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.