Guest View by Come on Guys
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 newsletters 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 JPEG 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 hard 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?
Clare and Sara Bronfman paid about $1 million to Canaprobe to spy on federal judges, media figures and other enemies.
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 Bear 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.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Too much hyperbole and outright lies from the cult dead-enders have rendered them untrustworthy.
Pushing untruths (for example) ‘Keith Raniere was kidnapped from Mexico’ early and often was a severe misstep.
The cult die-hards also lied about little things that did not even really matter.
This disinformation campaign continues and there’s no coming back from it and being believed now.
If they had earnestly and honestly told the truth, they might have garnered a modicum of credibility.
And IF (a big honking IF) ANY legitimate issue is buried in the avalanche of propaganda, over-blown claims, lies by omission, and deceptive tactics – well, it is their own fault that no one wants to wade through their endless bullsh×t to get it sorted out.
Whose/who’s?
“What’s on second..”
-Abbot & Costello
The FBI without a doubt. Only a madman would think otherwise.
Another Alanzo (OSA) sock puppet account.
Investigative journalism my ass. Wild speculation after wild speculation on this website with no facts ever presented to back up most of the articles. Frank, you are garbage
“Whose” versus “who’s” in the article’s title can be repaired. It’s not too late to make the title be coherent enough for a seventh grader to get more than a “C” or perhaps a “D” grade, if the composition were to be submitted as a school assignment.
As it stands here, this article’s title is unfortunately without legs, the way that it has been published.
So, WHO’S going to read the article, without its title’s banner being quite distracting, if not altogether detracting from its contents?
“Whose” is not “who is.” “Whose” is a possessive adjective, not a contraction.
Shirley we can understand the distinction between “whose” and “who’s.”
Yes or no, Shirley? There’s no need to write an essay. A simple “yes” or “no” will be sufficient.
And yes, by gum, it’s okay to say or to write in excusably poor English, such as
“how ’bout ‘dem Red Sox!” Often acceptable slang is created by its own history.
This Red Sox exclamation has its own, very
hard-earned slang notoriety, and really, it did take 86 years to achieve its fame. The exclamation gained its slang form
both improperly and properly, from 1918 until 2004, as we New Englanders still remember. We have, in some cases, outlived The Curse of the Bambino. It was fun and not fun, while it lasted.
I corrected the typo with whose v who’s. I think it was my mistake.
Nxivm.
Well said
Who’s not Whose
Great article!
—Who are the ones with the history of lying and being slimly here? Who is the one with the most to lose here?
Rest assured, everyone’s favorite ex-Scientology Buffoon will come up with some sort of implausible explanation.
*****
In addition, NXIVM hackers may have framed a man for child porn as reported on the Frank Report.
I don’t know if you watch TV, but criticizing former Scientologists is right out of the OSA playbook.
How much are they paying you? Or is it blackmail they have on you?
Cab you prove you aren’t a vindictive Scientologist or PI hired by Miscavige?
—How much are they paying you?
OSA offered me beer, cold hard cash, and cheap ugly women.
I am happily married, have a bank account, and I’m of half Irish decent. So to answer your question, 2 six-packs and a bottle of whiskey.
One roll of toilet paper a month. Beans and rice. Free auditing from Marty Rathbun.
I’m partial to beer and whiskey. Give the toilet paper to Shadow, so he doesn’t steal from restrooms.
In the SeaOrg, toilet paper is more valuable than gold.
Can you prove you aren’t me — pretending to be you?
The me pretending to be me says “Hi” to the you pretending to be you.
But what if I’m you?
Everything is everything
You need to learn English and flatten your button.
A certain poster has got your goat.
You are at effect to his at CAUSE.
To whom are you speaking, Nice Guy, Alanzo, or Nice Dude?
I’m typing, not speaking.
Why are you gaslighting Alanzo?
I think you meant to type, “Why are you gaslighting, Alanzo?”
Are you gaslighting me because you think you’re not gaslighting Alonzo?
Is gaslighting a euphemism for putting a match up your butt while you fart?
Genius, Homeopathic Troll.
And my comma is in the correct placement.
Why are you obsessed with people putting things in other people’s butts?
Officially bored with the photo silliness. It was fun to speculate but at this point, it’s just going in meaningless circles. Not a critique against article writers but I think this is the 2nd or third cycle around the bend of speculative article, Suneel article, response article.
The only thing I am curious about is when is the hearing for this motion will happen and after that, what is the estimate on when a decision will be handed down?
IF – and I say IF rather than WHEN because I’m still not convinced that Keith’s current legal team are 100% committed to filing a Rule 33 motion based on speculation that the FBI may have tampered with the hard drive on which it found the nude photos of Camila – the schedule of events will be entirely up to Judge Garaufis. He could deny the motion on technical grounds: i.e., it is not based on newly discovered evidence. Or he could hold a hearing – and hear oral arguments from both sides before making a decision.
But to give you some sense of the likely timeframes, I would estimate that a decision on any such motion will likely be made within 2-3 months after it is filed.