo from his years of loudmouthed whoring for his dear David Miscavige and have seen him repeating the same drivel for a lot longer than a decade. He is just another toadish parasite running his fucked-up mouth. Only with him, the warped crapfest has gone on for a lot longer than it has with Chakravorty, so far.

          By the way, Alanzo doesn’t always operate alone, not that it matters.

          • This is a complete lie.

            You can go to my website and see that I have been a critic of Scientology since I left it 21 years ago. Fired from my job, followed by PIs, they tried to destroy my family, they harrased my 83 uear okd father before he died, and they sued a client of mine.

            I am no friend to Scientology or David Miscavige.

            In fact, I implicate David Miscavige and his twin sister in the cover -p of a murder made to look like a suicide as the top pinned post on my blog. They really don’t like that.


            I have 36 years experience in and out of a cult. And I’ve continued to learn and write on the subject this whole time. So while my positions might not be standard anticultist/black&white positions, that’s because I’ve been at this so long, and the whole thing has been very personal for me.

            Just amazing “Shivani”.

            Say hi to Dave for me.


          • Shivani, that explains so much! I wondered why he always throws in the “anti-cult” word as though it’s an insult. I mean aren’t the only people who are not anticultist, well, in a cult?? Alonzo’s a Scientologist dickhead. That makes such sense now! Lmao!

          • Here’s a kind of IQ test for the contributors here at the Frank Report:

            The results will speak for themselves.

            Which of these three are true?

            1. Scientologists regularly implicate David Miscavige in the murders he covers up.

            2. Scientologists write about the classical brainwashing techniques Hubbard sprinkled throughout Scientology.

            3. Scientologists spread rumors among their critics & anticultists that other critics are secret Scientologists to try to discredit them..


          • I surmised Suneel was a Scientologist months ago and, again, believe some Scientologists were involved in the blatant “street theatre” or gaslighting harassment that went on in my world starting in 2017. Again, the Scientologists wear distinctive Naval type uniforms, etc.

            Jeffrey Peterson established the connection between the ESP Mexican Elites -who owned the Mexican branch and took over even the US operations at that time – and high-ranking Scientologists in Mexico and the US. There have been many references to earlier connections with Scientology and NX made herein and I witnessed some of those being forged myself in NXIVM’S early days.

            I would appreciate any new information on this. Is Duran still representing and do they own NXIVM after purchasing the company from Nancy Salzman following Keith’s arrest?

            Perhaps Suneel could enlighten us as to whom else among his pedophile peddling colleagues is in league with Scientology?

  • Sorry, Suneel, you always ignore what is significant. Booth admitted only to the file system metadata being changed and, in particular, only the date accessed times.

    In your claim that the FBI tampered with and backdated the images of an adult Cami and the folders of the hard drive, you have ignored proving that the actual content of the files had changed in even the most minimal of ways. Focusing on file system metadata or photographic EXIF metadata is outside of the latter and has no impact on it. The reason you ignore this is because the prosecution had additional objective evidence that dated Cami’s appendectomy surgery, which occurred when she was sixteen years old and which did not exist in any of the photographs. This is what sunk your leader and made Cami’s testimony under oath unnecessary. Image content manipulation (which would be needed to wipe away the scar) is far more difficult to hide than simple date manipulation because the digital content is not human-readable like simple date information is. Someone would actually have to go in there and use image-editing software like Photoshop. To do it and to hide it is EXTREMELY difficult without it being detectable. They would then have to modify all of the metadata to make it seem like the images weren’t edited. That is why you rely on technicalities such as these to try and override far more weighty evidence that counters them.

    It is irrelevant whether Booth thinks editing EXIF metadata is not easy. That was his opinion (able to be contended by the defense easily enough) and whether it is right or wrong doesn’t affect the former.

    These NXIVM followers like to use loaded language: tampered with, perjured himself, etc. But those are contentions, not actual happenings or facts until proven so.

    • For the person in charge of the property and evidence in this case, Examiner Brian Booth, to testify that this evidence had been accessed and tampered with while in FBI custody and he does not know by whom, is incredibly serious. In any other case, violation of the chain of custody would throw out the evidence.

      The question is, why would the FBI access this evidence secretly, violating the chain of custody?

      Because they had an airtight case?

      Property and evidence rooms have cameras 24/7, biometric scanners – the highest security in any part of any law enforcement installation. I would think the FBI’s property and evidence room in this location is one of the most secure in the world.

      And Examiner Booth doesn’t know who accessed critical evidence?

      Come on.

      I’m not a NXIVM follower. I think Raniere is a sex addict whose addiction/depravity was unleashed in the position of unchecked power he held.

      But the property and evidence guy for the FBI is lying here. If you don’t want to find out why, then the FBI’s little brainwashing scheme worked on you.

      Imagine that.


      • It was accessed not tampered with. Suneel said there was metadata from photoshop in the folder. I could not do find any reference about this Can you share? Or Is he lying?

        Overall, Suneel is admitting that Keith had naked photos with Cami when she was 15. But he wants us to be outraged about an FBI conspiracy.

        Suneel supports a pedophile and that is what is most important about this post.

        • ‘Mexican Lady’, I shared the references to the testimony in your other comment on this article.

          • Suneel, If Raniere had sex with Camilla when she was under the legal age of consent, would you renounce him?

        • What he said was there was photo editing software file types (like Photoshop) in addition to just raw image or other image file types in that folder.

          But that isn’t proof of anything, including image tampering, because digital cameras—depending upon the brand (no pun intended)—can create other types of files than just image files that are also downloaded to a hard drive when images are transferred to it from the card the camera uses to store images when pictures are taken. Suneel should know this, and it is easy enough information to obtain, so the fact that he keeps repeating it as evidence of image tampering shows that he’s either disingenuous, just plain stupid, or that…

          Apparently, NXIVM “brainwashing” works for some. It turns people into braindead morons, including those who go to reputable (at least in name) academic institutions. They’d rather “ride or die” with a charlatan who would switch places with them in a heartbeat and wouldn’t even acknowledge them nor put in even one tenth of one percent of the same effort for them as they are doing for him if they switched places.

      • You have a lot of attitude and a big chip on your shoulder, both here and on Twitter where you fawn all over anything Nicki Clyne says.

        You don’t want people judging you or Nxivm but you are very quick to make blanket judgments on anyone who disagrees with Suneel.

        I have never accused them of being brainwashed. I believe they are legitimate defenders of a child pornographer and rapist. This charade about wanting a trial for Cami’s accusations would just result in them declaring a guilty verdict was because of a corrupt justice system. So this is all pointless to argue.

      • Who got ” the virgin Camilla” (as Keith named her) pregnant as a teenager? She had only ever been sexually intimate with Keith.

        Even Keith says that is true. That’s why Keith threw a fit when she was with another guy way later. There is much documented about it.

        Because now in Keith’s mind Cami had ruined everything. By being intimate with another man besides Keith. For the first time. Way after her abortion.

        Again. Cami (by Keith’s own multiple assertions) had only been sexual with Keith Raniere at the time of her abortion. And for years afterward.

        Keith was the father of Cami’s aborted baby. Cami had the abortion as a young teen.

        Keith sexually assaulted Cami as a teenager. And got her pregnant.

        By his own admission.

      • Alonzo, my man! You better hope that Nicki Clyne doesn’t read what you wrote about KR. That’ll set you far back from tapping that branded pussy you constantly sniff around on Twitter. But wait, she took a sacred vow ONLY to have sex with KR for the rest of her life. Sorry dude. Guess you should’ve done your NXIVM research.

      • No evidence of “evidence tampering” has been proven.

        According to an internet source, “Tampering with evidence is illegal under both federal and state law. The crime involves altering, destroying, or concealing physical evidence WITH THE INTENT TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME of a criminal investigation or court proceeding.”

        “In any other case, violation of the chain of custody would throw out the evidence.”

        I don’t think it’s that simple. Surely, defense lawyers can argue for the evidence to be dismissed, but whether it should be depends upon the judge and the context surrounding the chain of custody issue. Obviously, it can be brought up again and reexamined on appeal.

        “The question is, why would the FBI access this evidence secretly, violating the chain of custody?”

        It’s not much of a “secret” if they admitted to particular files on the card being accessed, now is it?

        Why would the FBI admit to it at all if they were so corrupt? Why wouldn’t they simply manipulate everything on the card and outside of it, including the content of the hard drive, the chain of custody, and/or force Booth to admit to nothing at all?

        Again, the only thing the FBI admitted to about the photos and there is evidence for is file access dates being changed. They didn’t admit to, nor was it ever evidenced that the file create and modification dates, nor file content, changed in any way during the trial. And the latter, along with evidence that is objective and independent of the photos that confirms their date mentioned above (and that you ignored) overrides any such technicality because it is much more potent for showing the guilt of the defendant than file access date changes are for a nefarious frame job by the FBI.

        “But the property and evidence guy for the FBI is lying here.”

        Where’s the evidence that he’s lying? The defense had ample opportunity to go down this rabbit hole. Why didn’t they? Or maybe they did and found out it wouldn’t help their client.

      • How is your dumb quiz an IQ test? You believe knowledge or even an interest in Scientology has any bearing on standard intelligence? You really do not understand intelligence testing.

        And you just proved the comment about your Scientology obsession is a true one.

        No one wants to discuss your stupid group with you on this post. Go away. Nicki has some dirty Q-tips for you to dig out of her trash before Suneel grabs them. Hurry!

    • Great points. In his previous post. Suneel said there was metadata in the folders related to photoshop that showed the photos of Cami had been edited. I could not find any source online that corroborated this.

      These posts are a waste of our time. We are doing Sunnel’s homework. He is getting feedback on what sticks in the public. What does not get criticized? He does not worry about lying (Example: He has no proof there was metadata related to using Photoshop, yet he says there was.)

      This man is sick and likes to bully women and lie. Why are we giving him attention and space?

      • You are 100% correct. Suneel is refining and changing arguments based on our feedback. He keeps moving the goal post. And denying past arguments that he has presented. Which is ineffectual because they are in writing.

        We should get the contest money that one of their silly groups offered to help Keith Raniere. We could all split the prize and then donate our portion of the dirty money to a charity of our choosing.

  • I would love to get to know Suneel better. I think when someone is writing multiple blog posts, which I am taking the time to read, it is only natural I want to hear a bit more about the person behind these claims. After all, Suneel is a human being even if I do disagree with him. There is a risk of Suneel becoming just another hated character in a dramatic saga, some may say fair game to personal insults being aimed at him, but I would like to know the person behind this passionate defense of such a despised man.

    • I agree. We are curious to find out if he’s got a brand as well. In the affirmative case, we’d absolutely love to see a detailed photo. In the negative scenario, we must have a clear close up photo of the same and surrounding area to support his claim! We take nothing at face value here! Natashka is in complete agreement.

  • Suneel is like a horse with blinkers on. Only sees what his brainwashed mind will allow him to see. His devotion to KR blinds him from the rest.

    • Medina Spirit has ruined the recent Kentucky Derby, probably due to a urine test.

      Chakravorty is in a similar jam.

    • I think that your response shows that it is you who only sees what you want to see, Anon.

      Suneel’s response was rational, & humane. He weathered all the insulting personal attacks everyone here leveled against him and responded with kindness and very convincing arguments, based in fact and evidence.

      It proves that no matter how humane and rational Suneel proves himself to be, you will always use the dehumanizing slur “brainwashed” to describe him, even comparing him to a horse – literally dehumanizing him.

      It’s hilarious that anti-cultists like yourself believe they are smarter, more civilized and more rational than “cult members” no matter the evidence displayed before them.

      They never see it.

      So who’s ‘brainwashed’ here, antcultist?


      • bla bla Alanzo… Can you shARE information about the metadata related to the photoshop that Suneel claimed existed? You and Suneel have been dodging that question. I have not seen any other source share there was metadata related to photoshop in Keith’s folders.

        Was this a made up claim by Suneel?

      • Respectfully disagree that Suneel exhibits “kindness”. He is cruel. And dismissive about the pain caused to many women Keith Raniere abused.

        Suneel supported Keith Raniere’s assertion that the men and women doing their civic duty serving on a jury were corrupt, unintelligent and closed minded. And that they conspired to coordinate outfits and rush a judgement.

        He has made similar (and worse) allegations against law enforcement, a judge and prosecutors. Accusing them of crimes. Attacking their integrity with no basis. It is cowardly. File a formal complaint. Don’t just whine endlessly for years.

        Suneel has mocked one of Keith’s sexual assault victims as a liar for committing immigration fraud by marriage when Nicki has done the same. Suneel tried to slut shame another woman. And more.

        There is no support. From Suneel for the women like Allison who have admitted guilt. Or those in currently in prison like Clare. They were a part of his life and “community”. But he has failed to show them any meaningful support. Or “kindness”. He only cares about Keith and men he has never met.

      • You’re probably right. Comparing him to a horse is an insult to horses. They, at the very least, don’t support pedophiles.

Frank Parlato

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083