EXIF Data Written Over, Under, Sideways Down on FBI Forensic Examiner Booth Testimony — But Is It Really Hard to Change?

LinkedIn Page of Brian Booth, as of 9/19/2021.
In our last post Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth?,  we examined two men’s differing opinions on the difficulty of changing EXIF data on photographs.
FBI Senior Forensic Expert Brian Booth testified at the trial of Keith Raniere and EXIF data was almost the sole topic of his testimony.
Yes, EXIF data, the information a digital camera embeds inside the file of a digital photo, was the forensic evidence prosecution used to show that Keith Raniere took and possessed photos of Camila dating back to November 2005, when she was 15.
The proof was Booth’s testimony that 22 nude photos found on Raniere’s hard drive were reliably dated by EXIF data. The charges associated with this discovery were possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child.
Over two days,  June 12 and June 13, Booth testified, as he spoke of the EXIF data embedded in each photo, and of how EXIF data is reliable and very hard to change.
At one point, he said if you took a chance at changing the EXIF data dates, it could corrupt or ruin the file, and it would be even harder to tamper with the evidence by changing EXIF data dates because it would require an incredibly complicated job of altering evidence.
Suneel Chakravorty says EXIF data is easy to change.
Suneel Chakravorty, a computer tech consultant, and friend of Raniere’s, said that EXIF data is so easy to change that Booth, a forensic examiner for more than a dozen years, must have deliberately lied to the jury to suggest otherwise.
There is a meme on social media suggesting that Booth is akin to Pinocchio.
To try to prove the lie, Suneel made a video that shows him changing the EXIF data of a photo of apples, changing the camera that took the pictures from some unknown Canon camera to Keith Raniere’s camera, and changing the EXIF data date of the photo from November 30, 2016 to November 2, 2005, the same date that the EXIF data showed Camila’s pictures were taken.
So here we had FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth, with all due solemnity, telling the jury under oath that EXIF data is hard to change. Then we have Suneel criticizing Booth for “lying” and demonstrating EXIF data can be changed on a photo in under one minute.

Before we examine the matter further by inviting others to weigh in, let us review what Booth actually said at the Raniere trial.

[I am adding clarifications in brackets and bold] and 

Whenever Booth makes an unequivocal statement about EXIF data being hard to change, I will put that in this larger size, bold font.

Booth was examined by AUSA Tanya Hajjar, who, at one point, asked him, “What is EXIF data?”

AUSA Tanya Hajjar elicited testimony from FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth about EXIF data.

Booth said:

EXIF data is an exchangeable image file format. It’s a standard. It’s been around for quite some time. It was developed over in Japan back in the early 2000s to be able to add extra information to … JPEG files, which are graphic files… EXIF data holds … information….  mainly, it’s… the author, the photographer, and the dates and times and things like that.

EXIF Data contains notes from the camera.


Is EXIF data considered metadata?


Yes, it is.


And how does EXIF data get captured in an image, in a JPEG, for example?


…. The most common way is for the … camera or your [camera on your] phone, when you take the picture, the [camera] device will actually place that [EXIF data] into the JPEG file…


Is there something unique about EXIF data?


…. with EXIF data … when you move the JPEG [to another computer or device], the information [in the EXIF data embedded in the photo] stays within the JPEG. So camera models, things [other data normally recorded as EXIF data] of that nature, they go with it [the photo] wherever it goes.


Can you explain that? What do you mean, like, “they go with it,” and they stay the same?


… with EXIF data, once it’s embedded in a picture, it doesn’t matter how many times you move it around [from one place to another or from one device to another]. It [the EXIF data] stays [embedded] into that photo and

it’s very hard to remove. In fact, most commercial software will not touch EXIF data. It will allow you maybe to add data to it, but even in that sense, it’s very — it’s very able to be corrupted… 



Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more difficult to alter?


They purposely designed it that way…. It’s mainly to be able to store information.  And they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed to do that.


Hajjar [showing Booth a picture]:

… what’s the best evidence of when this photograph was taken?


Well, the best evidence is the EXIF data because that gets put into the JPEG file and

it’s not easily modifiable

and it moves with the file the same way from device to device, no matter where you place it. It has nothing to do with the bearing of a file system at all or the dates and times associated with it. So, it’s on its own but are created at the same time that you take the picture.


[Reviewing EXIF data of Camila photos] Hajjar asked:

And, Examiner Booth, the EXIF data we just examined, they reflect two dates on which the images were taken?




November 2nd, 2005, and November 24th, 2005?




No further questions, Your Honor.

Booth concluded his testimony by giving the EXIF data of dates of the Camila photos which, if accurate, indicate that she was 15 at the time the photos were taken.


Booth was cross-examined by one of Raniere’s attorneys, Paul DerOhannesian. He did not ask questions about EXIF data.

On redirect, Tanya Hajjar asked Booth more questions, honing in on EXIF data. 


Mr. DerOhannesian talked a lot about metadata previously with you [during the cross-examination.]




He asked you questions about various types of metadata, is that right, on cross-examination?




He didn’t once mention EXIF data; is that right?




You spent the majority of your testimony on direct examination referring to EXIF data?


Yes, I did.


Why is that?


There’s two types of metadata. There’s the stuff that you find on file systems which is called file system metadata, and then there is metadata that is embedded into images…. That’s EXIF data.

And EXIF data is actually put inside the file. Unlike the metadata that we’ve talked about previously which is attached outside of the file by the operating system [the computer]. The file system moves that along from place to place [changing from computer to computer] with it. So, at any point of giving that movement from place to place, there are times that things can get modified.

But when it comes to EXIF data, it used to be it would only be hard-coded in. You couldn’t modify it. And only during changes during the years did they open up that you could change the author’s name of a photo or even a Word document that you might have. You can always go in and change the author and put comments in and things like that and that’s metadata for a Word file.

But when it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those. You have to go through special processes to change those things…

It’s very rare that I’ve found someone has been changing metadata within a photo. 

And that [EXIF data] time and date does not change from place to place. It stays embedded in the photo. So, there’s no outside constraint that’s changing it, from an OS, from an Apple computer to a Dell computer.

So these things [date and time of photos in EXIF data] stay consistent. Those are prime places I need to look because unless someone is sitting doing that hacking attempt to trying to do that [changing the EXIF data] which I didn’t see that with this [hard] drive [where the photos were found], I would have to assume all those dates [in the EXIF data of the Camila photos on the hard drive] are reflected [accurately] going all the way through [from the camera where the Camila photos were allegedly taken and the EXIF data recorded, to the camera card where the Camila photos were allegedly transferred and from there allegedly transferred to a Dell computer, which was never found, to the hard drive where the Camila photos were found].

Those [EXIF data times and dates] are embedded when you take the picture. I mean, you can go through your cell phone and see the times and dates and geo locations, too. If you try to modify those dates, you’ll find you can do it yourself very easily.

[This is a curious sentence. Either Booth is retracting everything he said before and after about EXIF data or it may be a mistake by the court stenographer. Booth might have said “can’t” modify dates “very easily.” He might possibly also meant that one can modify files very easily with other metadata which, unlike EXIF data, is not embedded in the photo. Booth continues].

In that sense, [EXIF data] it’s very important data here. And, make no mistake, that’s the data that I’m after as a forensic examiner. I can rely on that time and date [of the EXIF data]. I can’t rely on the date that someone else put on the files [meaning the file system dates and times].


What’s most reliable in terms of all the metadata that was discussed thus far in your examination on direct and on cross?


The EXIF data.


Okay. Is that better, more reliable than the created date?


It’s the most reliable.


Is it better than — more reliable than the modified date?




Is it more reliable than the access date?




Is it more reliable than the thumb DB metadata?




Is it more reliable than metadata that might have been imposed based on an OS or operating system?


Oh, definitely.


Every single type of metadata that was discussed on cross-examination of — and EXIF data, if you were to determine which of those was the most reliable which, would it be?


The serial number of the camera and the time and the date.


On the EXIF data?




Now, all of the images in that red binder, all of the images [the 22 Camila photos] … do they have corresponding EXIF data?




Like, for each of the image files that we looked at that were in the red binder?


We had EXIF data.


They had EXIF data?




For each of those did they correspond to November 2nd 2005 or November 24th 2005?


Yes, they did.







Is there any other information that you found significant with respect to the date that was — the EXIF data date?


Well, the fact that there’s so many dates that are in the EXIF data. Say I did have a modification software, I would have to change quite a bit of dates [to manually change the dates of the photo’s EXIF data]. I mean, I would have to go through, you know, a bunch of evidence, number one. But then I have to change — in EXIF data there are dates all up and down that including zero numbers, models of cameras, things of that nature. So there’s quite a bit of data to go through [in order to change the date and time of a photo] and when you modify a date and time, an EXIF date and time in a JPEG, you take the chance of modifying it to where it destroys the JPEG and that’s why Adobe likes to make a copy when they wind up changing EXIF data in the file because they don’t want to take the risk of actually ruining the JPEG file. So this is one of the reasons why a lot of software don’t go in and do a lot of changes to the EXIF data. Even if you wanted to just change the author, you’re taking a chance that you can change the data.

[After Booth explained how difficult it would be for him to alter the date and time of the EXIF data, which would, he said, require changing other data and risking ruining or corrupting the photos, Raniere’s attorney, DerOhanessian, asked him about altering EXIF data and Booth admitted it could be altered.

One of Keith Raniere’s defense attorneys, Paul DerOhannsian, cross-examined FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth


You agree that any metadata, whether it’s EXIF data or other data can be changed and altered; correct?


Yes, EXIF data can be altered.


And there’s a variety of different ways that that can happen; correct?


Yes, it can.


Companies can remove — if you send a photo to Facebook, do they take off that data?


Yes, they actually strip off the data.


So Facebook, Twitter that’s what they do?


Yes, they do.


And then they use that information for their commercial purposes?


I wouldn’t know.


That’s another way. There’s commercial processes that do that?


I would gather.


That is as far as DerOhannessian went.  He elicited from Booth that EXIF data can be altered, but he did not ask whether it was easy to alter. He got an admission that Facebook, etc. could remove EXIF data but did not ask if Booth himself had the ability to remove or change the EXIF data or if there were free software programs that could alter EXIF data.

Suneel claims there are many tools that make it easy for the layperson to change EXIF Data if they want to do so.

In our next post, we will examine more carefully some of the statements Booth made and get the opinions of experts.

It is clear, the prosecution wanted the jury to believe Booth that it was extremely difficult and complicated to alter EXIF data and that because Booth said so, the dates of the Camila photos are reliable.

It may very well be true that Keith Raniere took photos of Camila when she was 15. In fact, I think it is likely.

And it may be true that those photos in the red binder were pictures Raniere took of Camila when she was 15.

It may be true that these pictures were found on the hard drive, just like the FBI said they were.

But is it true that EXIF data is anywhere near as hard to change as Booth said?

Or was this clearly a lie and at times lies by omission to make the jury believe that the dates were rock solid, when maybe, just maybe they were not and he knew it?

There must have been a reason they went to so much trouble to sell the jury on the reliability of the dates of EXIF data.

Stay tuned…





About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

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

  • To Alanzo:

    “They [OSA] will also be contacting Frank and some other commenters here back-channel, feeding them “dead agent” (discrediting) material on me to make them think they have the ‘lowdown’ on Alanzo”

    Alanzo, I took this quote from one of your last comments. Clearly, you are suffering from PTSD. OSA is not harassing you. I made comments directed at you because you are an asshole. I made a few of those comments with a couple of aliases. I most certainly did not make all the comments.

    I am letting you know a few of the comments came from because you are being paranoid and likely suffering from PTSD. I guarantee the other comments are from other FrankReport regular commenters.

    Alanzo, no one at Frank Report is working with OSA. It’s very simple, you act like an asshole so people treat you like an asshole.

    You have been out of Scientology for over 21 years! Unlike Rathborn, Rinder, etc — you are not mentioned on any Scientology website.

    Scientology sent Frank a message a while back, and Frank published it on this website. Frank doesn’t give a shit what they say and neither does anyone else. The Frank Report is a news blog, not a social club.

    Important Fact:

    Alanzo — you, Shadow, myself and a bunch of other guys on the Frank Report — are a bunch of middle-age schmucks with too much free time, posting nonsense on Frank’s website.

    My point is no one is out to get you! No BackChannels, but after you mentioned BackChannels, I’m sure Shadowstate will be in contact with you. That’s your problem. 😉

    Lastly, I’m still gonna treat you like an asshole because you are an asshole. 😉

    • Ok, niceguy. Did you post this?
      “Nutjob and NiceGuy, you are getting played by Alanzo. This is an old tactic of his to stir up shit. He posts insults against himself to feel important and argues with his own sock puppet. He’s insulting you coming and going. He’s calling you defenders of child rape from one side of his mouth and a dupe of OSA from the other. Just ignore him. All he wants is attention, not real discussion. This stuff about “Vamachara” or whatever is classic Alanzo using big words to try and seem smart. This is why he is banned virtually everywhere else.”

      If no, does this sound like something a middle aged d-bag FR commenter would be posting while drinking a PBR in his (or her – can’t leave out Shivani) underwear?

        • See what I’m saying? Or do I need to connect the dots? Chill and watch some shit go down we’ve only heard about. i.e., gtf outta the way. For this one, popcorn is better than throwing in your hat.

        • Thanks. I hope Frank investigates it (in all his free time). Either Scientology is purposely fucking up his website or Alanzo is. I know Frank isn’t chicken. I just hope he has the capacity.

          • Nutz-

            Most of the comments are either other commenters, me or Alonso commenting to himself.

            OSA or ASO would not waste time on Alanzo. Nobody, on planet earth takes Alanzo seriously except for himself.

          • Nut Job,

            Do you remember when AnonyMaker made a brief appearance, to warn us what happens when Alonzo arrives at a weblog forum?

            I find the whole thing hilarious. The Frank Report forum/comment is a forum/comment section. Alanzo is so over the top. He is telling Claviger, “You don’t like me because I’m the only one who challenges you.”
            That statement is F’n nuts!

            I am guilty of posting ‘ad nauseam’ 😉 and Frank is nice to allow me to do so. He knows exactly which comments are mine.

            I’d love to know what Alanzo believed he is accomplishing.

            Scott Johnson is not “crazy”, He was a well-meaning asshole. His web persona is completely different from who he is as a person. Such an odd dichotomy.

            Alanzo is in his own category. Sultan is obsessed with [name redacted], but the guy has a career and oddly enough a good singer. Shadow — I know who he is — and I don’t get him whatsoever. I’d never out anyone.

            I find all of these personalities fascinating.

            Me — I’m just a middle age, web crank with a rather rare neurological condition. One of the reasons I post so much is writing is enjoyable again.

            Have a great weekend!

          • Nutjob and Nice Guy, don’t overthink it.

            The Evil Queen asked, “Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, who is the trollest one of all?”

    • Your check is in the mail yet again, Nice Guy.

      OSA loves all people, even if they are former Scientologists or WOGs and aren’t sitting in rocking chairs on the porch of eternity.

  • Changing EXIF data is as easy as photoshopping an image which according to the experts who have certified Suneel’s findings, the FBI also did. Sounds like they photoshopped Camis scar.

    • So you’re also accusing Camila of lying? You must have known her for years – at least since she was about fifteen right? Why didn’t you lead with that then? Because I know you wouldn’t accuse a woman you’ve never met with colluding with the FBI in order to put a man she knows really really well in prison for decades, right?

  • Looks like examiner Booth didn’t do much examining because I just taught myself how to edit EXIF data with a simple google search. I smell a rat. Two wrongs don’t make a right and he should be tried for perjury.

    • I think you’re really onto something. You should contact the FBI right away. Tell them all about Suneel and how you have discovered Booth committed perjury. You should also contact other outside organizations. Explain to them that you smell a rat. And that you have taught yourself how to do something on a computer. And based on that and your belief in Suneel that you are ready to go after Booth for perjury. Let us know how it goes.

      You’ve got this!

  • Warning! Don’t get sick in New York State!

    New Opportunity for Doctor Brandon Porter to return to New York and practice medicine!

    New York State’s Nazi Governor Kathy Hochul plans to fire over 70,000 medical workers because they refuse Anthony Fauci’s bogus vaccine.
    Why do they refuse the “Kill Shot”?
    Because many medical workers know Fauci’s history of promoting vaccines that fail to protect the recipient from disease.
    Can you say “AZT caused AIDS”?

    So New York’s Nazi Governor will fire over 70,000 medical workers and replace them with National Guard troops, retired workers, unlicensed foreign workers, and former medical workers who lost their licenses as a result of disciplinary action.

    Here’s your opportunity for a comeback, Doctor Brandon Porter!
    Kathy Hochul vs. NY Nurses

    • Shadow,

      We’re supposed to believe, a woman who who has a haircut like Leonard Nimoy on
      Star Trek.

      Our President, Donald Trump, received the vaccine.

      I wonder what the demented and never lucid Shadow is so afraid of.

    • Shadow, do you realize that this woman is a professional actress and nuts?

      She’s actually mentally ill in real life. This sad woman is bipolar! I looked her up.

      Do you ever research the information, you provide us?

      You do 0% fact-checking!

      • Shadow, do you realize that this woman is a professional actress and nuts? Anonymous

        If I lived in New York City I would be nuts too.

        Kramer Swims the East River

        “Dad there’s someone swimming in the East River.”
        “No, son. That’s just a dead body. You see when the mob kills someone they dump the body in the East River.”

        • Shadow-

          I don’t have a problem with you posting musical clips and ruining songs for me…

          …..But please do not ruin my most beloved show.

          That was a great episode!

          My favorite is the one where Kramer and Newman return the bottles and the car mechanic steals Jerry’s car.

          Do you have a favorite?


          You’re right all New Yorkers are crazy and fairly mean.

  • The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in Action

    In 1972, the #2 man at the FBI was Mark Felt.

    Felt ordered FBI agents to illegally break into the homes of terrorist Bill Ayers to track Ayers down.

    The FBI caught Ayers but because their actions were illegal, the FBI was unable to prosecute Ayers.

    Indeed Mark Felt was prosecuted and convicted for his illegal acts.
    (Felt was pardoned by President Ronald Reagan.)

    Even though Ayers-made bombs killed three people in a New York City townhouse explosion Ayers went completely free.

    As Ayers himself said, “Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird.”

    Felt is now better known as Deep Throat.
    When FBI Director Hoover died in 1972, Nixon refused to appoint Felt as Hoover’s successor.
    In a fit of anger, Felt began feeding information about the Watergate crimes to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

    Nicki Clyne and Raniere’s lawyers know all about the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

    “Among the criminal groups that the FBI investigated in the early 1970s was the Weather Underground. Their case was dismissed by the court because it concluded that the FBI had conducted illegal activities, including unauthorized wiretaps, break-ins, and mail interceptions. ”
    Mark Felt

    • Shadowstate:

      C’mon man! I’m begging you to put the shovel down – and stop digging the Grand Canyon-size hole you’re creating with your posts about “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine” – which, BTW, has zero applicability with regard to the make-believe evidence tampering storyline that the NXIVM/ESP dead-enders are pushing. Not all conspiracy theories are alike. Some are worse than others.

      • I thought it was a conspiracy theory as well until I saw the slew of top forensic experts who certified that the FBI tampered heavily with the evidence in Keith’s case and the reasoning checks out. These guys would not sign their name to this and risk their decorated careers if it weren’t true and probable (which most things done on a computer are indeed quite reachable).

        • What are you writing about? Decorated with what? How? By whom? A lot of people joke around here but yours is the funniest comment I’ve read in a long time I’m still giggling as I respond. Seriously, explain yourself thanks

        • I’ve never thought you were as stupid as some of the ideas you support and promote. But to ask that question definitely makes me question my own judgment on that.

          Once again, I simply don’t understand why you think anyone should listen to your ideas about something like COVID-19. What exactly is it that makes you think your knowledge – or your judgment of others’ knowledge – is superior to anyone else with it comes to COVID-19?

          Do you have a heretofore unreported background in medicine or science? Are you a trained epidemiologist – or a trained research methodologist?

          It doesn’t bother me that you have a strong opinion about the COVID-19 vaccines. It does bother me, however, that you try to impose your opinion on everyone else when you have no special knowledge or experience that makes your opinion more informed or more valuable than anyone else’s opinion. That’s why I previously suggested that you STFU on this topic.

          Don’t you see that preaching about things you know nothing about puts you in the same position as Keith Raniere?

          • It’s been explained. And explained. And then explained in a way a very low IQ person could understand. Then explained again. And then again.

            The. Vaccine. Does. Not. Prevent. Transmission. Of. Covid. It. Drastically. Lowers. The. Odds. You. Will. Die. From. Covid..

            That is all…

          • I agree with you 100%.

            It’s another reason I don’t understand people like Shadowstate who are trying to discourage people from getting vaccinated.

        • Shadowstate-

          Our, heroic, 45th President, Donald Trump received the vaccine. How do you explain Trump’s vaccine inoculation?

          Irrefutable evidence:

          Donald Trump announced it at one of his rallies live!!!!

          You must be off your meds again and running around the streets naked. I bet you don’t even know month we are in.

  • Answer:
    Many commentators are probably wondering; how did Alonzo arrive on the Frank Report?

    Oddly enough, we have Sultan of Six to thank. Sultan and Alonzo crossed paths on Twitter….

    …And as usual, when two lunatics collide on Twitter, a battle of the minds ensued.

    Sultan, to his credit, is a cult hater and as we all know, Alonzo is a cult-sycophant… At some point during their debate, Sultan cited the Frank Report, Alanzo then did a Google search, and as the cliché goes, “The rest – as they say is history.”

    Somewhere out there, Sultan of Six is laughing his ass-off, because he finally got his sweet revenge on the Frank Report. Sultan released Alonzo on us!

    *Please Note: Sultan follows tautologically and Alanzo adheres to Torquemada, and I believe both men make Gary Busey seem sane.

    • Actually it was The Dossier Project.

      When I saw 8 women accused by the global media of being “brainwashed sex slaves” I knew this was false and wanted to help do something about it.

      I also knew that the Frank Report had a track record of helping to expose the information necessary to bring criminal indictments to criminals. And since David Miscavige has not been successfully indicted, and is still free to do whatever he wants to Scientologists atop a 3 billion dollar global real estate empire, I thought I might learn a thing or two here that would help put that violent psycho in prison.


      • Alanzo,

        You deny fighting with Sultan of Six on Twitter? 😉

        I read the exchange between the two of you. I didn’t think much about it until you showed up on the Frank Report. I only remember you, because of the freaky, gold & bronze mask icon, you use.

        Don’t know why you’re lying about it. The documentary aired months ago. Your fight with Sultan was just last month or so. LOL
        You were trolling Sultan.
        —When I saw 8 women accused by the global media of being “brainwashed sex slaves” I knew this was false and wanted to help do something about it.

        Ask Ivy, Cami, or Dani what happened to them. You believe the girls are part of a government conspiracy? WTF planet are you on?

        You think Raniere is some kind of victim??!?

        Alonzo, your reputation precedes you. We all know your game.
        It doesn’t really matter, one way or the other, but please, don’t pretend to be impartial or so naive. You are a passive-aggressive and contrarian provocateur. In other words, you are a troll.

        The fact of the matter Frank was the “linchpin” that put Raniere away. Frank started the ball rolling, and helped to get the story out to the public, then ten government had to do something about it.

        There was never any conspiracy, there was only a vendetta, and Frank Parlato won!

        If Raniere had left Frank alone, Raniere would still be fucking his harem.

        The first chapter in the demise of Keith Raniere would be called “Parlato and the Vendetta”

        My problem with you is you accuse the women and girls who were raped and molested by Keith Rainier of lying.

        You are one of those wacky-conspiracists misogynists, just like Shadow.

        • “You deny fighting with Sultan of Six on Twitter?


          You asked “How did Alanzo arrive on the Frank Report?”, and then proceeded to list out a bunch of bullshit.

          So I answered your question.

          And now you just string out more bullshit.

          My advice to you: Learn to read English.


          • Alonzo-
            You asked “How did Alanzo arrive on the Frank Report?”, and then proceeded to list out a bunch of bullshit. So I answered your question. And now you just string out more bullshit. My advice to you: Learn to read English.”-Alanzo

            “Learn to read English?”, I bet Claviger and everyone else on the Frank Report have wanted to say the same to you, “Mr. I ask the same questions over and over….” You’re kidding, right?

            “String out more bullshit”, Are you nuts? You are a walking pile of bullshit. You claimed you left Scientology because you grew disillusioned and because it was exploiting people — a total lie!

            You left Scientology because of not receiving a promotion and you were tagged with “overt” and “withhold”. Stansfield, you didn’t leave Scientology because of a moral reason. You left because of the fact the Scientology Management was going to make you do “audits” – lots of audits. Poor Alanzo ran afoul of management and so Alanzo quit.

            None of this is truly important.

            I simply don’t like you. You attack women and girls who were victims of rape and molestation by claiming they are involved in a conspiracy with the government.

            Fuck you, you misogynistic — sick pig.

      • Alonzo I got the date – you were fighting with Sultan back in month.

        None of this is important. You’re are just a liar.

      • Alonzo, I got the date – you were fighting with Sultan back in March!

        None of this is important. You’re are just a liar.

        • Okay. You’re repeating yourself. If you can calm down for a minute, I have a question.

          You seem to think that Alanzo was an unfit cult member before he left. Which makes him somehow less credible?

          Are you a former member? Did you route out per policy? Were your stats up? Did you do the required leaving security checks?

          Okay that’s a bunch of questions

          But seriously, Dude, you seem to be losing your shit.

          • Anonish-

            I hit post too abruptly several times. Losing my shit, I did that decades ago. 😉

            Alonzo is an A-hole.

    • Honestly, I have never wondered anything about him. But I do wonder why you clutter up this blog by continuing to engage him. Email each other instead. Text. Get a room. Anything. Thanks.

  • Nicki Whine tweets:

    Just change the order, and you get it right: FBI = FIB


    She’s such a disgustingly, huge hypocrite, just like her 60+-year-old statutory rapist boyfriend.

    A woman who engaged in a sham marriage to another woman — both of whom promised lifetime vows to the aforementioned boyfriend — because he told them to so that she could “legally” obtain U.S. citizenship and stay in the country.

    A country from which she now uses its infrastructural and technological resources to tweet on social media, arrogantly calling out as liars those who are required to submit to a rigorous code of ethics — more so than any she has ever submitted to — prior to being tasked with the responsibility of acting as some of the most authoritative enforcers of its law of the land!

    The brazen arrogance of the remaining dead-enders such as her has no bounds.

    • Shadowstate1958 does not hate America!

      On the contrary, he loves America. Shadow’s vision is to reshape America to its former glory, in the 1950s, before Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Once the act was signed, the commies took over. The animals are running the zoo,
      like in the book Animal Farm. Shadow’s vision is for the white utopia America to be returned to its former glory!

  • Is there really nothing more interesting to do than re-post what you’ve already posted but with LARGER BOLD FONTS?!

    You’ve posted so much original material previously — ground-breaking stuff.

    Do more of that, please. Less of this. You think the feds suck. We get it.

    • NXVIM and its various sub-cults are dead, and the only thing remaining is cleanup. It is probably going to be a while before something else this groundbreaking comes along. Let’s face it: this was bizarre and one for the record books.

    Attorneys at Law
    100 Lafayette Street, Suite 501 New York, NY 10013
    Franklin A. Rothman Jeremy Schneider
    Robert A. Soloway David Stern

    Rachel Perillo
    Tel: (212) 571-5500
    Fax: (212) 571-5507

    BY ECF

    Hon. Nicholas G. Garaufis United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201
    September 27, 2021

    Re: United States v. Nancy Salzman Ind No.: 18 Cr. 204 (NGG)

    Dear Judge Garaufis:

    I am one of the attorneys for Nancy Salzman in the above referenced matter. I write in response to the Court’s order of September 20, 2021 which directs the defendant to explain her legal justification for redacting sections of her sentencing memorandum, as well as the entirety of her exhibits which are comprised of supporting letters (exhibits A, B, C, and G) and medical information (exhibits D, E, and F).

    Generally, the defense redactions are based upon the privacy rights of the innocent third parties who have come forward to support Ms. Salzman, but who wish their support to remain outside the public domain to prevent injury to their commercial interests and livelihoods, and to also avoid vexatious publicity and public scorn if their statements become public. We seek to maintain the sealing of both the content of the letters submitted, and the identities of the authors. Should the Court, however, deny our application for complete redaction of the exhibits, we submit under cover of a separate sealed letter to be filed contemporaneously with the instant filing, as Exhibit 1, redacted versions of each supporting letter with highlighting to enable the Court to visualize those sections we seek to redact for the purpose only of protecting the identity of each writer, if not the content. Exhibit G to our submission we respectfully submit should remain entirely under seal, because any portion of its content will reveal the identity of the letter writer.

    In support of continued sealing, we rely upon judicial principles which endorse the protection of privacy rights of innocent third parties who came forward in support of Ms. Salzman, but who would suffer avoidable injury were their statements and identities revealed. Founded on such
    principles, we urge that the three categories of letters presented — family members, close friends, and Nxivm associates — are all subject to complete sealing.

    Applicable Law

    The Supreme Court has recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435
    U.S. 589 (1978). And we do not dispute that Ms. Salzman’s sentence submission is a judicial document presumptively “subject to public inspection.” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1046 (2d Cir. 1995). The Second Circuit has noted, however, that, “[c]ourts have given various descriptions of the weight to be given to the presumption of access, ranging from an especially strong presumption requiring extraordinary circumstances to justify restrictions, to merely one of the interests that may bow before good reasons to deny the requested access.” Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1046 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].

    In Amodeo, supra, a factually and procedurally complex matter, the Second Circuit considered a request by the press to review a report completed in connection with a judicial proceeding. The report was not issued in the context of a criminal proceeding, but the general rules for determination of when access to judicial records should be granted or denied furnish guidance here, and they counsel against release of the currently sealed portions of Ms. Salzman’s sentencing memorandum. Such portions relate personal medical information of the defendant and others, and summarize some content of the letters submitted by supporters, as well as identifying them by name.

    The submission’s purpose was to assist the Court in determining the appropriate sentence to impose pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As noted, supporters of Ms. Salzman, if their support is made public, will likely suffer injury. A criminal defendant facing sentencing should not be placed in the position of having to choose between providing the sentencing court with less than complete information about relevant sentencing factors, or forfeiting the important privacy rights of innocent third parties who desire to provide the Court with information in their possession about the defendant’s history and characteristics:

    In determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, courts should first consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public. Financial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs, illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters will weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public.
    Id. at 1051.
    As to Ms. Salzman’s privacy rights in her own medical conditions, this is information traditionally considered private. While her need for medical care has been publically discussed in general as a § 3553 factor, medical details have been kept private through redaction. Such details in no way affect any portion of the public, much less a substantial portion. Some indication of

    society’s traditional respect for personal privacy in one’s medical records is evidenced by the HIPPA laws, which require the explicit permission of the patient before his or her medical records can be revealed. The same interests are invoked by Ms. Salzman on behalf of the third parties whose medical conditions have been liberally discussed in her sentencing submission, including particularly her close family members.
    Regarding the fully redacted letters presented in Ms. Salzman’s filed submission, they should remain as submitted and fully protected from the public. The Second Circuit has held that “[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties … should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” Application of Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74, 79–80 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting, United States v. Biaggi, 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977 (1988). Such interests, while not always fitting comfortably under the rubric “privacy,” are a common law exception to the presumption of access. Courts have long declined to allow unlimited public access to public records. Indeed venerable rules pronounce long-recognized limitations:

    [I]t is clearly within the rule to hold that no one has a right to examine or obtain copies of public records from mere curiosity, or for the purpose of creating public scandal. To publish broadcast the painful, and sometimes disgusting, details of a divorce case, not only fails to serve any useful purpose in the community, but, on the other hand, directly tends to the demoralization and corruption thereof, by catering to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure. The judicial records of the state should always be accessible to the people for all proper purposes, under reasonable restrictions as to the time and mode of examining the same; but they should not be used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal. And, in the absence of any statute regulating this matter, there can be no doubt as to the power of the court to prevent such improper use of its records.

    In re Caswell’s Request, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259 (1893).

    In this case, many of those who wrote letters on behalf of Ms. Salzman did so fearfully, not because of any reluctance whatsoever to support her, but because of the scandalous, hurtful uses to which their sentiments, if made public, would likely be put. As this Court is aware, the Frank Report weaponizes statements made in support of the Nxivm defendants, and exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining “loyalists.” Revealing the identities and supportive views memorialized in letters to the Court will add little to the record that has not already been stated publicly by the Court and counsel, and will potentially result in harm to those whose aim was to furnish the Court with firsthand information about Ms. Salzman to facilitate a fully informed sentencing proceeding.

    Revealing the content of the letters and names of such individuals will likely have a chilling effect on those who wish to assist other defendants and courts in future high-profile cases.


    For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the redactions now in place with respect to the defense sentencing submission and exhibits remain as they are at this time, and that no public disclosures other than those already made be ordered by this Honorable Court.


    Robert A. Soloway

    Robert A. Soloway
    cc: AUSA Tanya Hajjar (by ECF)

  • Suneel-

    If you are truly serious about helping Kieth Raniere, you should pony-up the money and hire the best experts, in the field of computer forensics; people who are respected and beyond reproach.

    One suggestion is the following company:


    Computer forensisc is not their core business, but it is a specialty of theirs.

    Don’t you want to be taken seriously? Then hire the best!

  • EXIF data being very hard to change is COMPLETE B.S. I’m not a computer expert but a digital photography enthusiast and I changed the EXIF data all the time on my pictures so that my competitors (in online photography contests etc) couldn’t look at the EXIF data to see exactly what my secret special sauce of camera settings/time of day, etc, was for the specific images I captured. Also I know for a fact that people change the EXIF data on photos so that other people won’t know how old that dating profile picture of them really is etc. It’s easy to do. Or at least it was back when I was heavily involved in the online digital photography community and everyone was doing it. Changing the EXIF data never did anything to corrupt any image files of mine that I’m aware of.

    I understand why Suneel is pointing this out because obviously the child porn accusation was extremely prejudicial to Raniere’s case. Why would someone lie to say it’s very hard to change? Or maybe they were just innocently mistaken, although that seems unlikely. Raniere’s lawyer should have known it was B.S. Maybe he didn’t point it out because he didn’t want to spend any more time than necessary on the child porn issue since it’s such a horrendous accusation he figured it’s just better to move along “nothing to see here” as quickly as possible. ?

  • If the writer is honest about “one of them is lying” ( I disagree that “lying” has been proven), why post only a demeaning meme (Lord, are memes lame) of the one person?

    One of these people took the stand and is doing their job. The other is a groupie for a cult leader.

    Can’t people just respectfully debate the testimony without attacking a man’s professional reputation and character with no proof?

    Show me where this agent deserves to be ridiculed because I am not getting it.

    Suneel, yes. That ridicule is understandable. The dude pranced about nightly in front of a detention center regularly for an imprisoned male cult leader

    One can disagree with Booth and not resort to mockery and shade on his integrity.

    A personal attack on a total stranger says to many that you don’t have a real argument about the facts of the case. If you can’t dismantle the case – go after the people involved in prosecuting the case. It’s so obvious.

    It really only diminishes the Raniere supporters. And further erodes the little bit of credibility they might have held.

    • @”Making Booth the criminal…” How is the ridicule “understandable” in case of Suneel? He danced outside the prison of someone whom he considers as a friend and believes to have been convicted unfairly? How is that something worth ridicule? Would you not do the same, were it a family member or friend of yours? Ultimately what you are doing here is, highlighting your own hypocrisy with how oblivious you are to your own confirmation bias? Suneel is understandably a subject of ridicule as much is Agent Booth, or as anyone else who takes an inconvenient stand.
      The credibility of only one person is getting eroded here, the person oblivious to their own lack of integrity: YOU.

      • I can proudly say, without reservation, that I would never, ever regularly shake my booty in front of male prisoners nightly.

        If I had a loved one in prison that I felt was wrongly convicted, I would help and support them in a dignified and constructive manner. For both of us.

        I would not form deceitful groups like, ” We Are As You”. Or make up fake inmates like, “Kay Rose” a completely made-up person. I would not mislead the public and families of real incarcerated people and make a mockery of their plight.

        That cult-like behavior not only did not help Keith Ranier, it hurt him. His cell was moved. People thought y’all were kooky followers. Keith seemed more cult leader than ever. Other people with family at MDC felt misled. It was a spectacle. And not in a good way.

        • @”Making Booth the criminal…” You are assuming that everyone shares the same definition of what it means to act in a “dignified and constructive manner”. Shows the bigot mentality you have, which comes across in almost every sentence you write. Did you even talk with any of the prison inmates or their families yourself that you are giving this opinion on how they felt? If you did not, then your opinion is worth nothing.

          And yes, you are definitely a proud, arrogant bigot. None of the qualities which any dignified person would value having.

          • Listen.

            It’s a waste of time going back and forth debating the merits of making up fake inmates and misleading justice reform websites vs. being honest and actually helping people.

            Plus, it’s getting late and one of us has a branded pussy to flash tonight at the male prisoners in MDC for the sake of justice.

            Or do you not care about them anymore?

      • It’s obvious who wrote this post but is afraid to identify themselves.

        Definitely a dilettante who spent lots of time and money on Scientology and never managed to achieve the BS state of “Clear.”

      • Sorry, anon, I’m not on your side, either. No dancing outside a prison for my loved one. Candlelight vigil all the way.

        But I’m sure raniere enjoyed his dancing monkeys very much.

        I don’t pity them. But I do honestly feel bad. To the outsider, the dancing appears like a very cruel joke made at their expense.

        Also about the dancing, I love to dance and think it might have been cool if went down like in west side story. Epic dance battle! Supporters to one side, detractors on the other. Mambo! But I’m not gonna dance on this guys grave, no way. The whole situation is just too terribly sad.

        • My2cents,

          Thank you for weighing in. The candle light vigil sounds lovely.

          The fact the Raniere followers could not foresee that scantily clad “slave” dancers doing a bump and grind and – what I believe Frank Paraloto referred to as. – spread eagle taint salute – outside of their male cult leader’s prison cell window was not a good look for the man inside accused of running a criminal sex cult was… mind blowing!

  • I get the impression from this frenzy of posts about the FBI testimony on EXIF that Frank will be genuinely disappointed when, in the end, it turns out that there was no corruption or foul play by government officials in the case of KR.

  • Not really understanding the issue here. Didn’t Camila already confirm the photos were taken when she was underaged? I think Suneel has PTSD from having to wipe Clare’s poopy bottom.

    • Yes, Camila did do that – but she did so when she was delivering her “Victim Impact Statement” and was not under oath at the time.

      • I am pretty sure she would testify under oath, if she is called for doing so, at the time of the civil lawsuit. I don’t think anyone looking for her to testify under oath would have to hold their breath forever.

        • Cami will most certainly be called to testify under oath at a pre-trial deposition. So will most – if not all – of the other plaintiffs in the case.

  • Okay, Frank, I know you like to be provocative and play Devil’s advocate. But here you’re getting into misrepresentation and deception.

    You’re deliberately confusing “removing” with “altering” EXIF data. As I’ve pointed out in previous comments, standard photo editing software used by millions of photographers lets you selectively delete EXIF data. There are legitimate reasons for doing this, mainly privacy.

    Altering EXIF files- inserting fake data- requires downloading special hacking software and is not the kind of thing done by typical photo hobbyists or professionals. It’s like downloading keylogging software to hack into someone else’s computer. Is that easy to do? Depends on your definition of “easy”.

    It makes sense that Nxivm loyalists would think hacking and faking EXIF files is simple and ordinary. Look at their attitude toward installing spy software on Edgar Bronfman’s computer. Or hiring shady private detectives to spy on rivals. Look at their moral and ethical standards in general.

    Agent Booth testified that it would be difficult for the consumer to alter EXIF data. That EXIF files can be altered but it requires downloading special software. He never claimed it was impossible,

    Booth never said it was “incredibly complicated”, as you claim. He said it would involve specialized software (which is true). He said it would be “very hard for the consumer” to modify EXIF data. (Which is true. Standard photo editing software doesn’t let you insert fake data in those fields).

    Read carefully what the man actually said.

    “Very hard for the consumer” doesn’t mean “impossible for a computer hacker”. (So Suneel’s little demonstration proves nothing).

    Of course, if you want to misrepresent Booth’s testimony in order to be provocative, that’s fine, it’s your blog. Your bias is showing though, underscored by the picture you shared of Brian Booth as Pinocchio. Let’s just not pretend that this is any sort of objective inquiry meant to get at the truth.

    • — Altering EXIF files – and inserting fake data – requires downloading special hacking software

      It’s not so easy!!!!!

      Once again, the data alterations on the drive must be done, at the very least, partially by a Hex Editor. You are being technically inaccurate like the clowns Suneel hires.

      The image is not a simple GIF file or “text file”.

      There is something called jpeg data compression and DATA LOSS. There is no computer program that will replicate the same effects on a JPEG image to a “T”.

      It would be easy with a GIF image. Not so much with a JPEG.

      Please read further and educate yourself:

      There is a great misconception about JPEG files. Actually, JPEG isn’t an image file format – it’s a compression algorithm. JPEG specs don’t describe how to pack compressed images into files. There are two (mostly compatible) formats for that: the older JFIF and the newer EXIF. Most modern software will also accept mixed formats.

      So EXIF isn’t a tagging system. Entire JPEG image files are in fact EXIF (or JFIF) files and tagging is one of EXIF’s features. GIFs don’t use EXIF at all, so you can’t put EXIF tags on them.
      Frank it’s not so easy to change an EXIF-JPEG file!!! There is so much data that has to be done that you can’t possibly use software to perfectly change a JPEG file!!!
      Sorry to supply SUPERFLUOUS knowledge but you people have no idea what you’re talking about!!!!!

      There are so many TECHNICAL details you people are leaving out, it’s comical!!!!

      For the last time: it would be childs play if it was a GIF image — but it’s a JPEG and that’s why it’s not so easy. You can’t go in and just type up something!!!!

      • “— Altering EXIF files – and inserting fake data – requires downloading special hacking software

        It’s not so easy!!!!!”

        It’s easy and the tools used are absolutely not special hacking software. There are times when inserting “fake data” is a necessity. One common use is to insert copyright information. Another is to change the information on scanned images so the data accurately reflects the original analog photo rather than the digital copy.

        “There is something called jpeg data compression and DATA LOSS. There is no computer program that will replicate the same effects on a JPEG image to a “T”.”

        Don’t be ridiculous. If all the algorithm inputs are the same, the final output will be the same. Why? Because that’s how math works.

        “JPEG specs don’t describe how to pack compressed images into files.”

        Actually they do. The JIF standard is specified in Annex B of the standard. JFIF is supplementary to JIF.

        “There are two (mostly compatible) formats for that: the older JFIF and the newer EXIF”

        While technically mutually incompatible they are virtually identical when it comes to jpegs with one exception. JFIF says APP0 must immediately follow SOI while Exif says APP1 must immediately follow SOI. In practice as long as both application segments are included, which is normal today, there shouldn’t be a problem.

        “So EXIF isn’t a tagging system. Entire JPEG image files are in fact EXIF (or JFIF) files and tagging is one of EXIF’s features”

        Not it’s a tagging system. It’s also used with TIFF images and even WAV audio. When used with jpegs, the metadata is stored in an application segment as defined by the jpeg standard. As mentioned earlier, Exif uses the APP1 segment. These segments are called application segments because they were specifically created to be modified on the fly by applications. While the original intent was to hold application specific information rather the more general Exif metadata that doesn’t change the fact the app segments were designed from the ground up to be editable by the end user without ever interfering with image data in any way, shape, or form.

        • The previous person was right about JPEG, which is not lossless. Once the image is compressed, you can’t get back the original image from it. It’s the same with MP3 audio which is compressed too and not lossless. Both of them lose information when an image or audio is compressed, respectively.

          The fact that EXIF data can be changed doesn’t mean it was. It doesn’t matter the subjective opinion of one person on whether it is easy, difficult, not difficult, not easy, etc.

          This ridiculous emphasis on Booth’s testimony as a “lie” is the modus operandi of the NXIVM dead-enders in line with that of Keith Raniere. Focus on some alleged lie, repeatedly overemphasize it so that people begin to presume that everything else is a lie, but ignore what actually needs to be proved – that the EXIF data and the image content actually WAS changed by the FBI.

          • How did Alanzo arrive at the Frank Report?

            The Answer:
            Many commentators are probably wondering; how did Alonzo arrive on the Frank Report?

            Oddly enough, we have Sultan of Six to thank. Sultan and Alonzo crossed paths on Twitter….

            …And as usual, when two lunatics collide on Twitter, a battle of the minds ensued.

            Sultan, to his credit is a cult hater and as we all know, Alonzo is a cult-sycophant… At some point during their debate, Sultan cited the Frank Report, Alanzo then did a Google search, and as the cliché goes, “the rest – they say is history.”

            Somewhere out there, Sultan of Six is laughing his ass-off, because he finally got his sweet revenge on the Frank Report. Sultan released Alonzo on us!

            *Please Note: Sultan follows tautologically and Alanzo adheres to Torquemada, and I believe both men make, Gary Busey seem sane.

          • The previous person claimed it’s impossible to “replicate the same effects on a JPEG image to a “T”.” referring to the data loss and compression artifacts. This is not true. If the inputs to the algorithm are the same, the output will “replicate the same the effects on a JPEG to a “T”.” The output will no longer be the same as the original, but it can be the same across applications/systems. Put another way, Photoshop doesn’t produce random output. It will produce identical output across systems.

            Another issue with the previous person’s take is Exif data isn’t subject to jpeg compression. It can be changed without re-encoding the image data. The file will change but the image data will not be altered.

            The Booth testimony is wrong on a number of counts starting with his first statement. The Exif standard was first defined in Japan in 1985 with the version 1.0 release coming 10 years later in 1995. That’s well before the early 2000s as he claimed. Exif was already into version 2.x releases by 2000. That kind of mistake should make anyone begin to question the competency of an alleged expert.

          • ==If the inputs to the algorithm are the same, the output will “replicate the same the effects on a JPEG to a “T”.”

            File this under obvious (if that is what he meant because his English is not very clear). Every computer algorithm, if provided with the same exact input(s) will produce the same output(s). Computer programs are fixed once compiled and only do what they are coded to do. They can’t change their behavior like humans.

            ==The Exif standard was first defined in Japan in 1985 with the version 1.0 release coming 10 years later in 1995. That’s well before the early 2000s as he claimed. Exif was already into version 2.x releases by 2000. That kind of mistake should make anyone begin to question the competency of an alleged expert.

            No one cares about the dates when this particular standard was formed. In STEM fields, there are literally thousands of standards, where even those who are considered experts might not know such information. Is Booth even considered an “expert” on digital photography, or is he just an FBI agent who knows more than your average one about the subject? Regardless, such information is considered trivial information here and has no relevance to anything in this case.

      • Sorry but complete bull****

        EXIF is not encoded in all the JPG photo part of the data. EXIF is a APP HEADER in the image data. It is like an “appended” document inside the JPG file.

        A JPG file has a basic header first – stating WHERE the image data starts. And within that header is link to the APP1 location. The APP1 location is a storage area “inside” the image file but NOT related to the encoding of the graphics itself. So changing the EXIF data on a JPG is very easy and there are many freeware tools you can use to do so – without having to “re-encode” the entire image part of the file.

        You can compare it to sending an email with an attachment. The attachment is delivered WITH your email – but a separate document. The EXIF data is a “separate” document within the JPG file.

        And it is not only “hackers” who can modify EXIF – everyone can (and should before sharing in public)

        Windows 10 can DIRECTLY edit EXIF data in JPG files. Right-Click on a JPG image – select “Properties” – click on the “Details” Tab – and you will see the EXIF data. Now you can change the EXIF capture data and click APPLY. Bingo – EXIF date changed. (It has been like that for many versions of Windows – no only WIn10)

        So the ability to change EXIF data is EMBEDDED in Windows 10 for EVERYBODY to use. It does update the file “modified” date in the file system – but that is just as easy to change.


        Just to be clear – I’m not saying data was tampered with or any guilt/non-guilt of anyone. But I do correct “mis-information” from mis-information spreaders. I am trained by 3 letter agency in “Digital Evidence Collection” and without having the facts in this case – based on “hear-say” I would say that the 3 letter agency did NOT follow their own standard in evidence collection and protection.

        First – you NEVER work on the original data source.

        You bag and tag – and have a certified technician take “IMAGE copies” of the original data. So if it is a computer hard drive – you COPY the entire hard drive – BIT by BIT – so. you have a FULLY 100% identical copy. You usually make MULTIPLE copies (For storage, investigation, prosecutor and defence)

        After each copy is done – you put the ORIGINALS in sealed storage for later “comparison” against tampering. (An officer of the court can ask for a verification of the image data against the original – forcing a bit-by-bit comparison of “original sealed” drive vs what was delivered.)

        Then you either WRITE PROTECT the “copy-drives” – or generate a checksum on them – so any tampering will be evident.

        THEN you start “working” on what is on the copy-drive. Most times that can be done in a “non-destructive” way that will NOT alter the content on the drive. The investigative tools used normally “CAN NOT” change data only “extract” data.

        But in certain cases you NEED to put a hard-drive into a computer and “boot” from it. That requires the drive to be “unlocked” from its read-only state. In that case you create YET another “image copy” and boot from that copy. You then while you work document your entire process so your work can be recreated by following the same steps.

        So digital evidence collection is a process widely used and known.

        And EXIF data is child’s play to change for 85% of computer users without having to use any “hacking” tools apart from Windows File Explorer.

      • Thanks for the detailed information – yours is the first intelligent post I’ve seen on this subject. The last time I looked there were at least 10 freeware “EXIF editors” available. To clarify, are you stating that even after changing the relevant fields (date, etc.) using one of these applications, the original tags remain?

        • When you edit EXIF tags – the original data is instantly lost and can not be recovered.

          But if you had a “read only” original copy version – and only worked on the copies (as you are supposed to do) – then you have access to the original file with the original data.

          So usually if there is the SLIGHTEST worry that data has been modified – one asks for a bit-comparison between “original secured evidence” against the suspected “modified” evidence.

          BUT if the EXIF Data was changed BEFORE taken into evidence you have no “proof” but then you have to go “the long road” – That means

          1. Find ALL possible images FROM that camera. It is best if you can find some images from before/after the image was shot.

          2. Most cameras stores captured images in a DCIM folder on a storage card. Each new capture is sequentially numbered (usually) – so you would have “DSC0001.jpg, DSC0002.jpg, DSC0003.jpg and so on.

          3. So if you are looking at image “DSC0017.jpg” – and it has a capture date of January 1 2020 – but image DSC0015 have a capture date of February 1 2020 – there “might” be something wrong. OR sometimes the number goes back to DSC0001.jpg if you reset the counter or change SD Cards. (It is not supposed to but not everyone follows the “standards” – like DJI Drones/Cameras seem to reset every time you put new storage in)

          4. But by figuring out the history of image captures – you can check if it is plausible that an image was taken on a certain date by comparing other images from the same camera (and knowing if that type resets numbering or maintains numbering)

          But you can NEVER know for certain if EXIF Data is correct.

          EXIF Data relies on the camera operator to put in the date and time (usually) unless the camera has mobile phone or GPS interface – in which case it “can” be done automatically. But in 2005 only few cameras had built in GPS unless it was Phone cameras.


    • “It’s like downloading keylogging software to hack into someone else’s computer.”

      Seriously? I take it you didn’t bother looking into this subject at all before posting. Full Exif editors, not just removal tools, are readily available to anyone in Google Play, the App Store, and the Microsoft Store. Care to try and explain why all 3 of them are distributing notorious hacking tools disguised as easy-to-use apps?

  • Which specific photos are being referred to in this examination? Is the claim that all photos of Camila were tampered with, or that a subset of them was tampered with. In case it was a subset, were there any photos outside of that subset that show nude photos of Camila without her scar? Lastly, even if one could say that the metadata was somehow changed due to mishandling, is there any proof that the photos were also changed? The last one is important, because the age of Camila at the time the photos were taken, was determined, based on the missing scar, rather than the EXIF metadata. Unless we are clear on which photos are being talked about here and whether there is credible evidence to show that the photos themselves were modified (changing the EXIF metadata changes only the file, not the photo), all this is a wild goose chase.

    • One more thing, is there credible evidence to show that the change in the exif metadata took place after the FBI confiscated the hard drive?

      • Of course not. As I have already pointed out on numerous occasions, Suneel and the new experts that have been hired by Clare Bronfman to “prove” that the FBI tampered with the evidence concerning Cami’s photos have not had access to the original hard drive that was seized by the FBI. That’s why none of their “discoveries” mean anything – and one of the reasons why the Rule 33 request for a new trial will be summarily rejected.

        • And why the dead-enders have no integrity or shame. Instead of “investigating” they just jump right to calling an FBI Forensic Expert a “liar”. And make childish memes. Cause, you know, memes are always true! If there’s a meme – case closed!

        • Regarding the experts who never saw the Drives…..

          So this entire time Suneel, has been claiming he had experts look at the drive he’s been lying or making innuendo?

          I can’t stop laughing at the moment….

          OMG! I’ve just wasted hours of my life typing away trying to explain the errors of so called “experts”, conclusions regarding the JPEGs….

          …..And the experts have never seen the image data?

          LMAO @ myself!

          • All that Suneel and the experts have been reviewing is one or more COPIES of the hard drive that the FBI seized from Keith’s “Library” (You don’t really think the FBI would give them the original unless it was ordered to do so by Judge Garaufis – which I assure you has not happened?). And who knows what may have been done to the copy that the prosecution turned over to Keith’s lawyers in the pre-trial discovery process before it was passed along to Suneel and the experts?

          • We all know NXIVM has been full of hackers in the past and what they have done in the past with JPEG files sent out to hack into people’s private information. We all know that people will go the extra mile for him. Some without even knowing they are doing it for him.

            Someone knows what they are doing for him, others have no idea and will be caught with their pants down when this thing blows up in their face. Just like when the NXIVM house burnt down.
            So will that be HBO Vow #3?

            In the past, NXIVM was attempting to find out who was passing along their newletters to the Frank Report blog.

            As if there was information in it that non-NXIVM members shouldn’t be known. Individual information was put into JEPG form into each letter to ID each one sent out. This way they could track down who was sharing their newsletter with the blogger who was posting their so-called top secret information.

            Come on guys, there is another side of the story that mentions what the heck could have happened to the information once a copy of the drive left the DOJ.

            It wouldn’t be the first time that NXIVM has tampered with evidence. Let’s look at the Ross case. It’s one of the crimes that got them arrested. Salzman will be spending time in prison for it, so is Raniere.

            NXIVM hired a firm to get banking and other records on several of its “enemies. An entire file was found in Salzman’s “War Room”, her words for the space in the basement, where meetings were held. Why else would you obtain such records on a group of media, Judges, and others? To find something to shut them up and blackmail them, maybe?

            Why would you go to the trouble to alter a video in a legal case? Why would you get “Your People” to lie in court case after court case for almost two decades of legal battles of litigation? Plus you never won one of those court battles. Was it to uphold a principle as they said, or was it to torture people because you had a war chest of money provided by the Bronfman sisters, and you “just could”?

            Clare Bronfman sends her father a JPEG with a trogon, he doesn’t open it. Clare takes a trip to his office and opens it herself saying “Daddy, you didn’t open the Clare Bare picture I sent you”. Now NXIVM can spy on him and everyone else that her father emails after that.

            Who are the ones with the history of lying and being slimly here? Who is the one with the most to lose here?

            Not the FBI agent who has done his job.

            It’s Raniere and his followers. It’s Raniere, he has what, 166+ years left to lose? His followers seem lost without their Master to tell them what to do.

            You know somehow he is still telling them what to do from prison. This Rule 33 motion has the smell of Raniere all over it.

          • Claviger-

            —You don’t really think the FBI would

            Give me a little more credit than that. 🙂

            I misconstrued and conflated things. This debate we are all having with Suneel has happened before. I mistakenly thought something new had surfaced. It’s my bad for skim-reading. 🙂

            I’m not a tech expert on computer forensics, but I understand enough to know, none of these other people are experts either. 🙂

          • If the images are child pornography then only law enforcement agencies and the NCMEC will be allowed to access the original drive. Child pornography is contraband. The most anyone else will ever have access to is an image of the drive. Even then the drive image must remain under law enforcement or NCMEC control at all times. Any examination of it can only occur at the law enforcement agency possessing the image. There’s never been a child pornography case where the defense was allowed access to an original drive.

        • Why didn’t you mention the break in chain of custody that Examiner Booth testified to with regard to this evidence, AP?

          Is this what we can expect of you?

          Only half of the story?


          • Alonzo, I wanna know more about the break, too!

            My hunch is the evidence was directed for possible further analysis that ended up not being required so it was just turned back. I have no real reason to believe this, but it might be one rational explanation about what happened.

            I just have a hard time believing something nefarious occurred because there was so much other evidence. The photos were not by any means a one-off.

            The probability that this guy is neurodivergent in a way that causes him to behave manipulatively and destructively towards others is much higher than the existence of a plot involving young women, entire families, a wide community, and the cooperation of the FBI to take him down, especially because, why?

            Why would anybody want so badly to get this guy other than if they were harmed by him? Have you read his patent applications?

          • Alanzo-

            Half the story…You are the individual, who accepts the NXIVM side of the story. You choose the NXIVM narratives and dispel the rest.

            So I ask, you, are we to expect you’ll only believe the NXIVM half of the story?

  • No, I’m not talking about his method of rubbing one out whilst staring at photos of Nicki Whine.

    Vamachara is what this is called in Vedic philosophy. Its the idea that spiritual enlightenment is to be found in the transgression of practices that are widely considered moral, ethical, and true.

    This would explain why Alanzo and Raniere defend the rape of babies. He quotes Scientology founder/conman L Ron Hubbard, apparently saying that baby rape can be a method of “flattening peoples’ buttons” which is a really weird way of saying achieving enlightenment and inner peace.

    Alanzo goes on to add “The thing is, “flattening your buttons” can be helpful in making it easier for you to hold your own in upsetting situations.” So, Alanzo thinks that raping babies or fantasizing about raping babies better enables a person to handle the ups and downs of life.

    Sounds really messed up to me.

    How long has Alanzo, like Keith, been putting this into practice?

    What despicable acts has he committed that he’s managed to hide for years?

    When will justice be done for Alanzo as it has been (partially) for Keith?

    • Did you know that scientologists have been calling their critics baby rapers for decades? It’s part of the PTS/SP brainwashing.

        • Not that you know any other MLB team names other than the Yankees and Red Sox, so I forgive you – but for the record, and so others don’t believe your defamatory statement – Nutjob is NOT a Yankee fan.

          • Shit — you a future woke, Guardians fan?


            The Eastern division and the Yankees vs Red Sox storied rivalry are the only things that matter!

            Take your Marlins, Rockies, Tampa Rays, and wolk-ass Guardians [redacted]. You’re like Reggie Jackson — completely useless except for one month out of the year.

      • Nut Job- You’ll defend Lauren, Allison, and ALONZO? But you won’t defend Cami, against Alonzo’s misogynistic/sexist attacks. Alonzo has stated, “the Jews make matzo from Christian children.” That’s a direct quote. Not only is Alanzo sexist, but he’s antisemitic, as well.


        I still like you. I just think you’re misguided like the Red Sox management.

        • Less defending Alonzo and more not wanting lies being posted on FR.

          “So, Alanzo thinks that raping babies or fantasizing about raping babies better enables a person to handle the ups and downs of life.”

          IF I were defending Alonzo, it would be because he is one of the few non COWARDS who actually uses his real name, and it doesn’t get much worse than saying somebody rapes babies. Now, if it was a joke, ok… but you’re one weird and twisted jokester.

          • Nut Job –

            “Non COWARDS who actually uses his real name…”

            Well, you’ve sunken to the bottom of the barrel…..

            ….Because you are now quoting
            Scott Johnson hyperbole!

            Non-Cowards? What are you talking about? Alonso uses his real name because he has no [redacted] life. Alonzo

            I remember, a few years ago, when you stuck up for Scott Johnson, because you believed he took on Amway — then I pulled the curtain back, and showed you that all Scott did was sign up on a class-action lawsuit.

            Alonzo makes Scott look heroic. I mean it!

          • Come on, Niceguy. I figured you might be the only one to get the COWARD/Johnson joke. After being called a COWARD so many times, how can we shake that out of our memory? I think my button was flattened.

            If I ever defended Scott, it must have been because I was all giddy about one of the overabundance of Tampa Stanley Cups, or Super Bowls, or AL East titles. Remember that time when Boston was relevant in sports?

          • —Come on, Niceguy. I figured you might be the only one to get the COWARD/Johnson joke. After being called a COWARD so many times, how can we shake that out of our memory? I think my button was flattened.

            LMAO!!! Very funny!

            Totally went over my head 😉

      • Nutjob –

        These guys from Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs are the craziest and most fanatic of all Scientologists. And that’s saying something.

        I appreciate it tho. Take it from me: trying to tell the truth to them goes no where.

        Engaging is a waste of time.

        NiceGuy –

        You’re being duped by the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs.

        Have they had you take a personality test yet? It’s only 200 questions. And you get a full analysis of your whole personality. It’s free!

        Then, for just a little bit more money, they have a really cool communications course that will help you talk to girls!

        You should go for it.


        • Alonzo, will you please enlighten me? I hear you suggesting that the SOA is somehow involved. You ask about the broken chain of custody. But I’m not very clear on what you suspect is happening here. Do you believe the SOA infiltrated the FBI and edited the Cami photos to make it appear she was underage when she was not? Is that what you’re getting at? If so? Why would they do that? Or am I way off and you’re suggesting something else?

          • Alonzo’s saying SOA is on FR and posting things about him. Which is odd, but why are these anon posters so infatuated with Alonzo? He’s no Kristin Kreuk.

          • My2Cents –

            It’s OSA, for the Office of Special Affairs. OSA is the dirty tricks branch of Scientology which runs information control and character assassination campaigns against its enemies – critics, journalists, politicians, etc who seek to oppose, or expose, their activities.

            Hubbard wrote that a person who would oppose or criticize Scientology is a criminal, an antisocial personality which, in the 1960’s, he began calling a “Suppressive Person”. He taught Scientologists that you must expose a Suppressive Person’s crimes by finding or manufacturing evidence that will get them arrested, fired from jobs, or discredited so everyone thinks they’re crazy.

            They also run all of Scientology’s Public Relations and all their attorneys who wage their legal cases. The Office of Special Affairs (OSA) consider themselves the “protectors” of the Church of Scientology.

            I left Scientology 21 years ago and began speaking out about them on the internet in the late 90’s. They had me fired, tried to destroy my family, followed and harassed by private investigators, etc.

            Lately, I have written extensively about the deaths of Kyle Brennan, David Miscavige’s mother in law Flo Barnett, and the independent Scientologist Ken Ogger – all highly probable Scientology murders made to look like suicides.

            So they’ve stepped up their character assassination campaigns on me, like the one you’re seeing here, pretty much wherever I go on the internet.

            Hubbard said that their goal is to ‘shudder me into silence’. And if that can’t be accomplished, ‘to trick, lie to or destroy’ me.

            I should also mention that they a complete ham-handed clods, as you can also see here.

            They have never shut me up.

            And they never will.


          • Also, I’m not saying anyone who disagrees with me here is OSA.

            Even people here who call me stupid repeatedly because I’m not an attorney and they are, are not OSA. Some people here have legitimate complaints, disagreements and criticisms of me. They’re not OSA and I’m not saying they are.

            OSA’s strategy here is to stink up the board so that Frank will become sick of all the shit-posting and ban me so he can have a legitimate discussion of the posts he publishes.

            Then they will say “Alanzo got banned from another forum! He’s the most banned person on the Internet!”

            They will also be contacting Frank and some other commenters here back-channel, feeding them “dead agent” (discrediting) material on me to make them think they have the ‘lowdown’ on Alanzo.

            If anyone has been contacted back-channel about me, please contact me with what you’ve been told, and who told you. You’ve probably been sworn to secrecy, but I would suggest you show no loyalty to the Church of Scientology, and to their dupes. My email is alanzosblog@gmail.com.


          • My2cents-

            Alanzo, challenges conventional wisdom, the status quo, and sometimes commits a few peccadilloes along the way. Alanzo’s intentions are good. He is simply searching for the unvarnished truth. Please pay no mind to the SOA haters. They are always harassing Alanzo.

          • Sorry. OSA. Got it.

            Alonzo, I’m aware enough to realize you may just be making an appeal to my sympathy but I’m still inclined to believe you. And if that bad stuff really happened, I’m so sorry. Especially about your dad.

            Good to know the OSA isn’t involved here. They sound very vindictive.

      • “ It may very well be true that Keith Raniere took photos of Camila when she was 15. In fact, I think it is likely.”

        “May be true”? “Likely”? The jury found it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unanimously.

        This despite aggressive cross-examination of agent Booth by Raniere’s team of high-priced lawyers, aided by a snowstorm of Raniere’s Post-It notes.

        This matter of the dates of the photos has been gone over again and again. It was thoroughly explored at the original trial. Agent Booth was grilled on the subject, in front of the jury. Raniere’s defense team had its say.

        The matter has been settled in open court.

        So why the skepticism?

        No new evidence has been produced on the matter. There still isn’t the slightest indication of evidence tampering.

        The dead-enders allege a plot. So what?

        Their argument runs like this: Well, isn’t it *possible* that the EXIF files were altered? Isn’t it *possible* the government plotted against Raniere?

        This is standard conspiracy theory stuff. Pretending to be open-minded and “just asking questions”.

        In fact, it’s all moon-dust.

        Because nothing can ever be proven beyond the slightest possible hint of a doubt doesn’t mean we have to keep from ever deciding anything.

        Like Raniere’s guilt. There is no reasonable doubt that he took and possessed obscene photos of a 15-year-old girl. It’s not a matter of “maybe” or “likely”. He did it, beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Suspicions and speculations are not evidence. And keeping a “question” alive long after it has been thoroughly settled is not some noble inquiry after the Truth. It’s blowing smoke. It’s the stuff of conspiracy theories.

        It’s a tactic Nxivm consistently used. A mind-game to manipulate the weak-minded. It’s also the weapon of choice of Internet trolls.

        “Question everything” is bad advice. This is how Raniere got his disciples to think maybe it’s ethical to have sex with children. And brand women with his initials.

        “Keep an open mind, but be careful not to let your brains leak out” is a better aphorism.

    • Nutjob and NiceGuy, you are getting played by Alanzo. This is an old tactic of his to stir up shit. He posts insults against himself to feel important and argues with his own sock puppet. He’s insulting you coming and going. He’s calling you defenders of child rape from one side of his mouth and a dupe of OSA from the other. Just ignore him. All he wants is attention, not real discussion. This stuff about “Vamachara” or whatever is classic Alanzo using big words to try and seem smart. This is why he is banned virtually everywhere else.

      • Fine. I really don’t give a flying fuck. But you seem to care, so I’ll engage. A couple of quick questions for you, if you don’t mind:

        Did you participate in Frank Report prior to Alonzo being here? If yes, where did your NXIVM interest come from?

        How do you know what websites Alonzo’s been banned from?

        Why do you care so much about Alonzo?

        Why do you post anonymously and not use the same moniker?

        Are you saying that if Frank looks at the IP addresses of these posts accusing Alonzo of horrible things, it would be his own IP address?

        Have you ever watched TV? Do you know that you saying things like “This is an old tactic of his to stir up shit. He posts insults against himself to feel important and argues with his own sock puppet” is straight out of the Scientology playbook?

        To prove that I don’t give a fuck and so I don’t accidentally get anyway involved with an organization I’ve avoided like the plague, I’m done engaging. But, I am curious as to your answers.

        • Both a non-Scientologist and a Scientologist pretending not to be a Scientologist will state they are not a Scientologist.

          Any OSA twit with half a brain can provide answers to your questions that are identical to those that would be given by a non-OSA twit.

          If someone says that LRH was a drug-addicted asshole, does that prove they aren’t a Scientologist? Or just a tricky OSA agent?

          • That’s a good decision. Engaging with Alanzo is, in my opinion, a complete and total waste of time.

          • AP Claviger wrote:

            “That’s a good decision. Engaging with Alanzo is, in my opinion, a complete and total waste of time.”

            It’s easy to see why you’d say that, AP.

            No one else here calls out your arrogance. No one else here exposes your bias. And no one else here demonstrates your one-sided, cynical manipulation of the facts in the Keith Raniere case.

            So yeah, I can totally see why that you be your opinion.

            It’s just another display of your intellectual dishonesty.


    • Left-Hand Path:
      RE Philosophy & Alanzo’s Philosophy of Life:

      Once you scratch the surface of existing philosophies, you will encounter, a deluge, of so-called great minds. Many exactly like Alanzo or Marx , sitting around in their underwear, forever expounding and orgasming over their, own words. Indeed, both men are/were on welfare and the generosity of others.

      Alonzo cherry-picks philosophers, according to a his own confirmation biases. In other words he does not question his beliefs, but tries to find rationalization of his believes. Alanzo is partial to the obscure philosophers, because it makes him feel more intellectually superior. Everyone has an Ego.

      One Caveat:
      The mere act of having one’s thoughts published does not give credence to those thoughts. Alonzo’s manuscript,
      “My Marvelous Machinations”, was published by Kinko’s in 2005.

      • LOL. Assuming it’s true, how do even know this???

        It’s like this Alonzo dude has his own cult and he has a trail of anti-Alonzos yapping at his heels.

        Apparently, the anti-Alonzo yappers are either:
        (A). Alonzo himself trying to make himself relevant.
        (B). A bunch of bad-azz Scientologists who are drawing our attention to this Alonzo fellow. In the process, they are making themselves look to be incompetent fools who are reaching the exact opposite of their intented goals.

        Either way, this sideshow has got my attention.

        • You are done engaging with this thing that has your attention.

          Sounds like the rhetoric of an OSA troll.

          Nutjob for sure.

          • Touché. Can I straddle the fence by not responding, but periodically toss out instigating comments? I don’t want to get roped in, but am intrigued.

            Fuck. Screwed up again. You’re gonna call me out for responding to you, aren’t you? Since I already shit the bed again, you gonna answer my questions from the earlier post, or are you too chicken shit?

            BTW – You got me. I’m an OSA troll. Born & bred OSA troll.

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.” He also appeared in "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM, and was credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

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

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com