Attorney Neil Glazer wrote a letter to Judge Eric Komittee, who is presiding in the matter of Edmondson et al, v. Raniere, et al.
In that letter, Glazer asked the judge to permit him to serve Suneel Chakravorty with a subpoena seeking information about possible collateral he may possess or knows the location of. Before the judge could respond to the request, Chakravorty replied to the judge – in the form of a letter that was shared with Frank Report.
Here is Suneel’s entire letter:
October 30, 2021
Dear Honorable Judge Komitee,
My name is Suneel Chakravorty. I am not a party to this case, nor am I an attorney. I am defendant Keith Raniere’s power of attorney.
The plaintiffs attorney, Neil Glazer referred to me in a status conference on October 15 (Dkt. 92) and his letter to the Court dated October 29 (Dkt. 100), requesting a non-party subpoena be served upon me.
I respectfully submit this letter to your Honor in response to some of Mr. Glazer’s comments.
First and foremost, I am not in possession, nor have I ever been, of any hard drive, or copy thereof, from the criminal case. By now, Honorable Judge Garaufis’s inquiry has likely confirmed this. I do not possess any DOS collateral, nor do I possess or have I ever seen any nude photographs of Camila, one of the plaintiffs in the case before you.
To my knowledge, I posses no evidence that has any relevance to this civil litigation.
I do possess redacted nude photos [where the breasts and genitals are blurred] of a 27-year-old Camila, taken in 2017, which contain no visible appendectomy scar. The original, unredacted version of the photos, which I do not possess, were not collateral.
I was informed that these photos were voluntarily and happily taken by the founding sisters of DOS as a ritual before meetings and were not meant for anyone to use as collateral.
The purpose of the redacted photos is to be used as evidence in the criminal proceeding of the USA v Raniere, to show that the prosecution’s determining the age of the subject in the photos based on the lack of an appendectomy scar is not dispositive, and the redacted photos are not to be otherwise disseminated. I would be glad to submit these redacted photos to the Court, ex parte and under seal.
As Mr. Raniere’s power of attorney, I have referred cyber forensics experts to his criminal counsel to investigate his allegation that the FBI falsified and tampered with evidence. These experts signed a Protective Order and had access to protected discovery materials. The experts include the following:
Dr. James Richard Kiper, Ph.D., who served in the FBI for twenty years and retired in 2019, in good standing. He is a celebrated whistleblower and the “raison d’etre” of the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016.
Mr. Steve Abrams, M.S., J.D., who has advised and trained federal, state and local law enforcement in cyber forensics for three decades, on over 1,200 cases.
Mr. Wayne Norris, who has been an expert witness in roughly 100 cases, holds several patents in nuclear instrumentation, and has a diverse technical background, from working on the Apollo project, to project managing for the US Navy, to digital forensics.
These experts have stated that prior to this case, they had never before seen or claimed to have seen credible evidence of tampering on the part of any law enforcement. After examining the forensic evidence, they issued reports which may be used in a motion in the criminal case, and here are some of their findings:
- FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth provided false testimony.
- An unknown person improperly accessed and altered data on the camera card on 9/19/18.
- Photos were added to the camera card while the device was in FBI custody, between 4/11/19 and 6/11/19.
- Date and times of photos on the hard drive were manually altered.
- Folder names were manually set to exact dates and times in 2005, to corroborate the fabricated photo dates.
- The backup folder on the hard drive containing the photos was backdated and manually placed on the hard drive and efforts were made to conceal the forgery and make it look like a legitimate automatic computer backup.
Dr. Kiper writes in his technical report, “In my 20 years as an FBI agent, I have never observed or claimed that an FBI employee tampered with evidence, digital or otherwise. But in this case, I strongly believe the multiple, intentional alterations to the digital information I have discovered constitute evidence manipulation. And when so many human-generated alterations happen to align with the government’s narrative, I believe any reasonable person would conclude that evidence tampering had taken place. My analysis demonstrates that some of these alterations definitely took place while the devices were in the custody of the FBI. Therefore, in the absence of any other plausible explanation it is my expert opinion that the FBI must have been involved in this evidence tampering.”
Mr. Abrams writes, “[I]t saddens me to conclude that the most plausible explanation for these artifacts is manual alteration of the digital photographic and file system evidence and an unsuccessful attempt to cover that manual alteration, at least some of which had to have occurred while the evidence was in the custody of the FBI.”
Mr. Norris writes, “I believe based on what I have reviewed that Dr. Kiper is correct in his assessments that no plausible explanation exists for the anomalies in the Government’s exhibits other than intentional tampering on the part of the Government.”
I hope that the above information assuages Mr. Glazer’s concerns and provides this Court with useful context.
Frank Parlato’s Comments
That three individuals claim the FBI tampered with evidence is an interesting assertion on the part of Chakravorty. Frank Report is not overly quick to buy into anything an expert who is paid to produce a report says without examining things carefully.
That is only common sense.
We will be looking into their credentials and looking to learn what Chakravorty or someone else paid these gentlemen. Did he [or Clare Bronfman] buy their opinions? We want to see their reports; we want to know more about them.
The gauntlet has been thrown. Three experts are being presented to us by Chakravorty as having given their unvarnished opinion that the FBI likely crooked up the Camila photos to convict Raniere.
I want evidence.
If it is true, the FBI has some serious explaining to do. If it is false – or vague or nonsensical, let us get this out in the open and dispense with it.
This might be the story of the year – the FBI cheated to convict a hated defendant – or just the humiliating final chapter of the disgraced and disgraceful Keith Alan Raniere.
Finally, let us be open-minded.
It is possible that two things are true. For instance, it could be true that the FBI tampered, possible I say, not probable and, at the same time, Raniere sexually exploited Camila, a fact which I think is probable, most probable.
I, for one, take Camila’s word for it. I do feel bad for this woman. She was, it seems, groomed from the start – from age 13 and sexually abused when she was 15 – so she never had a chance at growing up normally, a chance at an honest life with a young man her own age.
Raniere is 30 years older than her.
And if he espied her as a child and groomed her -with his sick partner Nancy Salzman – to take advantage of her innocence and purity, I would hang that asshole to the sour apple tree and laugh at him dangling.
However, if, by the odd, rare chance, the FBI tampered with the evidence – that is, yes, Raniere abused this woman as a child, but the FBI could not prove it, so they had to tamper with evidence, then I want to see the FBI agents who did this criminal act hung from the same sour apple tree. They can’t get away with that. No, the government can’t fake evidence because they decide a man is guilty.
I won’t stand for that. I would rather a thousand Ranieres go free than give the green light for the FBI to falsify evidence.
And, if they did tamper, I do not want to see Raniere – “Epstein-ed”, hung in his cell or die from a fall in the shower, or get struck by a bolt of lightning in the yard.
I do not want to see Chakravorty retaliated against either. Charged for bullshit. That would be clear proof the FBI is guilty to my mind.
If the FBI cheated, Raniere will likely get a new trial. I do not want to see a coverup and I will do my best to prevent it.
That said, I have serious doubts that the FBI tampered. But I want to look at the reports of the experts and evaluate what they are saying. I want to know the truth and anyone with a lick of common sense would want to know that too.
Now, as for Chakravorty’s statement to the judge that he does not have collateral or the hard drive, I suppose this is what he will respond to if he is served a subpoena and so it may end right there. As for the nude photos of Camila she took when she was 27 – I do not think they prove much as far as whether she had a scar or not when the photos in evidence in the trial were presented to the jury.
There is a much more serious issue than whether the photos had visible scars.
Are the photos of her when she was 27 collateral? I do not know. She took them when she was well over age and she was, after all, a first-line master in DOS. She could be presumed to be acting on her own volition.
On the other hand, this woman, this poor woman was in the monster’s hands for 14 years – never having a life beyond the control of the villain. Maybe her whole life and everything she did up until the time she left, was collateral.
Everything she did was under his thrall or through his coercion. She lived where he said. She depended on him for her food and shelter and clothes and everything. I cannot say for certain what is collateral or not.
People are different. Had she been my daughter, Raniere’s bones would be scattered somewhere in Mexico beneath the sandy terrain, his entrails the food for jackals, but Camila’s father supports her tormenter. He adores him and is ready to jettison his own kith and kin for the Vanguard.
It is not easy to say what spell he has on him.
For my part, I hope the spell of Raniere ceases for those who still are held in this thrall and that includes Chakravorty – if he does indeed still believe blindly in the deviant Raniere.
On the other hand, on the stray chance that Chakravorty is just seeing this through because he believes it is true – that the FBI tampered – and does not want to see an injustice done even to an animal like Raniere, then I support him. Time will tell.
In the meantime, Chakravorty has let the cat out of the bag. This is what the Rule 33 motion is going to be all about.
Stay tuned for my future posts on this – starting with Dr. James Richard Kiper. Who is he? Does he have the credentials? What evidence did he look at? and if I can find out — who paid him and how much? And what the hell is he saying? Does he say he thinks the FBI tampered?
What the f–k? If this is true, then this is the story of the year.
[…] learned from Chakravorty the names of these experts. The primary one is Kiper. The others, Steve Abrams Esq. and Wayne […]
[…] wrote in a post that if Raniere “espied” Camila “as a child and groomed her… to take […]
You know? I’m reading the “expert” report and maybe need to learn more but it looks to me that the hard drive create date was in 2003, whereas the file create dates were mostly in 2005.
I have no idea what this means but doesn’t it seem backwards? Shouldn’t the file have been created before the backup?
Am I missing something?
November 1, 2021 at 8:11 pm
Please post a link to the report!
Go check the make justice blind website. They posted their stuff there.
The more I look at it, the more I’m convinced it may only prove the dates were tampered with. To me, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was done by the FBI.
Since the dates already don’t make sense, it doesn’t seem impossible that somebody future dated a “last accessed” date.
I mean, if I’ve got this right and the backup of 2005 files happened in 2003, something is clearly already wrong with the dates.
If a backup can be past dated, how come an access date can’t be future dated?
If the FBI brings a case against Suneel, it is proof of only one thing.
That they think they have a case against Suneel.
It is completely illogical to conclude that it means the FBI is guilty of anything.
Come. On. Now.
These are graphic, nude. spread-eagle photos of a child.
Suneel does not get a pass on the distribution of child pornography. And the child in question is identified.
The FBI must investigate. It is their sworn duty. They must investigate child sexual exploitation. Suneel has left them no choice. He brought it on himself.
If you do not want to be investigated over child porn, do not possess child porn. Do not distribute child porn. Do not create child porn. Very simple.
If I were Cami, I would bring a civil case about this matter against Suneel forward, like yesterday. Or sooner!
And I really hope that she does.
Frank, as you stated, it would “get this all out in the open” if Suneel was deposed. Right?
Let’s do this, Camilla!
Of course, the photos were meant as “collateral” and nothing is “voluntary” when you are being blackmailed.
In addition to the testimony under oath of Lauren Salzman, Nicole testified, under oath, about slave master Allison Mack sending these “voluntary” group nudes (as well as extreme close-up vaginal shots) to Keith Raniere – as they were being taken.
Nicole described in detail her objection to this practice. And her extreme distress and reluctance to be forced to participate.
There is plenty of other legal evidence to support that these were not “voluntary” practices.
That stated, what kind of asshole (Nicki Clyne) shows her male roommate (and Frank Parlato?) nudes of another woman never meant for their eyes? Who knows who and what else Nicki is flashing around.
How ethical. How “sisterly”. How “sacred”.
And looky, looky… The one female, who, once again, displays the disgusting qualities that Keith tried to label all women with…is Nicki Clyne.
Suneel, are you roommates with Nicki? Do you wipe her dirty behind like you did for Clare?
Do a Google of search of images of
You’ll notice a strange thing. In many of Sunneel’s photos, his skull and eyes change shape. I’m not kidding. 👽
I wonder what Suneel fears more: the FBI or NASA. 👽
Nice Guy – The truth is out there… BTW, I revisited the old Millennium TV series and my favourite funny episode. It’s definitely based on L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Well worth watching!
Millenium Jose Chung’s Doomsday Defense.
I liked the clip. Seeing agent Mulder’s X-Files poster on the wall was hilarious.
I just checked to see if it is available for streaming and it’s not available. Hopefully, it will be. Seems like a great show to binge-watch. 😉
I didn’t watch the show back in the day except for a few episodes. The actor who played Millennium’s main character is excellent. I still remember his appearance on the X-files. 😉
Maybe I’ll buy the DVD or Blue Ray!
“Hundreds of channels and we still only got four shows to watch.” LOL
Strange. In October 2020, Suneel was citing four computer experts to support his claim that Keith was framed by the FBI.
1) Dr. Keshava Munegowda – Dell EMC
2) Dylan Sperber – IT Acceleration, Inc.
3) Samuel Plainfield – Syntax Technical
4) Steven Burgess – Burgess Forensics
Nutjob always says “Proof or it didn’t happen.” Fair enough, here you go:
His latest statement mentions none of them. What happened to them? Why have they just disappeared? I’m sure it isn’t because their findings didn’t actually support Suneel’s position.
The only common denominator here is the attorney, Steven Abrams.
Also curious… none of the three “experts” he now touts claim to be “experts” in examining photo metadata on their web profiles. Though there isn’t much to go on, the four now disappeared fellows Suneel mentioned last year actually seemed potentially to be people with relevant knowledge. The B-team has replaced the A-team (to be generous).
I won’t be surprised if the long-promised and not-yet-delivered Rule 33 mnotion never sees the light of day, much like Keith.
Make Justice Blind made that report public. Now it is just Suneel and he hasn’t released the new reports. Why?
“After examining the forensic evidence, they issued reports which may be used in a motion in the criminal case”
Wow, so many words. So much money spent on “expert” forensic research, but the results only “MAY be used in a motion.”
Talk about lack of confidence.
When is Keith’s release date?
Oh yeah, he’s never getting out alive.
Justice in this case is so sweet.
Wow. A lot of stories and time given on this website for these dead-enders to attempt to give their awful story some superficial credibility due to the site’s long standing reputation for helping to bring down NXIVM, which is very ironic I must say.
The fact of the matter is Raniere is scum. He statutorily raped Rhiannon a long time ago. There were many women who went on the record in the TImes Union who claimed he statutorily raped them. And there is plenty of evidence on the record that Cami was also statutorily raped by him that have nothing to do with the photographs. Yet, these die-hards want us to believe the FBI “planted” evidence for behavior Raniere has been guilty of over and over again.
This is like milking the NXIVM story from the non-giving breasts of a post-menopausal, flat chested woman.
‘This is like milking the NXIVM story from the non-giving breasts of a post-menopausal, flat chested woman.’
Or a man.
Suneel & Nicki,
Why do you both hold Cami’s collateral over her head?
If you’re both moral people, and ethical as Nxivm teaches, you’d destroy the photos of Cami regardless of whether or not she consented.
I am well aware you won’t destroy the photos of Cami: i.e., blackmail material. My request above is to bring home a point to anyone who reads my comment. Neither one of you is the least bit moral or ethical. You are both cultists pure and simple. Not that pure, but fairly simple. 🙂
BTW: Suneel, the next time you engage in pillow talk with your roomie, you should explain to Nicki the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Her Twitter feed suggests she has no understanding of the difference.
It’s also possible that the FBI accessed the devices, perhaps carelessly, in such a way that some of the dates on the data were changed, though the data itself was not altered.
I’ve also learned that when it comes to conspiracy theories, it’s important to scrutinize the backgrounds of the supposed ‘experts’ cited — which are typically overblown, mis-represented, and not truly applicable to the matter at hand. Kiper has no relevant experience cited, and a brief claim of Norris’ comes only at the end of a laundry list of other unrelated things that he actually did professionally. And Abrams is an attorney whose training and practice is in advocating for whatever position his clients are paying him to.
A big sincere thanks, to you for looking up the background information.
I personally believe other more credible experts, previously hired, were of the opinion the drives weren’t tampered with.
Some of the best trial attorneys in the US, never hired experts to counter the DOJ assertions?
Suneel’s Biggest Boldest Lie Yet!
The Short Version:
Suneel claims to have hired the first forensic computer experts involved in Keith’s criminal case….
…..Raniere had the best attorneys money can buy — and none of the attorneys thought to hire an outside expert?
I call bullshit!
Suneel’s Biggest Boldest Lie Yet!
Suneel claims to have hired the first forensic computer experts involved in Kieth’s criminal case…
We are to believe that before Suneel showed up, none of Keith’s defense attorneys hired experts to inspect the hard drive copies.
Raniere had the best attorneys money could buy and money to burn— and none of them hired an expert, according to Suneel. Suneel’s narrative doesn’t remotely make any sense.
The fact is experts were hired and they found there to be no alterations or tampering in regards to the hard drive.
So Suneel spent 2 years searching for experts until he found three who’ll testify to his narrative.
This comment is too hot for Suneel or the Frank Report staff to comment on.
“I was informed that these photos were voluntarily and happily taken by the founding sisters of DOS as a ritual before meetings and were not meant for anyone to use as collateral.”
Ah, the slippery use of passive construction: “I was informed.” By whom with what motive? Why should you or anyone else believe them? What “open-minded” investigation did you conduct into the truth of their claim?
“My analysis demonstrates that some of these alterations definitely took place while the devices were in the custody of the FBI. Therefore, in the absence of any other plausible explanation, it is my expert opinion that the FBI must have been involved in this evidence tampering.”
Even if we grant the accuracy of Kiper’s analysis, only some of the alterations definitely took place while in the custody of the FBI.
“… in the absence of any other plausible explanation…” Well, what plausible explanations have you considered?
Great point regarding passive construction!
I had totally forgotten my high school enjoyed courses!
Frank, how much power has Keith Raniere given to Suneel Chakravorty by giving his power of attorney to Suneel? If he has given a broad amount of power to him, then I find it difficult to believe Suneel could be unbiased in this case. That would be akin to expecting an attorney hired to represent a client to be willing to act against his client. Which, while it’s possible, is highly unlikely and would probably be unethical towards the client, we’re that to happen. Without having clarity on this, I find it difficult to take any claims by Suneel about throwing Raniere away like a fish if he found out that he had abused Camila, on face value. I believe he has a conflict of interest. He should be upfront about that.
I agree with you! Suneel is most likely fanatical when it comes to Raniere.
Power of attorney is one of the most powerful legal instruments giving control over someone’s life other than a health care proxy or a conservativeship.
How much control is conveyed actually depends on the language in each Power-of-Attorney. It can be as all-encompassing as you indicate or it can be as little as a one-time transaction.
Unless Suneel shares a copy of the Power-of-Attorney that he received from Keith, there is no way of knowing the extent of his powers.
[…] Chakravorty wrote to Judge Komittee “I was informed that these photos were voluntarily and happily taken by the founding sisters of […]
It was all Keith’s idea and group. This “sisters” and “sorority” shyte is malarkey.
It was a master/slave male-led organization for the sole purpose of procuring pornography, sex, free labor, and power for one fat Vantard.
It was not a school with a sorority. It was not a charitable organization. It was a demented pervert’s hunting ground.
They changed the nomenclature after the fact to try and clean the DOS image up.
Read their freaky slave handbook. That ain’t no sorority house. It was a sex dungeon. With all the “puppy leashes” and cages, paddles and really elaborate bondage equipment they could order.
The slaves were branded AND wore a “collar” that they were never to take off.
This use of “sisters” is egregiously offensive in the DOS context. Like calling blackmail “collateral”.
I really only have one question. A number of criminal defense attorneys have cycled through this appeal. Presumably all of them would benefit from the publicity of any sort of win in Raniere’s favor. If this evidence of tampering is so strong, why the revolving door of defense attorneys? Why isn’t Fernich still on the case?
Our Constitutional Rights are not designed to protect popular individuals or acceptable speech.
Our Constitutional Rights are designed to protect reprehensible individuals and unpopular speech.
Yes, Raniere’s conduct and beliefs are outrageous and perhaps criminal.
But the purpose of the US Constitution is to protect all people from a government that is all too eager to punish people it does not like.
The government does not get the power to manufacture or alter evidence to make convictions more likely.
Over the past two years, we have witnessed a government all too eager to lock people up on the vague premise that they might spread a disease.
The danger is not just from an out of control Raniere but also from an out of control government.
Please study and understand why the Founding Fathers drafted a Constitution designed to control government and not control citizens.
Keith Raniere supposedly fathered children out of wedlock.
So did Benjamin Franklin.
“The danger isn’t from an out of control Raniere, but a “tyrannical” out control government controlled by pagans.”
My friend, you’re suffering from quasi‘Lima Syndrome‘. You, now see Keith as a victim. Why would the FBI frame Kieth?
You’ve lost your rationality.
Liberals claim the FBI ruined Hilary Clinton’s election bid.
Conservatives claim the FBI attempted to frame Trump.
Now you claim the FBI is framing Keith?
The FBI is either incredibly evil or you are all suffering from confirmation bias.
“The danger isn’t from an out of control Raniere, but a “tyrannical” out control government controlled by pagans.”
Where did I make this quote, Nice Guy?
You are Fake News.
I have never accused the US government of being run by Pagans.
For some reason you believe the world is all black and white.
The world is actually many different shades of gray.
Ask Roger Stone who had his home raided at dawn by FBI agents who just happened to be accompanied by a CNN camera crew.
Talk about trying to prejudice the public!!!
Just remember so called Nice Guy a government powerful enough to give you whatever you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
True, you did not say the government is run by pagans.
BUT, you said something far more ludicrous and preposterous. You said the federal is a deep state pedophilia ring. A statement saying the government is run by pagans would be more credible than what you’ve said in the past. 😉
As for black and white…….You subscribe to Raniere’s world of ethics and I to morality.
As far as morality goes, there is only good or bad; black or white; right or wrong. Ethics inhabits the “gray” shades as you say. You should look up the definitions. They are not so interchangeable. There is an incredibly important distinction between the two, not just semantics.
Killing 100 terrorists and the possibility of killing a woman and her two daughters is ethically gray and acceptable.
Morally, such risk is unquestionably wrong on every level, but if we want to ensure the safety of our people, it’s worth the risk.
NXIVM was completely ethical. It was also morally bankrupt.
Here’s one for ng, shadow!
I am relatively new here. This Shadow person is peculiar. Whoever uses such a funny sounding word anymore. Does this gentleman wear antlers on his head?
“I was informed that these photos were voluntarily and happily taken by the founding sisters of DOS as a ritual before meetings and were not meant for anyone to use as collateral.”
It will be interesting to see how Glazer responds to that statement. Firstly, the first-line DOS slaves had to be collateralized at the time that those group nude photos were being taken, so it seems extremely unlikely to me that you could make the argument that they were taken in a 100% free and voluntary manner. Secondly, while some (Nicki) may still say they were done out of free will, I imagine there are other DOS first-line slaves that would contradict that, including presumably Camila. Thirdly, Lauren Salzman’s testimony (under oath) also contradicts the assertion that the group nudes were photos were voluntarily and happily taken.
Q. Did the defendant impose requirements about what the photographs should look like?
LAUREN: Yes. Well, generally, I mean, we were supposed to be uniform, so like all looking the same. So one time, like Daniella had a baseball cap and we got feedback that either we all had to wear hats or nobody had to wear hats. Nobody should wear hats. So we were to be uniform, fully frontally naked, the brand should show, and we should appear happy in the pictures. Like if we weren’t happy, we got feedback that we weren’t happy and we needed to retake the picture.
Q. When the defendant gave feedback on the photographs, would you sometimes have to retake the photographs?
LAUREN: Yes. Whenever there was feedback given on the photographs, we incorporated the feedback and retook the
picture with the feedback incorporated.
Q. What does that mean, when you incorporated the feedback?
LAUREN: We made a change that was suggested. If we didn’t look happy, we did a picture that was happier. If our legs
weren’t spread enough, we had to spread our legs more. Whatever the feedback was, we did it.
Q: How did you feel about the photographs?
LAUREN: I had mixed feelings about the photographs. I mean, for me it was very uncomfortable. […] I tried to make
jokes or make it fun or try to think of like fun themes that we could do, like, to take the pictures which made it easier for me to do it and to feel okay doing it. And it made it more comfortable between all of us. But it was really difficult, and I didn’t want to be doing it. […] I was there pretending that I was happy taking sexual pictures with the people he was preferring to have sex with instead of me, and that — it was — sometimes it was very difficult. Like I tried to make it fun, and sometimes it was fun and I could have fun doing it. But a lot of times, it was just very painful and hard to put on a happy face for
Additional point from the testimony on what was and wasn’t considered “collateral”:
LAUREN: I mean, we were taking naked pictures, up close vagina pictures three times a week. So I was told that wasn’t considered collateral, but to me that was very weighty collateral because it was not something I would ever want anybody to see and there was a lot of it.
Given the sensitive nature of the photos and the fact that they absolutely can be used as blackmail material in the right context, the fact that Raniere many times instructed their contents, and that the DOS masters were collateralized at the time that they took them, I think it’s hard to argue that they were not collateral.
Also, side question out of curiosity. Did Nicki sign the Protective Order?
Animus – I completely agree with you. And if these group shots were submitted to Raniere, they were collateral. They will be blackmail material until they are destroyed.
Excellent, excellent points!
Hopefully, Frank or Claviger will answer your last question! It’ll be intriguing to learn the answer.
Because Raniere was unable to get his attorney to believe Suneel’s experts to get the Rule 33 motion filed, Suneel chose this route to expose the findings of his experts.
Another great move out of the Raniere Legal Mind Playbook.
People are laughing their asses off on the floor, Suneel.
By the way, there are several types of Power of Attorneys. Suneel. When you say you have one for Keith Rainier, is it full across the board, everything POA or is it limited? We want to know now that you’re throwing this around.
We doubt Raniere would give you full control over his life.
Suneel’s bullet points are not just beliefs of his, they are capable of being factually proven.
If true, they show that if you have a defendant that is unpopular enough, or can be made unpopular enough, you can lie in court to put him away for life, and no one cares.
They also prove, if true, that anyone who believes that “chain of custody is just chain of custody”, and that it has no real importance in a criminal trial, is not worthy of their license to practice law.
I didn’t know you were so concerned about impartiality, facts, rule of law, chain of custody, etc. Strange.
Tomas de Torquemada, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, whose “…name has become synonymous with the Christian Inquisition’s horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism…
“In 1484 he promulgated 28 articles for the guidance of inquisitors, whose competence was extended to include not only crimes of heresy and apostasy but also sorcery, sodomy, polygamy, blasphemy, usury, and other offenses; torture was authorized in order to obtain evidence. These articles were supplemented by others promulgated between 1484 and 1498. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada’s tenure has been estimated at about 2,000.”
I don’t know anything about this cunt Torquemada, I had to look it up. And frankly, I just don’t fucking care. But your hero seems to give less of a shit about due process than anyone in history.
Also, “…that anyone who believes that “chain of custody is just chain of custody”, and that it has no real importance in a criminal trial…” – nobody of legal importance has ever uttered such nonsense (except for perhaps Torquey). Quit making shit up, dude.
You just slapped a certain someone so hard they won’t wake up till Christmas.
I never claimed Torquemada was my hero. I’ve repeatedly made the point that Torquemada embodies the ideals of anti-cultism for the exact reasons you cited. You can think of Tomas de Torquemada as the Elvis Presley of anticultism, if that makes my point easier for you to understand.
And if you aren’t familiar with anticultism, here’s a wikipedia article on it for you:
I have to agree with you there, Ice-Nine.
Even if there was evidence tampering, it was not the only piece of evidence presented for this indictment (child porn possession). And then there were the other criminal acts he was convicted of. To frame this the way Alanzo is doing here is ridiculous.
KR is put away for life for multiple crimes that he has been proven guilty of in a court of law. There is a correlation between being unpopular with the general public and the crimes for which one is charged and convicted.
Same with Ghislaine Maxwell’s upcoming trial. Her brother says there’s so much publicized on her that she can’t get a fair trial. And that she’s already guilty in the public’s eye because of that. But that is to turn reality upside down. She has been in civil litigation for her role with Epstein. She settled (paid millions). Then, she fought for years to keep everything under seal. This has been in the news. These are facts. From this, it’s logical that lots of people think she’s done some bad stuff. Whether it was grooming, participating, trafficking or just turning a blind eye, that will be decided in a court of law.
Let me add, once again, that the three charges concerning Cami were all predicate acts concerning the charged crime of RICO (There were 13 other predicate acts with regard to that charge – and the jury also determined that the prosecution had “proved” that Keith committed all of them). In addition to being convicted on the RICO charge, Keith was also convicted of the other six charges that were part of the second superseding indictment.
And while I refuse to waste any more time trying to explain to Alanzo that a broken chain of custody is not the same thing as evidence tampering, suffice to say that Judge Garaufis – and the Second Circuit judges – all understand the difference. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to reading the reports of the three experts who have concluded that there was evidence tampering with respect to the alleged underage photos of Cami.
You have the patience of Jobe! Shadow, Scott Johnson, Bangkok, and now Alanzo.
Not that you care, but I’m not an Old/New Testament type of guy. It’s like quoting Shakespeare, I do it for effect and to show-off my genius. 😉
Ghislaine Maxwell will never receive a fair trial. Where would you find an impartial jury, Mars?
The OJ case was more heavily publicized than Ghislane’s.
OJ was found innocent
Juries do understand their duty. To decide if evidence proves a crime was committed
Juries are given instructions. Most understand it is a sacred oath they must uphold.
Many people who are really cynical of juries have never served on one.
The scrutiny of a high-profile court case cuts both ways. No room for any fuck-ups. Ask Marcia Clark about that…
I know Nicki Clyne is very concerned about Ghislane. Just like you….. But not enough for Nicki to keep dancing outside MDC now that Raniere is in Arizona with his fellow sex criminals.
Was this a typo? Did you mean “There is NO correlation” here?
If so, do you think this has never happened in history, or just with this one trial?
For instance, are you familiar with the Backpage trial which was just thrown out of court by the judge because it was clear to her that the federal prosecutors tried their best to taint the jury?
“A federal judge on Tuesday halted the criminal trial of former executives and employees of the Backpage website, saying the government, in presenting its case, unfairly tainted the jury with testimony about child sex trafficking, instead of focusing on the crime at hand — whether the defendants helped facilitate prostitution.”
Read about it. It happens, there CAN be a correlation and this particular judge shut it down before it went too far.
Hi Alanzo, I have a question for you. A witness took the stand in the Raniere trial and testified that Raniere deprogrammed him from the Ramtha cult. If Raniere believed it was necessary to deprogram someone from a cult, does that make Raniere an anti-cultist?
This is interesting, “Inquiring Minds”.
Was that Mark Vicente? He was involved in Ramtha before NXIVM, right?
I wonder what Mark thinks about that these days. It’s the kind of experience that can teach you a lot about adopting ideologies and letting them do your thinking for you.
Does the fact that Raniere deprogrammed someone from the Ramtha cult make Raniere an anti-cultist?
I don’t know how to answer you, “Inquiring Minds”.
Tell me what you want me to say in response to your repeated question.
What are the specific brackets you want my answer to fit inside of?
Lay it out, please.
I genuinely don’t know how to ask the question more plainly. Does the fact that Raniere deprogrammed someone from a cult make him an anti-cultist?
In the OJ trial, violations of chain of custody were used by the defense with the bloody glove and blood drops by the alley gate. BTW, OJ was acquitted.
OJ also took a lie detector test and failed it, and his attorneys, acting in their client’s best interest, kept it quiet.
Kinda like Keith’s attorneys never mentioning they had hired experts and the experts concluded the drive had not been tampered with. Touché!
The sad thing is that Alanzo is not only a troll, but a genuinely stupid person.
Alanzo’s own writings on this website (not to mention those of many others) prove that he cares very much if a person is convicted of a crime simply for being unpopular, making his statement necessarily false: “If true, they show that if you have a defendant that is unpopular enough, or can be made unpopular enough, you can lie in court to put him away for life, and no one cares.”
This is, the very fact of him writing this statement makes his statement false, regardless of whether there was any FBI tampering.
I’m trying to understand this sentence and the reasoning behind it.
Are you saying that the very fact that I wrote a statement makes it false?
You are so dumb that you don’t know the difference between “this” and “a”; exactly my point.
Thank you for illustrating it perfectly.
There were lots of sour apple trees in upstate New York, where I grew up.
Sour apple trees have relatively thin, gnarly, low-hanging branches. I don’t think they they would be tall enough or strong enough to support the weight of Raniere or an FBI agent. https://images.app.goo.gl/9tcTqeW53puoofQ39
There are more good FBI agents than Cult leaders. Those branches of yours could hold the weight of 100 agents.
FBI agents died attempting to arrest a pedophile:
FBI agents stopped the bombing of a synagogue.
FBI agents take down sex rings;
Hilary Clinton supporters hate the FBI for investigating her server scandal and Trump supporters hate the FBI for investigating the Russian scandal.
The FBI were doing their job investigating both politicians. That’s what they do, investigate alleged crimes.
What’s hilarious to me is that neither one was cleared fully. There just wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Let me point out the FBI didn’t frame Trump or Clinton. Clinton and Trump are the ones who brought the investigations down on there own heads.
Trump’s son met with a Russian agent and Hillary Clinton had an illegal server.
CNN loved the Russian investigation and Fox loved the Server investigation. You people are so blinded by your partisan, politics you don’t see reality. Trump and Clinton are scum, but there still better, than socialist Bernie.
These are just my feelings. I am not attacking you. I just disagree. I believe the FBI does more good than bad.
I’ve always, sincerely, enjoyed reading your articles and wish you wrote more.
Hope you have a great Sunday! It’s beautiful outside. Happy Halloween 🎃!
Suneel has a child?!
What/why/how is he dancing every night in front of prisons? Sitting in court daily for weeks? Wiping Clare’s ass? Stalking Brian Booth? Putting all of his time, focus and energy into the lost cause of pedophile cult leader convict Keith Raniere?
Where is his kid? Never mind. I don’t – but – is – he lives with Nicki Clyne — ?Never mind. forget it. Speechless.
No… This cannot be right… No… Really?
Here are just a very few of the reasons why I do not find Suneel a credible person:
I. (Suneel) was never that involved with Nxium = I am wiping Clare’s ass.. Clare is top level Nxium. And I am literally wiping Clare’s ass.
I barely took classes = here are my letters in support of the defendants.
I was not a “full time student” – but I allegedly know for a fact, what exactly happened all the time , first hand ( but I wasn’t there?) and who exactly is lying (spoiler alert! Never Keith).
I was not in the cult = I danced and pranced in front of a federal prison for the cult leader.
Suneel was a founder of at least 3 different groups with dedicated websites to defend Raniere. Suneel was a critical part of obscuring the true purpose of at least 2 of those (now defunct) websites. People were deceived. Vulnerable people. Kay Rose, much?
I (Suneel) never bowed to vanguard’s photo. = but. I DID bow to vanguard’s photo. Everyone did and there are witnesses.
I only just met Keith Raniere = I am now suddenly Keith’s power of attorney after (Allegedly only) a few very brief visits while Keith was in lock-up . or phone calls.
I (Suneel ) will never disclose that I am Keith’s power of attorney up front. Very pertinent information when writing multiple diatribes on Keith’s innocence while acting like a casual bystander.
I. (Suneel) only got involved after watching a lengthy trial daily = but I sat and watched a lengthy trial daily. For weeks.
I. (Suneel) say definitively that I will prove “Keith’s innocence” then much, much later claim that I am “investigating all sides”.
I (Suneel) declare Brian Booth is a “liar” as fact. With no proof. Only a very biased and personal opinion. And I stalk Brian on LinkedIn. I claim to have personally driven FBI Employee Brian Booth to retreat from LinkedIn with my powers of intimidation
I (Suneel) am proven to be, in fact, the big liar and yet I won’t print a retraction or cop to it. I use really stupid and derogatory memes about Mr. Booth on social media and gin up false outrage toward the man. I put both his family and Brian in danger.
I. (Suneel) am not personally involved in the case of the man Keith Raniere but am merely a flag obsessed American fighting for all justice. = I live with Keith Raniere’s front- line slave and “partner of 10 years” Nicki Clyne.
This is but a small sample of why Suneel is not a credible person. And cannot be taken seriously.
More to come.
I think it is a side issue – even if the FBI agent for no personal gain chose to commit an offense of perjury, it does not change the fact MR had sex with at least one underage girl and did a massive raft of awful illegal things most of which were not even brought into the case and he belongs behind bars.
Interesting that KR gave Suneel power of attorney. That is a very strong power to give anyone. Typical KR to give it to a man, not a woman. I don’t think he thinks much of us women.
Just curious about a question of lawyers/client relationship: If Suneel has PoA for KR, and KR tells them to show/give the drive to SC, but SC refuses to sign the disclosure paperwork, what would the lawyers do? Would they fudge and go out for lunch and leave SC alone in their office? Or have I been reading too many detective novels? Sounds very much like SC is making use of R’s book of tricks: plausible deniability. ‘I didn’t sign anything, so I couldn’t possibly possess anything, but somehow, was able to show the experts something for them to investigate’. What exactly did the experts look at and who gave them access? Did they sign the disclosure agreements? That would be an extra 3 people in the chain. Very remiss of the lawyers if all and sundry can get access to info like that. Last question: if SC had no access, how could he verify for himself the accuracy of the expert’s reports? How did he brief the experts in the first place without showing any hard evidence for them to examine?
So wait, now we’re claiming 27 year old Camilla has no appendectomy scar? It just vanished?
This is a perfect illustration of people seeing what they want to see. Keep this in mind as we enter the turgid waters of computer forensics / hacking. Don’t expect this issue of file dates to ever be anything more than conflicting opinion.
Note well that even the Raniere camp’s hired guns use phraseology like “I believe” and “most plausible explanation” and “some of which occurred”. Curious waffling there.
Camila has the scar – most definitely. But there are at least two photos of her – which I was shown – where because of light or shadow or the way she is posing that the scar cannot be seen well after she had the appendectomy. These scar-less photos of her were from when she was in DOS at age 27. Of course there is the possibility they were altered [photoshopped] but if they were not, then it appears that sometimes Camila’s scars do not appear in pictures.
Frank – Scars can fade over time.
Very much so, Pyriel.
Especially scars incurred medically and so young.
I had an ex that had an appendectomy scar. (The appendectomy occurred in 1998.) The scar was about 5 inches long, unmistakeable close up, but from a distance it wasn’t all that visible. So it seems plausible the 27 year old photos might not show a scar prominently if they were full body shots from a certain distance. If the alleged 15 year old photos are close-ups of her torso and the scar isn’t visible, I would say that’s a problem for the defense.
Maybe you, Frank, are looking at altered photos?
Just like the altered videotapes that Nxivm people conspired to change years ago. And all the lies told in legal settings also add to the fabrication of false evidence.
And what is the value of you perusing nude photos of Camilla never intended for your eyes? You cannot affect the case in any manner legally, Frank.
I did not see her nude — it was blurred over on the breasts and genitals. I was shown – but did not keep or possess – the photos in the interest of investigative journalism – because the people who showed it to me said that there was no visible scar.
So… You looked at altered photos of Cami?
Yes. They were altered to blur out the breasts and genitals but not the area where the scar would be.
You don’t really know that, Frank. Did you do the altering of the photos?
If the photos are altered… They. Are. Altered. Photos.
So it’s a non-starter.
You (by your account) are looking at photos that have been altered.
And not be a neutral party, I might add
I never claimed they are authentic. I do know that the photos were blurred and that they were not taken this way.
Scars are souvenirs you never lose.
I have scars all over my body, some faded and some did not.
Camila’s medical procedure was done carried out with a scalpel. It’s not surprising the scar faded.
As I recall, the Judge himself, in closing, wondered why this whole case hadn’t been prosecuted a lot earlier. There are a great very many questions that can be asked about this entire investigation, not the least of which concerns the FBI’s role.
Maria Farmer, the first victim to go to the FBI after being abused by Jeffrey Epstein, says that in the end, the abuse from the FBI itself was just as bad as that from Epstein. If the FBI had taken the evidence she was trying to give them, Epstein could have been jailed in the 1980s.
Maria Farmer describes Ivana Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell driving around and picking up schoolgirls for Epstein in those days. The coverup within the coverup within the coverup. Everyone has collateral on everyone else.
One thing: this alleged computer hack seems to have been an extraordinarily clumsy intrusion, the insertion of 30 new pictures and wrong dates, etc. Surely, the FBI would be a little more sophisticated. This seems to indicate a rogue operation — either a Nxivm insider, with their proven track record of malicious access to people’s computers, or a rogue FBI element trying to sabotage the prosecution, or a combination of both.
The alternative, then, is a zealous but very very dumb rogue agent who thinks he/she is doing the prosecution a favor. And, indeed, this bit of evidence did swing the whole case, with all of Raniere’s nearest and dearest turning against him.
I don’t think there’s remotely enough here to get Raniere a new trial. The salient issues have all been settled by Camila’s testimony. And there are many other known cases of child abuse on Raniere’s part. Should we not go back now and try some of those cases?
But to find a little loose thread in the FBI’s handling of this case to pick at — if indeed this can be used to unravel all the inexplicable lapses in the FBI’s handling of all these cases — then this will indeed be big news.
With all the hoopla about cults and cabals, Nxivm remains the one such cult that got taken down. There are many lessons to be learned here, not the least of which is why it took such prodding from investigative journalists before any action was taken against Keith Raniere.
Rogue operation = Scientology.
Tony Ortega, Mike Rinder and Leah Remini.
Read Alanzo’s blog.
LMAO! Everything lines up perfectly.
Camilla did not actually testify, did she?
Correct, she make a statement at Raniere’s sentencing but did not testify at the trial.
Camila didn’t testify at the time because she still supported Raniere.
Dude, are you going to reveal the “scoundrel” that has the collateral or not?! Stop playing games with your readers!
I still go back to the question of how did they get the HD with the photos of Cami on it?
The HD that was given to Raniere attorneys finally had those photos removed.
How do you explain that Suneel ended up with redacted photos of Cami? Where the heck did he get them, Frank, if they had been removed from the hard drive?
Why would the experts give Suneel – who didn’t sign a protection order – any information about the case? Isn’t that a violation of the discovery rules?
Ice-nine’s thoughts on the matter:
1. Suneel is toeing the line pretty closely with the use of “possess” while not using the word “seen”. He clearly states he does not possess DOS collateral [blackmail], but he is deliberate in his words and omits that he has not seen it. Like keith tried to do with the Judge. I think that Suneel has seen it, but he never possessed it; in other words Nicki showed it to him and she possesses it. Just check her sock drawer, you’ll find it in there.
2. “I was informed that these photos were voluntarily and happily taken…” — c’mon man. Nicki ‘informed’ him of that lol. A totally worthless statement and he should never have put that in there.
3. I don’t get how he had three experts review the hard drive though Suneel was never in possession of it. What could they have had access to that would enable them to produce any type of substantive report? What am I missing here?
4. His argument is all so one-sided, using paid-for experts’ statements. I just don’t get why the government would tamper when they had no need to do so and it would be so obvious if they had. I think all of these sideshow antics will likely fall apart with a simple response from the prosecution when or if compelled to do so.
5. If a new trial ever happens, does that mean will we get more details about keith and robbie’s penis showing competition? Asking for a friend.
Keith definitely wanted Cami to give him the prize for largest and best – but Camila failed him for she had a hard time remembering the last time he was able to be judged – which caused on anything but a flaccid flush of mirth throughout the courtroom. I believe even the judge had to cover his mouth when they read the Cami texts in response to Keith’s queries about who was bigger, better, sweeter tasting and the other incredibly brilliant things the smartest man was asking. And he was sitting there right in the room.
Good point, Frank, and keith could have proven so if he were to call robbie as a witness. However, sadly (well, not sadly, but fortunately) for the rest of us, we will never know.
BTW was it ever determined that this was a competition involving erect or flaccid penises? I don’t recall that being clarified. Then again, this is not a sport that Ice-nine has rooting or participatory history, nor does he ever plan to do so. Perhaps it was just a NXIVM event that they played during V-Week, followed by the joint all-male masturbation sessions. Some may have even advanced up the stripe path for displays of such prowess and efficiency.
Suneel, if you read this, perhaps this can be part of your investigation into the integrity of witness testimony.
— Suneel is toeing the line pretty closely with the use of “possess” while not using the word “seen”.
Suneel loves playing obfuscation games. He feeds off the drama and loves feeling important. He’s Raniere’s right hand and second in command. Plus he has the divine Miss Cline cheering him on.
FYI: Make no mistake, Suneel may look innocuous, but he’s a hardcore cultist who will do anything his master orders, including damaging the lives of other people.
Why isn’t Suneel calling out the ultimate manipulator here, Tony Ortega, the head of Scientology? Why is he more afraid of them than the FBI. I hope you will be investigating this, Frank.
That the experts could make a determination on files they haven’t reviewed- the underage photos of Cami don’t exist on the drives they examined. Who’s to say that whatever anomalies might have been found on the drives (that didn’t contain the photos in question) weren’t created by someone in NXIVM – after all Melon Head seems to be conveniently well versed in the practice of altering EXIF data.
The civil case judge doesn’t give 2 %@#%s about contents of the data. He just cares if others have data that attorneys on this case need for whatever they plan on presenting. The validity of the data is a problem for the criminal case and the lawyers of the civil case when they present it in court (if they even choose to, don’t really have to if Camilla testifies).