Towards the end of the status conference of Oct. 15 in the civil lawsuit, Sarah Edmondson Et Al v. Keith Raniere Et Al, the plaintiff’s attorney, Neil Glazer, sought the court’s approval to issue subpoenas to Suneel Chakravorty and another unnamed party, both of whom are not defendants in the case.
Though Glazer did not mention Suneel by name, we know it’s him.
From the transcript:
GLAZER: Your Honor…. we would like to address with you [issues] today because we don’t think that they can wait.
COURT: Okay.
GLAZER: We’ve been receiving information that’s kind of concerning about certain individuals in possession of some very sensitive and significant evidence, particularly collateral. I don’t know if Your Honor is familiar with that, but compromising photographs, videos and other materials that were used effectively as blackmail materials with the women in DOS.
We would like Your Honor to consider authorizing us — and we would provide you with a submission to explain it — to issue subpoenas.
It’s two individuals that would be very narrowly targeted. These would be third-party subpoenas. Not asking them for the world, but just specifying what it is we believe they have or have handled in order to ascertain whether in fact they have it or have information on how it was disposed.
And one of these individuals also we believe either possesses or did possess and they know where it exists one or more computers, electronic storage devices, camcorders and paper files that were part of kind of a trove that – around the time that Mr. Raniere fled to Mexico, was stored in an apartment in Clifton Park. And when he was arrested was all gathered up and removed before the FBI could execute a search warrant and seize it. And we believe those devices may also contain equally sensitive and significant evidence and we would just like to be able to take some very limited, targeted discovery of those two individuals on this specific issue.
COURT: Those two individuals you said are non-parties?
GLAZER: Non-parties.
COURT: And, you know, this may be appropriately taken up by the assigned magistrate judge in the first instance, but just tell me in two or three sentences why that would be an appropriate use of the civil subpoena power in the context of a civil tort case.
GLAZER: The materials that I’m referring to would be significant evidence in this case, particularly concerning the women who were in DOS. And we are — we were very concerned —
COURT: Who are plaintiffs I take it?
GLAZER: Yes. Yes.
COURT: So you’re saying the subjects of this collateral are —
GLAZER: Who are plaintiffs.
COURT: Okay.
JAMES WAREHAM [attorney for Sara Bronfman]: Your Honor…. Judge Garaufis issued… an order to show cause directed to everybody involved [the Raniere defense attorneys to state whom they provided the hard drive and other discovery materials to] in the criminal case… It doesn’t seem to me to be sensible to have a new court get into discovery when we haven’t even sustained a motion to dismiss or even resolved some of the procedural stuff when this judge [Garaufis] seems to be a very motivated fellow and he’s out in search of this material and who’s got what and how they got it.
COURT: Do you know if the same —
GLAZER: May I address that because there are a couple of different issues and Judge Garaufis is focused on only one, which is a copy of the hard drive that was seized by the FBI that had among other things the child porn images that underlaid several of the predicate acts that Mr. Raniere was convicted of in [the] RICO action.
Separate from that — and the government did raise this in its letter with the judge — were collateral materials that were never in the government’s possession and so they were never discovery materials subject to the protective order and it does not appear that the government feels it can do much about that.
And while we certainly are concerned about the hard drive with the possible child porn on it, we’re confident that Judge Garaufis’ inquiry will either turn it up or conclude that there’s no need to be concerned, but it’s not addressing the collateral that I’ve described and it’s not addressing the other computers and electronic storage devices that I’ve described.
COURT: Are the people who would be the recipients of your subpoenas also subject to Judge Garaufis’ order to show cause?
GLAZER: Indirectly one [Suneel] is who claims to be — who claims to have been in possession of the hard drive with the child porn on it and claims to have hired three experts to be analyzing that for some sort of Rule 33 motion Mr. Raniere may be filing.
COURT: Why aren’t these recipients defendants? Was that too long and complicated an answer for this venue?
GLAZER: It is. And until these issues cropped up in the information that we received — and some of it – I mean, we’ve recovered a couple of the computers I’m talking about but there’s a lot more that’s missing — until we received this information we didn’t really feel there was any need for them to be defendants. I mean, what they’re engaged in is sort of post-NXIVM conduct that would not be part of plaintiffs’ case.
COURT: Okay. Why don’t you put it in a letter on this subject –
GLAZER: Yes.
Analysis of Glazer’s Position
Glazer is talking about two things. Firstly, the hard drive that the prosecution used to prove the racketeering predicate acts of child porn and sexual exploitation of a minor [Camila].
Glazer claims Suneel says he had it and it may have child porn on it. Glazer is correct that Judge Nicholas Garaufis will try to determine whether anybody possesses a copy of the hard drive, and if they got it from Raniere’s defense team.
The second thing Glazer is talking about is collateral — in this case adult nude photos of Camila that Glazer wants info about, as it may relate to the civil case.
Before we hear from Suneel, I think it’s appropriate to state that Suneel does not have a hard drive with child porn on it.
Here’s why.
On March 27, 2018, the FBI seized the hard drive from 8 Hale, according to a receipt of the search and seizure.
On October 5, 2018, the government produced the Western Digital hard-drive to the defense and recalled it, based on the discovery of alleged child porn.
On March 21, 2019, the government produced a new copy of the back-up hard drive (DSCV_00000061).
On April 3, 2019, Raniere’s counsel informed the government that cached photographs that the government designated as child porn were still on the hard drive and returned the hard drive to the government.
On April 6, 2019, the government produced a “clean” copy of the hard drive for the defense, that is a copy without the alleged child porn.
Suneel’s Statement
Here is Suneel’s comment:
I didn’t get involved with Raniere’s defense until after the trial, by which time the only hard drive in the defense’s possession was the one without the alleged child pornography.
Mr. Glazer should know that the government’s evidentiary protocols would not permit me to have a copy of the hard drive with alleged child porn on it. By the time I had gotten involved in the case, after the trial the government had long before taken back the original copy of the hard drive from the defense and the only copy the defense had was the copy of the hard drive without the alleged child porn on it.
I certainly couldn’t have had the original hard drive. In fact, I never got a copy of the hard drive, with or without the photos of Camila.
Mr. Glazer’s references to ‘child porn’ are inaccurate. He told the judge that I am a person ‘who claims to have been in possession of the hard drive with the child porn on it.’
However, I never made any such claim. In fact, I claimed the opposite on Frank Report and in the Albany Times Union,on October 14, 2021, the day before the status hearing.
I also do not possess any ‘collateral.’ I believe the photographs Mr. Glazer is referring to are photos of Camila taken in 2017 when she was 27 years old. I have never seen the original photos. I have only seen redacted [blurred] versions of the photos, which show the lack of any visible appendectomy scar.
This, I understand, may be used as evidence in a post-trial motion in the Raniere criminal case because it undermines the prosecution’s contention that the lack of an appendectomy scar in the pictures of Camila proved she was under the age of 16 since she had an appendectomy when she was 16.
The fact that she posed for nude pictures, photos which I do not possess, nor have I ever seen except for blurred-out photos, does not mean I possess collateral. I do not.
What it does prove is that the whole notion of no appendectomy scar absolutely dating the original Camila photos to her being 16 years or less is dubious and not dispositive.
I do not know if Mr. Raniere took the photos of Camila when she was 15. I have never seen the photos used on evidence by the prosecution and even if I had, I would not have been able to ascertain how old Camila was or even if it was Camila.
***
Parlato’s Statement on the Photos
I was shown, I believe, two of the photos in question, in September of this year. The dates of the original photos, I was told, were April and June 2017. I was not given the photos to possess but only to look at while they were in the possession of one of Raniere’s supporters.
In the photos, Camila is posing with other first-line DOS masters. She was a first-line master herself. She recruited at least one slave, knew that Raniere was the leader of DOS, and that the brand was his initials.
In the photos I was shown, Camila is clearly over the age of 16. In at least one of them, as I recall, she is wearing glasses. She is smiling or laughing and in one photo she appears to be dancing or jumping about. She is nude, but I only saw blurred versions where her breasts and genitals were obscured.
Her abdomen was not blurred and though the photos appeared to be high resolution, I could not see any evidence of a scar. I believe the scars do exist, however, but because of the way the lighting was, or the way she was posing, or the way her skin may have been folding, or any combination of the above, the scar was invisible.
Of course, the photos I saw could have been photoshopped. I was told by Suneel that the photos in their original form were provided to a forensic expert who wrote a report that the photos were not altered. I have not seen that report, as I recall.
I do not think Suneel possesses a copy of the hard drive with Camila’s pictures. I think it would be impossible for him to possess it.
I also doubt he has a copy of the hard drive without the Camila pictures since I doubt any of Raniere’s attorneys would have released it to him since he did not, as the prosecution points out, sign the protective order needed to get the copy released.
He also claims he does not have any collateral. And he says he does not possess the adult Camila photos.
I can’t know for certain whether the adult photos of Camila taken with the other first-line masters qualify as collateral. I think they do not, since the first line masters knew that Raniere was their master and their brand was his initials. They were dedicated to Raniere to the extent that they seemed to love to pose nude for him. I do not believe they were coerced into taking nude photos for him.
The first line masters, including Camila, seemed to voluntarily choose to form DOS and helped devise with Raniere photoshoots of them all nude and smiling. This plan of joint nude photos was passed on to their own slaves.
As for the collateral, primarily of the lower ranking DOS slaves – those under the first line masters, I have an idea of what happened to most of it. This forms the subject matter of an upcoming post in the series, “Where Is the Collateral?”
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Funny how people blame Raniere for getting Suneel in trouble. When it is actually the so-called “victims” who are making stuff up. It’s clear they are scared because they lied and they will lose. This NXIVM case is far from being over.
Anthony,
How can you possibly know what people are “making up” so definitively?
Were you there? Were you in the room with Keith Raniere and Cami when she was 15?
Were you even around Nxivm at all back then?
Were you present for every single incident involving every single woman in DOS? How so – if it was a woman-only (except for Keith Raniere) secret organization?
Is it possible that there is information you do not have? If this was all a secret?
Anthony, is it more logical that one person (vanguard) is lying? Or that many, many unrelated people over the decades are lying?
As far as being “scared” and “losing” a jury sided with the victims and did not agree with your assessment of them having “lied”.
With Raniere in prison, the women of the world are safer and less “scared”. As are their loved ones.
Anthony, do you believe that Keith Raniere bears any responsibility for what has become his life? Or is Keith Raniere just the ultimate victim?
Yes, Anthony. Raniere was set up by OSA agents because he perfected the tech that he learned from LRH. Scientology resents that he is smarter than LRH and Miscavige put together. The FBI is completely infiltrated by OSA, just like the anti-cult “community.”
Hail Hydra!
I mean, you really have to hand it to Raniere. He is systematically ruining Suneel’s life and career from behind bars. Must be Vantard’s specialty?
He is standing in front of an American flag.
Innocent.
Case closed.
If you don’t agree, you hate Freedom and the American Way of Life 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
[…] writing to Judge Komitee, Glazer expanded on issues he raised at a status conference on Oct. […]
What is up with the eyes of these NXIVM die-hards like Suneel and Nicki? Why so open, “buggy”, and sometimes “non-blinky”.
Keith said he was a “demon” on stage once. Of course, he said this in the context of being a bad mentor. But was that some Freudian slip of self-revelation? Does Keith have them under some “demonic” spell?
Look up (it’s on FR) KR’s attempt to copyright/patent ‘Luciferian’. Probably one of the few times KR was honest with himself and his deep motivations. Read that and pass all his actions and pronouncements through that lens he provided into his psyche – you may see a pattern clearly emerge.
I believe N. Clyne passed Quack-doc Porter’s brain test.
Suneel is fibbing, you cannot have sd cards that automatically blush out private parts. Look at the times in the reports he provides from the experts, seconds apart on each pic. There is literally no time taken between shots to blush three areas on a woman’s private areas between each shot so his claims are faked. He then had them analyzed by “experts” so his experts have the answers to this one…
Frank-
Do you have any theories, as to explain, why Suneel insinuated the disk images were in his possession?
I believe everyone would like to learn your opinion.
I am not sure what you mean by insinuating that disk images were in his possession. What disk images?
Hi Frank-
By “disk image”, do you mean copies of the hard drive.
***
Technically the “disk image” is an exact duplicate of the hard drive down to the bit. A hard drive copy is just a copy of the hard drive files.
Gotta love the lexicon.
My question should have been, why did you believe Suneel went too such lengths to get people he had a copy of the drive?
Frank-
Why do you believe Suneel insinuated he has a copy of the hard drive with Cami? It seems to me he went to a lot of effort, including paying experts to pretend they saw the drives?
What’s his play/angle?
It makes no sense to me.
I’m positive many other readers would be interested in what you have to say about the matter.
Thanks!
I plan to write a post on it. But in a nutshell, the experts did sign the protective order and got copies of the hard drive from the Raniere lawyers. Suneel did not because he did not sign the protective order.
Frank-
Thank you for taking the time to explain it. I was not aware or, missed where, it was said the experts had signed the order. I had thought Suneel sent the hard drive copies out.
I am very glad the experts had a look-see, I spent a good fair amount of time researching their claims.
Thank you!
Frank says Suneel likely never had the hard drives. Suneel has certainly pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes, including the victims, and the DOJ. Suneel is quite the jokester.
However, the real joke is on Suneel, and his delusional belief, he will one day free his Vanguard.
Suneel’s Candid Photos:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B_QOmb8DsGS/?utm_medium=copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/B6RJQBPAIu3/?utm_medium=copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/CNB0o8JjEX3/?utm_medium=share_sheet
https://www.instagram.com/p/CD1QXSFl2dk/?utm_medium=copy_link
LMAO @ 🐸 Suneel!
One cockeyed nitwit spends his life defending another cockeyed nitwit.
Keith has lawyers. But he could use more dancers, Suneel. Shake it for the pedophile!
It’s such a dumb, miserable, creepy life ol’melon head lives…
How apropos (pun intended) and spot-on – he does seem to have an unusually large head
Maybe his roommate Nicki Slyme put him on the 500 calorie diet. Now they both look like dashboard bobbleheads.
“On April 3, 2019, Raniere’s counsel informed the government that cached photographs that the government designated as child porn were still on the hard drive and returned the hard drive to the government.”
What? This fact completely decimates Suneel’s claim that the Cami photos were altered!
If the defense already was in possession of a copy of the hard drive with the child porn in October 2018, and the prosecution had to recall the defense’s copy, clearly they did not plant it in the hard drive.
For them to then give the defense another copy that still had child porn on it that DEFENSE informed them about further confirms its authenticity. If they planted these photos, wouldn’t they be well aware of where they were and if they were still on the second copy for the defense? Of course, they would!
Suneels’s claim is getting more ridiculous by the second.
Interesting that you share this fact so late after all the nonsensical guest views by Suneel.
And, clearly that “blurred” photo of Cami was photoshopped. It is also useless in court as it has already been doctored by blurring portions of the image.
These leftovers are laughable and sad.
Why do they all get those zombie eyes?
Suneel’s photo is scary! He has that same glassy-eyed vacant look as Nicki.
And, posing by the American flag with a red tie is beyond comical. Who do they think they are fooling? Certainly not Judge Garaufis or any judge worth their salt.
And, Frank, why not do the right thing for a change and inform Judge Garaufis of the person with the collateral? If you cared at all for the victims, you would do that. However, it appears you care more about clicks, money and helping Nicki, Suneel & co.
“… posing by the American flag with a red tie is beyond comical. ”
It’s not just that Sherizzy, it’s the original 13 colony flag. Which is a deliberate shout-out to the Bill of Rights and the 1st amendment I would assume, but in the process, he is leaving out the 13th Amendment which goes to Involuntary Servitude. He is also leaving out Due Process (14th) though, which he is supposedly fighting for. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, he needs to see a stylist. His una-brow has completely taken over. That’s what happens when you have no women in your life except those with very hairy vulvas I suppose.
Excellent insight, ice-nine!
I was thinking the same thing when reading through this stupid story.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know Suneel Chakravorty’s story is all bullshit at this point.
Fuzzy pictures of Cami are not what the FBI agent was talking about at Raniere’s trial.
What a crock of shit all this has been about Suneel Chakravorty.
The Salzman 3 used to bring lots of things to NJ…I bet a lot is there too…I would guess things like: $…files…..etc.
Not directly mentioned but yeah Parlato likely the second one since doing a whole series on the collateral’s location.
It is possible. But I think Neil Glazer would simply ask me. Or at least tell me he plans to serve a subpoena. After all, we are not adversarial.
He might but to prevent an avenue of legal attack, he might also follow procedure to the letter. Guess we’ll find out fairly soon one way or the other.