Exclusive Footage of Raniere Supporters ‘Storming’ Penza’s Office

In a previous post, I learned something new. A guest commenter wrote, “The watching world should have realized how potentially dangerous and destructive these fanatics were when they stormed Moira Penza’s office. Requiring armed guards to exercise a “show of force” outside the courtroom at one point.”

Using the word “stormed” Penza’s office, I thought Keith Raniere and his supporters did this to Penza:

Did supporters of Raniere actually storm Penza’s office?

It turns out that they did. Well, almost.

On September 25, 2020, Suneel Chakravorty, Nicki Clyne, Eduardo Asunsolo, Marc Elliot, Michele Hatchette and a camera crew consisting of a camera man, a sound man, and a producer for a docuseries, showed up outside the building where Penza has her law offices – at 130 W 42nd Street. Penza is perched nicely on the 24th floor.

The purpose of their uninvited arrival was, according to Eduardo Asunsolo, to serve a copy of Make Justice Blind’s affidavit alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the case of USA v. Raniere, a case where Penza served as lead prosecutor.

Asunsolo says, “It was daring indeed, but not by our presence, but by the questions that were asked in our affidavit. For the first time ever, we asked the prosecutors to swear under oath that they told the truth.”

Make Justice Blind’s Affidavit

We the People

Police the Police, Prosecute the Prosecutors, Judge the Judges,

and Investigate the Investigators.

A justice system is a system of people – justice comes from the quality of their conduct. No number of rules, structures, organizations, or laws will change that. The quickest method of justice reform is through exposure and public accountability. Through a partnership between the media and We The People, and with a set of well-delineated tools, we can bring about major reform in months, not years or decades.

Within this partnership, the first tool we will launch is an affidavit process that holds prosecutors accountable through media exposure and public pressure. The first case to which this will be applied is not without controversy, but it has one of the biggest spotlights and incontrovertible evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and corruption. It is The United States vs. Raniere et al., which took place in May and June of last year.

Mr. Raniere’s prosecutors will be served the enclosed affidavit, which contains nine simple statements of basic ethical conduct that every prosecutor should be able to affirm easily and automatically. Additionally, there are three statements of conduct specific to this case that the prosecutors, if they acted acted within the confines of the law, should be able to affirm. This affidavit is necessary and exists because we have evidence proving they will not be able to honestly affirm even a single statement.

In addition to this affidavit, there will be a $35,000 innocence challenge, a podcast and other provocative public actions that bring hidden transgressions to light and send a message to judges, prosecutors and federal agents that they answer to us, We the People.

Please support prosecutorial accountability by signing the petition below, which will accompany the affidavit, and by keeping the pressure on the prosecutors until their transgressions are addressed.

By signing the petition, you affirm your belief in public accountability and that the prosecution, in being accountable to the public, should affirm (or deny) the points laid out in the affidavit.

The Affidavit

We the Prosecutors of the United States vs. Raniere et al, specifically Richard Donoghue, Mark Lesko, Tanya Hajjar, Moira Kim Penza, and Seth DuCharme, in upholding our vow of office, and sacred duty to the people of the United States, do hereby affirm and personally initial all that are true with respect to this case (if any of these are denied, please initial, write “denied” next to your initials and, optionally, attach an explanation):

1. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make any false or misleading statements to the public or media. RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

2. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make, or allow any federal agents to make, any false statements to the court.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

3. We the Prosecutors handled all potential witnesses properly. No witness was in any way intentionally challenged to augment or change his or her opinions or beliefs by us.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

4. We the Prosecutors never threatened any potential witness with indictment in an attempt to dissuade him or her from participating in, or supporting, the defense.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

5. We the Prosecutors either had no reason to suspect collusion or hidden financial motives amongst our witnesses, or we made sure our suspicions were properly investigated. We did not object to any evidence, including cross- examination, that might realistically show collusion amongst our witnesses.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

6. We the Prosecutors have stated in open court we have victims who feared for their lives. We made sure that these representations were properly investigated and, in each case, we discovered that there were legitimate threats to the life of the witness.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

7. We the Prosecutors did not allow any of our witnesses to commit perjury about events and/or evidence known to, or possessed, by us.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

8. We the Prosecutors have never tampered with evidence. All evidence presented had a well-documented chain of custody, with no gaps. All evidence was secure and there were no unrecorded accesses. No evidence presented was modified before or during forensic analysis.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

At the time, Raniere was safely caged in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, NY, located 10 miles away.

As the video below shows, the supporters of Raniere attempted to deliver “The Affidavit.”

Security at Penza’s building would not permit them to pass the lobby or be put on the approved list of visitors.

The video shows they made no attempt to ‘storm’ past security. In fact, as far as stormers go, they were easily de-stormed.

Here are pictures of people storming into a place where security doesn’t want them to be.

The video below shows that when the Raniere supporters were told that they could not enter, they did not try to enter.

In the video, Marc Elliot is heard saying: “ At 130 on 42nd… Yeah we’re just downstairs and we wanted to deliver a document to the firm. Can you put our names on the list just so we can come deliver it ?.. [inaudible] It’s a document for the firm… gotcha yeah it’s a document specifically for Moira Kim Penza. We’re just trying to make sure that you get the document. What’s the best way to make sure you got it? Yeah.. we’re serving it… “

They were told the best way to deliver it was to email the document. Below is a video of Suneel typing and emailing the document.

Here are those emails:

If only the people who stormed the Capitol had simply sent an email, it would have saved a lot of trouble for a lot of them on January 6th.

The next question is: Was the reason for security on October 27, 2020, for Raniere’s sentencing, when Camila made her appearance, because of the Raniere supporters that stormed Moira Penza’s office?

We don’t know. But if they came to Moira Penza’s office and were turned back by a mere request by a security guard, was there really a true need for extra security at the courthouse on October 27, 2020?

I doubt that they would have tried to rescue Raniere or intimidate Camila.

According to Suneel, “There didn’t seem to be much extra security except for armed US Marshalls escorting 30-year-old Camila into the courtroom for her victim impact statement and out directly after. The casual onlooker might have assumed that she was the one being forced into saying whatever she had to say and subject to arrest if she didn’t say it, and the guards were there to intimidate her. I could be wrong, of course.”

Yes, Suneel, I think you are wrong. Just as it is true that there was no need for extra security because of you and your colleagues, I do not think they needed security to get Camila to tell her shocking story about being sexually abused at the age of 15 by Keith Raniere.

I, for one, am glad she told it.

I know Suneel and the others are promising a Rule 33 Motion to establish that the photos of Camila used in court were not gotten lawfully, and that’s a whole ‘nother story. The fact is that Camila came to speak her story and I and others believe her.

But for my part, I know that the Raniere supporters had no intent to do violence to Penza or Camila or anyone else.

Howl if you like, but that’s my position. I believe Camila – and I do not believe the Raniere supporters are dumb enough to try to wreak havoc on federal court or an ex-federal prosecutor. Nor do I think they have the inclination.

They may believe – wrongly I think – that Raniere was railroaded – but I think they want to pursue justice in a legal way and I personally will not abide nonsensical attacks on them suggesting they are literally physically dangerous. They are not.

Their ideas may be hare-brained but they are not violent; nor will they break the law and risk winding up next to Raniere.

So…Viva Executive Success !!

Frank Parlato