Keith Alan Raniere is 61 years old today. He is celebrating his birthday in solitary confinement at USP Tucson. This is his 36th day in solitary which the Bureau of Prisons euphemistically call the SHU, which stands for special housing unit.
And it is special. A prisoner confined there spends 23 hours per day alone in a cell approximately 10 x 8 [the size of a small bedroom] with a toilet and sink inside the cramped space. Raniere gets out for an hour per day for exercise. He is permitted to shower once or twice per week and gets a total of 30 minutes of phone calls per month.
Attorney calls, I am told, are made in handcuffs so that he cannot take notes.
This is Raniere’s third birthday in prison. The last two were at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center and last year’s celebration was during the COVID protocols and he very likely was in lockdown, though not necessarily in isolation.
Prior to these last three birthdays. Raniere’s celebrations were more elaborate. In fact, they took on the character of a 10-day gala, called Vanguard Week. Vanguard is the name/title Raniere was sometimes referred to within the NXIVM organization and was meant as an acknowledgment of him as the leader of thought for the NXIVM community.
Vanguard Week was held at the YMCA resort in Silver Bay on the shores of Lake George in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. As many as 500 people attended, most of them paying more than $2,000 to take part in the retreat, which included an almost exclusive commingling of NXIVM adherents with Raniere at the center. Classes and performances, competitions, and late-night gatherings were meant to support the solidarity and culture of the community.
Some people have quipped that while it is called Vanguard Week, the event lasted 10 days, which suggests that either there were three days left over, or Raniere has had a new dispensation for the true length of a week.
Where Raniere will spend future birthdays is at this moment unclear. It is unclear for several reasons. He has been sentenced to a 120-year sentence predicated largely on his convictions of racketeering, sex trafficking, and forced labor. As it stands today, the 61-year-old would, to complete his sentence, be obligated to serve an additional 99 years, presupposing he earned the necessary time discounts for good behavior.
His release date is June 27, 2120. He would be 159 years, 10 months and one day old should he survive.
If he were to serve his sentence and emerge as what some arguably might call a rather elderly man, he would then be obligated to submit to a five-year probation period and register as a sex offender, should such registries still exist in the 22nd century.
There is always the possibility that he may not serve out his sentence. If he did, he would surpass the current record for time served by Paul Geidel, who spent 68 years and 296 days in prison, starting when he was aged 17, in 1911, on charges of second-degree murder.
Geidel had a 20 years-to-life sentence and actually walked out of prison in 1980 at the age of 85. He died at the age of 93 in a nursing home. In the interim, Geidel was incarcerated during WW1, prohibition, the depression, WW2, the Korean War, and the Vietnam war.
If odds were made available for gamblers in Las Vegas, by oddsmakers who analyze these things, I would venture that the odds would be somewhere around 10-1 that Keith Raniere will leave prison as Mr. Geidel did.
Most, I think, would bet that he will serve the remainder of his life and die in federal prison. The average life expectancy of a 61-year-old man in America is 20 years. This is likely to be shorter for prisoners. Raniere’s life expectancy, should he comport with the reported estimates, is reduced to 10 years – since prison conditions are so harsh and punishing that some suggest that a person ages at the rate of 2-to-1 inside US prisons.
On the other hand, Raniere has been described as a super-athlete, an expert at judo, health and fitness, and with a superlative mind. He might, through the powers of the mind, be able to extend his lifespan far beyond that of the ordinary man, be he prisoner or freeman.
He might survive his sentence and hop out of prison as a spy centenarian + sexagenarian, with two months to spare just before his 160th birthday, with time enough to plan Vanguard Week 2120.
Raniere might also win on appeal.
He is appealing his conviction and is expected to file a supplemental brief by September 20th, adding new issues and expanding issues already raised by his erstwhile attorney, Jennifer Bonjean. His appeal is before the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Raniere’s principal argument is that he did not get a fundamentally fair trial and that charges of sex trafficking and forced labor were hyperinflated beyond recognition and in contravention to the intention of lawmakers who crafted and approved those laws.
The alleged sex trafficking in Raniere’s case did not bear any resemblance, his lawyers argue, to true sex trafficking, which usually consists of women forced to undergo repeated sexual encounters over a period of time where money changes hands, with the trafficker selling forced sex of his victims.
In Raniere’s case, he argues, the victim, known only by her first name, Nicole, experienced a single sexual incident, which lasted perhaps no more than an hour, and where no money changed hands.
The uniqueness of the charges in his case was evidenced, Raniere argues, by the judge having to adopt brand new jury instructions to ensure that the conduct fit the charge of sex trafficking.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis – and I only mention this because it forms a part of the appeal – dispensed with the pattern jury instruction on sex trafficking – in essence telling the jury that sex trafficking need not require any actual pecuniary exchange [no money changed hands] but could be more intangible. The payment for trafficking could be paid not in money but in the form of a social benefit.
As for forced labor, Raniere argues that he did not instruct any of the victims to work under duress and that their forced labor comports with no known case with these charges. Typically, Raniere’s attorneys argue, victims of forced labor are low income, often foreign-born, people of little or no education and devoid of means, often of minority status, people sweated into harsh working conditions for long time periods with little or no pay, and from which conditions they cannot escape.
The victims of the Raniere forced labor were ostensibly volunteers, they were a couple of middle-class white women, who did such things as transcribing a videotape for several hours or writing a report on articles – work done at a computer, on the victim’s time and at her place, in the comfort of her home and limited to less total time of actual labor than what a typical forced labor victim does, in terms of hours, in a week.
While the main argument against this is that forced labor – whether for 40 hours in the comfort of one’s home at a computer – or in a sweatshop working 18 hours per day for only the payment to barely feed and clothe oneself – is still forced labor.
And that the women who were forced to labor under Raniere were coerced to do so since they had given members of Raniere’s inner circle damning photos and other information about themselves that struck them with the fear of the release of this material which Raniere perhaps unwisely called collateral.
The racketeering charges are also wrong, according to Raniere, who challenges the dubbing of his friends and students as a “racketeering enterprise” whose common goal was to support him, and made criminal by a series of random, unconnected acts, most of which are not only unrelated to each other but time-barred as well, kept within prosecutorial range by the “fabrication” of an enterprise that exists wholly in the prosecutors’ creative minds and permitted to be prosecuted by a biased judge.
Or so, Raniere says.
Of course, the judge, the prosecutors and the jury disagreed, and he was convicted but in the case of the latter, Raniere’s arguments that he had a biased judge is part and parcel of his appeal and on occasion, this argument can overturn a conviction of a jury should the appellate judges agree. The likelihood of success in the 2nd Circuit however is low. Less than 10 percent of appeals are successful.
If the appeal fails, Raniere may still have a chance at enjoying a future birthday beyond the gated prison walls.
One is if he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices decide to hear it and grant the reversal of his conviction – which I would say is remote, and were I an oddsmaker, I would give odds of this at 100-1
Then there is the Rule 33 motion Raniere’s attorneys plan to file.
The motion is based on allegedly “newly discovered” evidence of tampering with a seized hard drive and camera card used to help convict Raniere of possession of child porn and sexual exploitation of a minor – Camila
The gravamen of the anticipated Rule 33 motion is that FBI agents added, planted or altered evidence to the seized hard drive and a camera card [to establish the link between Raniere’s camera and the hard drive to show Raniere took the pictures].
Raniere alleges agents kept the hard drive and camera card in their personal custody for months, rather than turning them into the evidence room within 10 days of being seized, as FBI protocol reportedly recommends.
Adding further to the complicated motion, as it has been described by individuals with the knowledge of the subject, the camera card and/or hard drive was changed or altered while in FBI custody, the camera card was accessed by a person or persons unknown while in FBI custody, dates appear to have been modified manually, and folder names appear to have been altered, with one curious discovery of what would normally be an impossibility: a backup folder being younger than its contents.
Perhaps all of this can be explained in some innocent way or perhaps the information said to be contained in the forthcoming motion is in error, but these are serious allegations.
Though Raniere has claimed that he is among the top three problem solvers in the world, he is not, according to sources, entirely reliant on his own self-proclaimed genius but is supported by, reportedly, four prominent cyber experts. These experts have been paid by Raniere’s supporters, yet his supporters argue the caliber of these experts is such that they would not falsify findings and damage their credibility for the sake of Raniere and in opposition to the FBI.
In addition, the reports purportedly state that the experts make such statements as that the tampering by the FBI of evidence is clear-cut, convincing, shocking, surprisingly laden with “fingerprints” and entirely provable via other experts.
In short, the reports, Raniere supporters say, unequivocally point to tampering – and evidence will show this beyond a reasonable doubt.
All this remains to be seen, of course, and no doubt we will see this if and when the Rule 33 motionis filed.
The good news is that these things are susceptible to proof more firm than opinion and confirmation bias. Whether it is in favor of the birthday boy or against, is not relevant. The facts will likely demonstrate themselves or fail to on account of insufficient evidence, which is tantamount to saying there is no proof.
However, if there is proof, and there may be for it is well established that forensic evidence in the cyber world often leaves infallible traces, and we can see this proof.
Then we will know if the supporters of Raniere are living in a delusional world, or if they have stumbled upon an egregious crime by government officials, one far greater than any Keith Raniere has been convicted of committing.
As we have previously written, Frank Report takes no position on this allegation of evidence tampering except that, should it be true, it is beyond disturbing, that the evidence in question that allegedly was tampered with or planted or somehow not found originally on the seized hard drive but placed there later [whether it be true photos of Camila when she was 15 or not] is perhaps the most significant single issue in the entire trial.
The discovery of contraband pictures of 15-year-old Camila was the sea change of the entire case.
If there is even a granule of truth contained in this Rule 33 motion, bolstered by purported cyber experts’ reports, it should not be buried or beaten back by a technicality, or obscured from public scrutiny to protect the good name of the FBI or just because the man who alleges it is despised and to many a despicable creature who deserves to be in a solitary cell, alone, on his birthday and to never see freedom again.
If a poisonous tree grew in Brooklyn, whether it was used to convict the devil himself, it cannot stand.
That said, there is a long way to go from mere allegations to true evidence. I looked at the original findings by one expert of Indian nationality. I am told that there are three US experts, who had access to much more actual evidence, whose reports are far more extensive and damning.
I must also discount for the bias of supporters and keep an open mind. It may be true or untrue, but it is unreasonable to make any claim until the evidence is presented.
However, should it be true and there was tampering, there stands a very good chance that Raniere will get at least a new trial, since the Camila evidence was by far the most important evidence used to convict him at trial and she represented the only arguably non-adult to be called a victim.
I can well imagine that Raniere, like most of us on our birthdays, takes a moment to acknowledge the joys and sorrows we’ve had in life.
If it is true what his critics say about Raniere, that he is a psychopath incapable of normal human emotions or thoughts, he perhaps feels nothing but annoyance in his cell at the reminder of his punishment – and his segregation from all humanity on the date of his birth – a date previously used for his followers to give him the tribute rarely seen by anyone short of the Caesars.
It is his birthday and you have to wonder: Raniere has not experienced a moment of freedom in three years, not touched the green grass or walked the fields, or, if you will pardon an oft-repeated joke found on these pages, donned his birthday suit with a comely, slender lady, this man with a purported twenty wives. And birthdays can be hard or sweet. It is perhaps more than idle curiosity to wonder if Raniere feels that any of his fall from luxury and splendor to isolation was any of his own fault.
In any event, though he may not be likely to hear it and to the extent it may be possible, Happy Birthday Keith.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, VANGUARD! You are not forgotten, your technology and your legacy will live on to inspire generations! As soon as the unjust verdict is overturned, you will once again take your rightful place as one of the brightest and most brilliant minds of modern society!
And you’ll get credit for being one of the horniest, jealous, itty bitty snakes, in the history of mankind! We miss you, jackass!!!
After 53 years in prison and 16 parole hearings, Robert Kennedy’s assassin was granted parole. Two of RFK’s sons spoke in favor of his release. His parole will be reviewed over the next 90 days by the California Parole Board’s staff. Then it will be sent to the governor, who will have 30 days to decide whether to grant it, reverse it or modify it.
Similarly, it was just announced today that Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Bobby Kennedy, is getting paroled on his 16th attempt. He spent 53 years in prison. Like Geidel, he missed a lot of world events. Just thinking about what that must be like for him is amazing, it will be like stepping out of a time capsule. He went into prison as a 24 year old in 1968. Kennedy’s sons are relieved for him, and so shall I be I suppose.
You have to wonder what he’ll think of things like Instagram. He can finally get an account now and follow the Kardashians, or get on Tinder. I’m sure he’ll be totally stoked for that.
If you take a life with such intent as he did, you should never walk free again.
She’ll blow out your candles but won’t blow you
“She’ll blow out your candles but won’t blow you….(anymore?)
That’s not timely!!!
BUT it’s still hilarious!
Thanks 4 the 😂 laugh!
No more BJs! Mark Hildreth hasn’t been laughing since she dumped him years ago.
Because I enjoy being pedantic, I have a couple of corrections for you.
Julius Caesar did not name the month of July after himself. His name for that month was Quintilus. After his death in 44 AD, the Roman Senate renamed the month in his honor.
Second, the contention that prisoners’ lives are shortened by the harsh conditions there is unfounded. Convicts do not represent a cross-section of society. There could be many reasons to explain such a group’s shorter lifespan. More likely to make poor choices such as smoking, drinking, getting into bar brawls, molesting children who may have large volatile fathers, etc., etc.
Prison can in fact be quite healthy. The food is plain but nutritious, far better than the greasy pizza and junk food Raniere hogged out on. Portions are limited, so Raniere has the opportunity to lose that big hairy gut of his. Reports are he looks less pear-shaped than of old. Even in solitary, he gets an hour of exercise a day. How many Americans exercise for an hour a day? Even in his bedroom-sized cell, he can do push-ups, jumping jacks, squats, planks, lunges, Russian twists, v-sits. The possibilities are endless! He can meditate and do yoga, he can practice mindfulness, all of which are very useful for lowering blood pressure and keeping the mind sharp.
So instead of being a fat slob constantly wanking and worrying about how to get one of his nubile victims into bed and plotting revenge on his enemies, Raniere can spend his golden years leading the contemplative life he only faked before.
Like Linda Hamilton in that Terminator movie, he can develop biceps. He can get abs like Keira Knightly!
Don’t think of it as a life sentence, think of it as an opportunity! Positive attitude there, fella! In stir, every day’s like a vacation, every meal a banquet!
or abs like Ellen (Elliot) Page
Frank, I sense some compassion from you in this post. Your commenters could learn something from this, if only to better themselves. I think as time passes, many will realize how wrong they were, and maybe in some small way, they will start to miss Keith. Only time will tell.
Of course. The empathetic response is what apparent sociopaths like Keith use to manipulate others, especially when caught red-handed. It’s almost as if they and their supporters just want their victims to magically forget all of the damage they’ve caused.
Sure, everyone wants compassion after they’ve done something wrong. But only those who are sincerely remorseful and change their behavior should receive it, and it’s usually they who understand that they are deserving of the ramifications. Something that happens repetitively is not a mistake. It’s a pattern of willfully intended behavior.
Where was the empathetic response when Raniere was taking advantage of a 12 year old Rhiannon, statutorily raping her over sixty times? Or for Gina who likely killed herself for how she was taken advantage of? Or for the 13 year old Cami who was groomed to have sex with him at 15? Or for Dani who was confined to a room for two years? Or Ivy Nevarres who was shunned in the community for several years, forced to grow her hair out?
Give me a break. Raniere is in prison now because of the sum accumulation of the actions of his life.
If Raniere was to be set free tomorrow he would go right back to doing the things he did in secret for decades, except this time he would be a much more careful. A leopard doesn’t change its spots after over forty years.
If “to better” yourself is to become a DOSferatu, no thanks! 🦇
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Turning the other cheek is for fools who like having their faces slapped.
Turn the other cheek refers to the handling of an insult.
“ do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”
So no, it does not refer just to handling verbal insults. It’s a specific instruction to not resist evil, which is immoral. And it specifically counsels doing nothing when physically attacked, which is sucker advice.
What does Matthew 5:38 mean?
Jesus moves on to another “you have heard,” “but I say” topic. This time, He expects His audience has heard the “law of retaliation,” often summed up as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This comes from God’s system of justice for the Israelites as described in Deuteronomy 19:21, “Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
It’s a testament to Christ’s influence in changing mankind that modern readers often see “eye for an eye” as vicious or harsh. The reason God gave that law was to prevent escalation, including excessive punishment for crimes. Human nature is to retaliate “plus one.” In other words, if you slap me, I’ll punch you. If you stab me, I’ll shoot you. This pattern of revenge is what turns petty insults into riots, and minor crimes into wars. God’s rule for Israel was to limit retaliation and punishment to a fair equivalent of harm. God’s teaching about “eye for an eye” was meant to limit violence, not encourage it.
Christ’s teaching on the matter, given in the next few verses, reveals the true intent God has for His people. So far as it goes between individual people, God’s will is that we do not take revenge, at all (Matthew 5:39). This doesn’t mean being weak or passive in the face of blatant violence (Luke 22:36), but it does prohibit seeking to “get even” when we’re insulted or abused (Romans 12:19).
If someone keeps calling you a 1000 times to tell you the warranty on your car is up and you are running out of time to renew – it’s a scam.
Block their #
Actually, it does. It tells you not to plot revenge for someone that humiliates you. The slap Christ speaks of is an insult, not something intended to inflict pain.
A quick web search brings an explanation:
Wrong how? Miss him?
Better themselves how? OK, to be fair I do have some ideas on this one, but it has nothing to do with Keith.
He was fairly convicted in a court, and if his appeal manages to overturn his conviction, well that is due process. I seriously doubt this will happen, he is probably just whining.
Do I feel any ill will towards him? No. Do I want him to suffer? No again.
Do I have any issues with him spending the rest of his life in prison? No.
So let’s say that he does clean up his act, repent his sins, and turns to Christ. He still remains in jail. Stinks to be him.
Who is the source of this information? Is it being fed to Frank from Nicki Clyne or is it through someone who works for BOP?
I could easily see Nicki trying to play the sympathy/victim card in an attempt to stir up outrage over his solitary confinement. Although, there would clearly be none.
It’s also a way for her to blame the “corrupt feds” once again for Raniere’s misery. And, that nasty, “arrogant” Judge.
Frank is clearly tainted by Nicki’s version of reality and I would not be surprised if he put this story up in a misguided attempt to help her cause. Like the other story of how well Raniere was doing at Tucson, how all the inmates love and admire him only to have him show up via virtual court with broken glasses. What a joke!
I respect you, Claviger. Readers have a right to know if this is just more propaganda.
I haven’t asked Frank about his source(s) for the posts he’s recently written about the Rule 33 motion that is reportedly going to be filed by Keith’s latest team of attorneys. In general, we don’t discuss our sources with one another because most of them have asked us not to disclose their name to anyone else (That’s just the way it is in this business).
I have heard from my own sources that additional analyses were being undertaken with regard to the hard drive and the pictures of Cami. But I have not seen the results of those analyses – and, like everyone else, am curious as to what they will show.
From what I can gather, the new allegations will go well beyond the original admission by the FBI that the chain-of-custody was broken with respect to the hard drive and/or the flashcard (I never considered the break in the chain-of-custody to be a big enough issue that it would result in Keith getting a new trial). If, in addition to the break in the chain-of-custody, it can also be shown that images were placed on either the hard drive and/or the flashcard after those items were in the possession of the FBI, then that’s a major problem for the prosecution.
I’m looking forward to reading the new analyses to find out what else they claim to have found.
PS/Several months ago, Frank wrote a series of posts about this issue. And in Part 6 of that series (https://frankreport.com/2021/05/19/part-5-cami-pics-tampered-but-true-forensic-expert-fbi-grossly-mishandled-linchpin-evidence/), he wrote about an interview he had conducted with Steven M. Adams, a cyber expert, digital forensics examiner and instructor, and attorney. I thought the most interesting thing that Adams said in that interview was that although he was certain that the evidence had been tampered with, he didn’t necessarily think it was the FBI that did the tampering – and that the tampering could have occurred before the evidence was seized. That adds a whole new twist to this issue about the integrity of the evidence that was found on the hard drive and/or the flashcard.
Has a formal complaint about these prison abuse allegations been filed on Keith’s behalf by his attorneys?
Not just vague, “the judge hates him, Keith is a persecuted, wrongfully convicted angel, blah, blah…”
I am asking about following the available mechanisms to file a formal complaint detailing the alleged BOP mistreatment of a prisoner within this facility in this incident at this time?
I highly, highly doubt it.
And don’t blame it not getting filed on Keith being secluded. Clearly the word is out.
The Bureau of Prisons has an extensive “Administrative Remedy” process that provides inmates with the opportunity to file grievances whenever they believe they have been treated unfairly (See: https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/1330_018.pdf). But I do not know if Keith has availed himself of that process with regard to his current stay in the SHU.
Unless the claim involves an alleged violation of their civil rights, inmates have to exhaust whatever administrative remedies are available to them before they initiate any type of action in court with regard to their treatment in prison. And, if you peruse the document for which I provided the link, you’ll see that the process is quite extensive and takes a fairly long period of time.
Prisoner rights in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further information: Prisoners’ rights
All prisoners have the basic rights needed to survive and sustain a reasonable way of life. Most rights are taken away ostensibly so the prison system can maintain order, discipline, and security. Any of the following rights, given to prisoners, can be taken away for that purpose:
Prisoner may refer to one of the following:
A person incarcerated in a prison or jail or similar facility.
Prisoner of war, a combatant or non-combatant in wartime, held by a belligerent power
Political prisoner, someone held in prison for their ideology.
A person forcibly detained against his will, such as a victim of kidnapping; such prisoners may be held hostage, or held to ransom, but not necessarily in a prison or similar facility.
The right to:
not be punished cruelly or unusually
access the parole process (denied to those incarcerated in the Federal System)
practice religion freely
equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment)
be notified of all charges against them
receive a written statement explaining evidence used in reaching a disposition
file a civil suit against another person
medical treatment (both long and short term)
treatment that is both adequate and appropriate
a hearing upon being relocated to the mental health facility.
personal property such as: cigarettes, stationery, a watch, cosmetics, and snack-food
food that would sustain an average person adequately.
bathe (for sanitation and health reasons).
Many rights are taken away from prisoners often temporarily. For example, prison personnel are required to read and inspect all in-going or out-going mail, in order to prevent prisoners from obtaining contraband. The only time a prisoner has a full right to privacy is in conversations with their attorney.
Prison Litigation Reform Act
Main article: Prison Litigation Reform Act
In the United States, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or PLRA, is a federal statute enacted in 1996 with the intent of limiting “frivolous lawsuits” by prisoners. Among its provisions, the PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust all possibly executive means of reform before filing for litigation, restricts the normal procedure of having the losing defendant pay legal fees (thus making fewer lawyers willing to represent a prisoner), allows for the courts to dismiss cases as “frivolous” or “malicious”, and requires prisoners to pay their court fees up front if they have three previous instances of a case having been dismissed as “frivolous.”
I am familiar with the torturous and slow process of anything prison-related.
That said. If there is no formal complaint, it is hard to believe that this is not just typical “prison sucks. And it sucks more if you get caught breaking the rules” griping.
Because prison is punitive. And it does suck.
If your rights in prison are truly being infringed upon and you determine that you are being singled out in a discriminatory way – yet you do not avail yourself of the resources to help you – I cannot take you seriously.
I agree with you completely. And if Keith doesn’t file an appropriate complaint via the BOP’s administrative remedy process, that will preclude his attorneys from trying to do anything in court about the matter.
And it certainly would not take the prosecution, or the judge, off the hook for presenting, and accepting, tainted evidence that deprived a defendant’s liberty for decades. Especially since the FBI property and evidence manager testified that its chain of custody was broken.
If this evidence is found to be tampered with, there should be legal consequences for the prosecutors and the judge.
First of all, the fact that the chain-of-custody was broken is a separate issue from whether the evidence was tampered with. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence tying the two things together.
The chain-of-custody issue was revealed during the trial – and was obviously not a major problem for the jury. Once again, the fact that the chain-of-custody was broken only means that the chain-of-custody. Absent additional evidence, that fact cannot be conflated to infer that the evidence was tampered with.
Your statement that “If this evidence is found to be tampered with, there should be legal consequences for the prosecutors and the judge” underscores just how little you understand about the U.S. legal system. The correct statement is that “If this evidence is found to be tampered with, there should be legal consequences for whoever tampered with it”.
Well done on almost staying on the subject.
This is not a sentence. Arrogant and sloppy is not a good look, C.
You changed the context of my point to make a simplistic statement, Captain Obvious. Of course there should be legal consequences for anyone who tampered with the evidence.
My point was that the prosecutors and the judge both knew this evidence was tainted. The prosecutors presented it, and the judge accepted it, anyway.
They should face some kind of legal consequence for doing so.
You’re absolutely correct, Alanzo. I left off the last two words – and that sentence should have read “Once again, the fact that the chain-of-custody was broken only means that the chain-of-custody was broken”.
But what exactly do you find “arrogant” about that statement? All it does is correct your factually incorrect statement that the prosecutors introduced – and the judge accepted – “tainted evidence”.
I keep thinking that if I point out when your statements and claims are incorrect, you’ll learn something – but that is clearly not the case. It’s one thing to be ignorant but quite another to be stupid.
Just because you keep repeating that the evidence was “tainted” – and that the prosecutors and the judge knew it was “tainted” – doesn’t make it so.
A break in the chain-of-custody does not make evidence tainted.
The term “tainted evidence” is used to describe evidence that was obtained by illegal means – including, but not limited to, evidence that would not have been obtained except through an illegal search or seizure.
That’s it, Alanzo. Your lesson is over for the day.
Query: Were you this way before you got involved in Scientology?
Alonzo is an omnipotent being and, thus, infallible. He is without flaws, and he is without a girlfriend. 😉
RE: Alonzo’s 8/27 12:33pm Comment:
—This is not a sentence. Arrogant and sloppy is not a good look, C.
Here, Alonzo, is being benevolent to you. Claviger, you do not communicate in a lucid manner. Are you handicapped? Alonzo thinks so. 😉
—You changed the context of my point to make a simplistic statement, Captain Obvious. Of course there should be legal consequences for anyone who tampered with the evidence.
Claviger you should never twist the word of God. Don’t be a f’ing heretic or a Captain Obvious! BTW, Alonzo has those bases covered.
FYI: Alzonzo, much like God, has no use whatsoever for women and sex. That’s why Alonzo has a subscription to PornHub.
Well said, Claviger. You explain things very clearly. Alanzo is always wrong and all over the place
Yet another manipulative rhetor, from an unbroken sea of manipulative rhetors, slithers up to present us with a circular argument, hoping we’ll swallow it.
Question for the manipulative rhetor:
Why do we go to so much trouble to maintain chain of custody in criminal trials then, C?
Your circular statement makes it seem like chain of custody is just a vestigial formality from byzantine times.
Is that really true?
Or are you just using an inane circular argument again, hoping we won’t notice?
Alonzo is more annoying than a ‘chick’ who won’t put-out after you buy her dinner…
Every time Alanzo does not comment on the Frank Report, an angel gets their wings.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t comment. But I am saying Alanzo is an angel dream-killer.
And super annoying.
K.R. Claviger: I appreciate that you take the time to explain. Alonzo might not learn or appreciate but bystanders to the interaction (like myself) do. I find it very helpful what you share. Thank you.
This article explains more what the chain of custody means and why it is not always a deal-breaker if the chain of custody is broken, and why it is not considered as “evidence that is tainted”: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-chain-custody.html
Summary: K.R. Claviger is right. Alonzo wrong. …duh…
Alanzo, here’s a bit of minimal research I did on the Internet, of an attorney answering a question about a break in a chain of custody:
“The chain of custody doesn’t have to be unbroken for evidence to be admissible. Except where provided by statute, breaks in the chain of custody go to the weight afforded to the evidence by the fact-finder, not its admissibility, because the breaks challenge the reliability of the evidence. As such, the proper venue for such arguments is either cross-examination of the presenting witness, or opening/closing arguments.
That said, some pieces of evidence – none forensic – require explicit chains of custody, particularly controlled dangerous substances (i.e. drugs). At least in Maryland, for example, we’re required to have everyone who touched the drugs until the point they were packaged, then everyone who touched them after they were unpackaged but before they were analyzed. Notably, the Court of Appeals just recently ruled that a break in that chain of custody, though, was not actually a bar on admissibility in all circumstances.
Of course, the actual chain of custody – including the names of persons, and any unknown aspects – are covered under discovery obligations at the state and federal level, so they would be disclosed to the defense long before trial. Absent any attempt to deceive the court or the defense, there’s nothing wrong with the prosecution offering the evidence.”
So, in short, evidence can still be admissible despite a broken chain of custody, and it is up to the defense to throw doubt onto it (which they attempted to do) and the jury to buy into that doubt, which they did not in this trial.
The jury was smart enough to know that a break in the chain of custody is not sufficient evidence of evidence tampering (unlike you, apparently). They didn’t buy the idea that because someone may have accessed the files outside of the chain of custody, that the content of said files was changed, which to my knowledge, was also never called into question during the trial. They also felt that the independent medical evidence concerning the age at which Cami received her appendectomy scar (16 years old), which was not on the photographs, further supported the notion that photographs were taken at an age (15 years old) that the prosecution argued for. Thus, the prosecution sufficiently proved that the child porn evidence was reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense failed to challenge it in the minds of the jury, and that is why Raniere was convicted for those said charges.
A terrific explanation that, unfortunately, will go well over Alanzo’s head.
The only thing I would add is that the proper time to raise objections about the break in the chain-of-custody was at the trial via the filing of a motion to suppress. I have not had time to go back and review all the trial transcripts but I don’t remember such a motion being filed – and the issue of the break in the chain-of-custody was not even raised in the appellant brief that was filed by Jennifer Bonjean (That likely means she considered it to be a non-appealable issue because Keith’s trial attorneys did not try to suppress the evidence during the trial).
This is undoubtedly why Bonjean planned to use a Rule 33 motion to argue that the chain-of-custody issues aside, the evidence in question was tampered with – and, therefore, should not have been admitted at trial. The problem with such a motion is that in addition to proving that the evidence was actually tampered with, Keith’s new attorneys will also have to prove that there was no way for Keith’s trial attorneys to have detected that tampering before or during the trial.
My guess is that they will argue that Keith’s trial attorneys simply didn’t have time to detect the tampering because they only learned about the pictures of Cami a few weeks before the trial was scheduled to start. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Keith’s trial attorneys did to test for tampering (If they didn’t do anything, Keith will likely lose the Rule 33 motion but perhaps gain an argument that can be used when he files his separate appeal for “ineffective counsel”).
OK…I just went back and re-read the transcript from Day #23 of Keith’s trial – which was when we learned that there was a break in the chain-of-custody regarding some of the evidence that had been seized and analyzed by the FBI – and, as I thought, Keith’s attorneys did not make a motion to suppress that evidence at that time. Nor does the record indicate that they made such a motion anytime after that.
So, as I thought, the only way for this issue to be raised now is to frame it as a Rule 33 motion – which means that in order to be successful, Keith’s attorneys will have to convince Judge Garufis (a) that the evidence in question was, in fact, tampered with and (b) that there was no way for Keith’s trial attorneys to have discovered proof that the evidence was tampered with before or during the trial. Sorry but I just don’t see Keith’s attorneys winning on both of those points – especially since they were very well aware of the chain-of-custody issue and could have their own experts examine the evidence to see if there was any evidence of tampering.
August 27, 2021 at 9:18 pm
That was a non-arrogant, non-verbally-abusive answer.
You didn’t call me any names & you didn’t even bring up my past in Scientology 21 years ago.
You appear to be less threatened by me than Herr Claviger, and so are able to keep your cool.
You should know I meant no disrespect to you when I mocked Alonzo’s comment
Dare I say, Alonzo might be more passive-aggressive than 🌹🌸🌻 (flowers) — if such a thing is possible.
I greatly appreciate the time you take to answer our questions and to write superb articles! I’m not ass-kissing.
You are redefining, AZZKISSA
Thanks for the reply, Claviger.
But, I was actually referring to the claim that Raniere is in the SHU. The timing, the fact that Shadow (Frank) was the one to say it was a harem member, and the fact that Raniere was the innocent – it was a harem member (Raniere always tells his harem to take the blame) or just the corrupt feds out to get him yet again, made this story appear as if it were planted by Nicki.
So, did Frank provide his source for the story that Raniere was placed in the SHU 2 days after the restitution hearing?
Or, did this come from one of the BOP employees that you know or another contact or if it was Nicki, did you verify that information?
That said, I was interested to know if Raniere’s current lawyers would make the Rule 33 since it came from Bonjean who was much less experienced. I figured that his new team would not bother with such a frivolous claim since it appears almost impossible to prove that the government altered any photos. In sum, it’s a bullshit claim that experienced attorneys would not assert because they would look like idiots when they could not provide definitive proof, which is exactly what would happen.
Frank will have to answer the questions you posed about his source(s) for the SHU story. I can confirm, however, that the information about Keith being in the SHU did not come from one of my BOP sources.
Keith’s new attorneys have taken over every aspect of his case (Bonjean formally withdrew from the case when they came on board). Whether they will follow through with Keith’s desire to file a Rule 33 motion will likely determine just how long they continue to represent him because if Keith really wants to file a Rule 33 motion, he’ll keep hiring new attorneys until he finds one who will do just that. Don’t forget that he once appealed the denial of Preliminary Injunction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Ah, the things you can do with other people’s money…
Well. That’s good enough for me!
It’s a bullshit story concocted by Nicki to try to garner sympathy for Raniere and fool others into believing the government is out to get him.
This is why I no longer trust the Frank Report. Outside of you, Claviger, of course.
Thanks for this analysis, Claviger!
New York Post
NYC’s Metropolitan Correctional Center, where Jeffrey Epstein, killed himself to ‘temporarily’ close
By Larry Celona and Ben Feuerherd, August 26, 2021
The notorious Lower Manhattan federal lockup where Jeffrey Epstein killed himself is scheduled to close — at least temporarily — amid horrid conditions and numerous allegations of corruption against jail guards, officials said Thursday.
The Metropolitan Correctional Center will shutter to address security and infrastructure issues.
It’s unclear when the closure of the facility — which has a typical population of 600 inmates — will happen or how long it will last.
Most of the 233 inmates housed there currently will be transferred to the federal facility in Brooklyn.
[ … ]
Wow…If they’re moving that many prisoners over to MDC, that may force MDC to re-open the East Tower and house some more inmates there. That’s the portion of MDC that was mostly shut down after a fire knocked out the heating system for several weeks back in February 2019.
And here we are just a few short months of winter – and a resurgence of COVID-19 running rampant in our jails and prisons once again.
What could possibly go wrong with this move?
—What could possibly go wrong with this move?
Don’t worry so much. The 13th Amendment makes it okay . Anything can go wrong and it’ll be hunky dory.
Americans have been butchered in Kabul with the total complicity of Joe Biden and the Frank Report says nothing.
The Frank Report is irrelevant to the real world.
—The Frank Report is irrelevant to the real world.
Isn’t irrelevant your middle name.
Is there any news on Keith’s compliance with the sex offender counseling that is demanded of Tucson inmates? Is there a chance that is part of what has landed him in the SHU or made him a candidate for transfer?
On the appeal and authenticity of the Camila photos, can the prosecution simply call on her to validate them?
The procedures for this type of filing are as follows:
– Raniere’s attorneys will file the Rule 33 motion;
– The government’s attorneys will file a response to the motion;
– The judge will decide whether to hold oral arguments regarding the matter – and, if so, whether to allow any witnesses to testify.
– The judge will render a decision – and the losing party will have the option of appeal that decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
What I Wish I Knew About Grooming: India Oxenberg Reflects on Her Experience in Nxivm
India Oxenberg is a survivor of the Nxivm cult, whose top leaders, including Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, were sentenced to prison
By India Oxenberg August 26, 2021
It’s two things with the hard drive and photos:
1) was FBI protocol (chain of custody/evidence room) breached? Note: it appears there was a breach as an FBI agent said so in court. I suppose a minor mistake should not have great consequences on appeal, but a major one could…
2) was there tampering with the evidence, and if so, was there bad intent (tampering with the purpose of influencing the outcome of the trial) or just an innocent mistake (saving the pictures with the date the FBI viewed them for example).
I am curious why it took so long for the FBI to come up with these photos. But it is entirely possible that some agent took a final look at the drive and had a eureka moment.
I personally cannot imagine the FBI photoshopping Camilla’s scar out of a picture. But you can call me naive….
But even if there would be a retrial, Camilla would testify under oath he took those pictures and that would be the end of this discussion.
This is absolutely “despicable” – the monster getting more air time and limelight. Another day and NO story on Kristin Snyder – that is an insult to the Snyder family and their community.
This is a slap in the face to Kim and a total heartache for her. She is seeing where the “victims” do NOT matter on this blog – that the “evil” seems to be more ruling than ever.
Obsession, instead of “family” – is the “ruling” on this blog. What a nightmare – wish we could get answers as to why?
Garpevine and Katie are both good aliases, Kim.
What a difference a few years makes, right Vantard?
I love the humor in Frank Report. Haha the judge preparing a birthday letter to Keith. Great article – also love the clear explanations of what is happening
I don’t know a thing about prison, but wouldn’t one PREFER solitary confinement than to being around violent scumbags who could kill you at any moment?
Gimme a good book or two, I’d be good to go.
You are correct.
Prisoners do all kinds of stuff (claiming suicidal ideation and “attempting to take their life” is one example) to be put in solitary on purpose. Or better yet to be put in the coveted medical ward.
I wonder how Keith’s 2 fatherless young children celebrate their birthdays? I can muster up some sympathy for them, easily.
Daddy was too busy making child pornography and examining vulva photos to see if Lauren was not grooming her pubes to throw a birthday party for either boy.
What kind of grown man celebrates himself for 10 consecutive days on that scale yearly but never sends child support?
Answer: One that I don’t give a f×ck about spending his old age alone in prison.
Anyway, I heard Keith could get out of solitary if he just finishes up some book reports and makes a plan to heal his breach with Dani. Keith’s just being stubborn.
Well said. And the Dani-twist is both funny and serious.