There is confusion about what Dr. James Richard Kiper did at the FBI. He is the lead expert cited in Keith Raniere’s Rule 33 motion.
Raniere alleges FBI evidence tampered with Camila’s photos.
Here are some comments and my replies.
Nice Guy
Suneel’s FBI agent was fired from the FBI, which precludes him from being credible.
Frank
Dr. Kiper retired from the FBI after 20 years.
StevenJ
Do you have proof of that? How do you know under what circumstances he left the FBI?
Frank
At the FBI, he exposed waste and fraud. The FBI retaliated. But he didn’t give up. He was the genesis of the FBI whistleblower law.
Anonymous
I can’t find any mention of this online. Can you furnish me with a web link?
Frank
Here is a link to the video of the Senate hearing.
The Washington Post, March 5, 2015: Senate hearing faults FBI system meant to protect whistleblowers
The FBI assigned Kiper to the FBI Academy as chief of investigative training in 2011. He reported problems to the training division’s leadership. He said the division misled the Office of Management and Budget about the training of new agents and analysts.
He made disclosures to the highest-ranking officials at his work site. He hoped these FBI executives would make positive changes.
Kiper said, “I was just trying to do the right thing — as I’ve always done.”
Instead, the FBI demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position and transferred him to another division.
He sued.
He got the attention of Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
“If every other law enforcement and intelligence agency can protect disclosures of waste, fraud, or abuse… why can’t the FBI?” said Grassley. “Whistleblowers should not have to fear retaliation for speaking up… And, they should not have to rely on Congress to see justice done.”
Senator Grassley wrote to FBI Director James Comey. He asked him about FBI policy and their retaliation in Kiper’s case.
The FBI ignored him.
Grassley called a Senate hearing. He told Comey to attend.
Dr. J. Richard Kiper with FBI Director James Comey.
On the eve of the hearing, the FBI finally sent Grassley’s office a response:
- The FBI does have policies in place.
- The FBI couldn’t comment on Kiper because he was “engaged in litigation.”
Grassley asked Kiper to speak at the hearing.
Comey sent FBI Deputy Director Kevin Perkins.
“I never imagined that my desire to promote excellence would be used against me,” Kiper told the committee.
Fired?
The Senate hearing was on March 4, 2015.
The FBI Whistleblower Protection Act became law in 2016
Kiper’s LinkedIn page says he retired from the FBI in July 2019, four years after the hearing.
The FBI did not fire Kiper.
So…?
Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud.
That did not work out well for the FBI.
He is about to reveal that the prosecution presented tampered
evidence in the Raniere trial.
Until we hear what he says, we shouldn’t dismiss him.
He might take the matter to the US Senate.
The FBI may not have tampered with evidence. But someone monkeyed with those files.
I am not saying Keith Raniere did not take Camila’s photos when she was underage. I am not calling Camila a liar. I am not a fan of Raniere’s.
I won’t ignore potential government corruption because the defendant is an adversary. There are several possibilities. I plan to find out which one is true.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Look at his CV…3 years as an agent and quickly made the move into management. Worked on Virtual Case File, one of the biggest flops in FBI history. It did not become Sentinel, no matter what his CV says. Got himself into a spot of trouble by improperly handling personnel matters while assigned to the training division resulting in his demotion and being judge ineffective.
But hey, he doesn’t have a bone to pick with his former employer, does he.
He sounds more like a tattle tale than a “whistleblower”.
Exposing deadly chemicals are being dumped into the public water supply by the company you work for is “whistleblower”.
Saying we spent too much money on the copy machines? Meh.
Agree. he was a tattle tale that exaggerated his waste/fraud claims. I’m not dumb enough to believe that the government or FBI does not complete waste/misdeeds on staples to government contracts. It’s a given. But whistle blowing is an entirely different thing.
Nice try.
But let’s look at the facts as you yourself cite them:
“…the FBI demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position and transferred him to another division.”
He was demoted and removed from his position of responsibility.
He resented this, to the extent of testifying against his employer the FBI before a Congressional committee.
The FBI was forced to reinstate him.
I think it’s safe to say his relationship with the Bureau was acrimonious. Strained. Hostile.
Here’s a guy with a grudge against the FBI giving his opinion on the “question” of FBI evidence tampering in the Raniere case.
I take his opinion for what it’s worth. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Come on, Frank…it can be reasonably assumed that Kiper holds an anti-FBI bias.
Yes, he was a whistleblower, but the FBI attempted to ignore/silence/punish him.
Kiper SUED THE FBI. And they allowed him to stay on and retire, rather than firing him, because it was the path of least resistance. OF COURSE he’s biased against them.
If my former employer put me through the ringer (like the FBI did to Kiper) for pointing out waste and fraud, I would ABSOLUTELY hold a grudge.
Regardless of his credibility in the realm of technology, he has ZERO credibility as a witness against the FBI.
He says he loves the FBI and is saddened by his discovery of tampering.
Ohhh. He “says” that.
Okay.
The FBI “says” they didn’t tamper in the Raniere case.
OMFG……
I love yah, Frank — but seriously.
TNT will release on May 22 a Rich And Shameless installment called “The Heiress and the Sex Cult” focusing on Bronfman.
Clare Bronfman, who hasn’t seen this episode, takes issue with the program’s title. Levin says it “creates the impression that Ms. Bronfman knowingly funded or was in any way associated with a ‘sex cult.’” The episode’s description states Bronfman was a “financier of one of the most abusive cults of the 21st century.”
Her lawyer argues that the producers of the series aren’t fully aware of the specific legal findings in Bronfman’s prosecution. He says his client was only involved in Nxivm, which he calls a “well-regarded organization that was and always had been separate and distinct from DOS.”
“Not only is the evidence in the court record extraordinarily clear on that point, but the federal judge presiding over Ms. Bronfman’s case made a specific judicial finding on this point,” Levin writes.
Bronfman pleaded guilty to charges related to immigration fraud and identity theft. The judge who oversaw the proceedings clarified that Bronfman wasn’t convicted of participating in sex trafficking and that it appeared that Bronfman wasn’t familiar with Raniere’s crimes.
“I agree with Ms. Bronfman that the available evidence does not establish that she was aware of DOS prior to June 2017 or that she directly or knowingly funded DOS or other sex trafficking activities,” wrote U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Bronfman’s sentencing memo. The judge held, “I do not find that Ms. Bronfman knowingly funded a sex cult.”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/clare-bronfman-legal-threat-to-tnt-over-rich-shameless-documentary-portrayal-1235135899/
The FBI has one core, immutable rule – “Do not embarrass the FBI”
An FBI agent can pretty much literally do anything and everything as long as they do not violate that rule. I know your thinking “but then breaking the law is embarrassing.” True but the rule really has the unspoken “(to the public)” aspect. Being an embarrassment internally can be hidden, swept under the rug, promoted away, bought away and very occasionally actually fixed.
Whistle blowing though? That is the ultimate sin. That is publicly embarrassing the FBI, violating that rule in all ways it can be. He wasn’t fired because to fire him would be seen as firing a whistle blower which would lead to more articles that yep… would “embarrass the FBI.” So their own rule prevented them from doing what they really wanted to do.
More than likely he was not demoted, nor was he promoted, but simply assigned to desk duty for the remainder of his career shuffling paperwork. This does not mean he was a bad FBI agent, doesn’t mean he was fired. It just means he violated their core rule and was punished for it.
This does not mean he isn’t qualified to be an expert in his case. If anything the reason he was hired for this case is because he has credibility speaking against the FBI’s interests since he is one of the few to do it so publicly. Hiring him for the appeal is a very smart move as he would be credible to any jury and any judge.
Pardon my ignorance, who is Klaviger?
Is Klaviger an established legal firm or is it the handle for a lawyer / contributor that wishes to remain anonymous?
Who is Claviger ? – I dunno.
Occasionally but consistently, there is a contributor here called K.R. Claviger. That’s an established fact. He’s less anonymous to Frank than you or I tho, im guessing
Nobody knows. It has been speculated, mostly by Ice-nine, that K.R. Claviger is unlikely to be a he, is probably a she, or possibly a they. I’m not sure Claviger even knows anymore. He/She/They pops in from time to time to offer some interesting legal perspective, has been doing so for years, and is quite good I must say. But their legal qualifications are unknown but only to the most remote corners of the legal industry.
Moral Question:
Does an anonymous commenter who doxes other commenters deserve the right to retain their anonymity?
Discuss…
Alanzo
Moral Question for Alonzo:
Is right to separate children from their parents as was practiced at the Kibbutz you belonged to?
You’d definitely would’ve fit right in NXIVM its with Rainbow Cultural Gardens and pseudo-tech like Scientology.
“Nice Guy” –
I also worked on a Moshav. Why didn’t you mention that?
If you and Claviger routinely dox other commenters, and publicly trash their livelihoods for months at a time, do you deserve to have your own anonymity respected?
Alanzo
Hey Alanzo,
Listen dummy, it’s not doxxing. You wrote and published the information on the internet by your own volition.
I do owe you a quasi-apology because when I brought up the bankruptcy, I didn’t understand that you spoke about because OSA published it.
There are a few commenters I know who they are. Such as sultan of six. I know his correct heritage and a host of other things. I never doxxed him and I never will.
Doxxing is cruel.
****
“Retirement” is a funny word with many different meanings.
Nonetheless, I predict that the EDNY will eat him alive during upcoming motion proceedings.
“Can we have Kipers for breakfast
Mummy dear, Mummy dear?”
– with apologies to Supertramp’s “Breakfast in America” (1979)
M. Novak-
My name is Nice Guy and I approve of your comment.
Re “My name is Nice Guy and I approve of your comment.”
Is Nice Guy an established commenter or is it the handle for a contributor that wishes to remain anonymous?
Greetings, Anonymous 5:37,
Your question regarding Nice Guy will be answered shortly.
We thank you for your show of interest, inquiry, and pleasant tone.
Good day,
Mr. Swell Fellow
Your question will be answered by the next available member of our staff.
Frank Report Disclaimer: Nice Guy is not affiliated in any shape, way, or manner with the Frank Report.
***
Anonymous 5:27,
Nice Guy is the Official Sheriff of the Frank Report. Frank entrusts Nice Guy to keep the trolls, Yankee fans, fruit-loops, tittie f*ckers, Sunaliens, Nazis, [redacted] and assorted swine at bay. [redacted]
Many Commenters including Frank refer to Nice Guy as “The Man of La Mancha.” This title was bestowed upon Nice Guy for his fearless defense of the weak and downtrodden.
In addition, Nice Guy enjoys his life as a middle-aged crank and house mom to a pit-bull. On the rare occasion Nice Guy is drunk and leaves a drunken comment, the sadistic and inhuman Frank Parlato publishes the [redacted]comment. [
redacted] Nice Guy enjoys reading good books, eating, drinking, and doing jack-shit.
The fact that you have inquired about me means you recognize his gallantry, genius, and fine sense of humor.
I wish you a long life!
I’m no fan of Raniere either. However, since the government had control of these files since they were discovered, it is logical to assume that someone in the government changed the data. Whether it is FBI or someone at EDNY, it still means the same thing. The government cheated.
This is particularly serious since the main basis of the trial was predicated on these photos!
If all this is true, I’m not sure where it leaves us….
Jared Kushner pushed for Trumps BIG
‘Unveiling of sex trafficking everywhere’
Layed this case at Trumps feet as first proof of Conept, for the newly elected president with a lil help from Roger ( stone) Rabbit, no?
At least I read that here….
“He is about to reveal…”
Come on. That’s utter bullshit.
He is CLAIMING that he is about to reveal…. At best
Frank, you keep saying that you are “keeping an open.mind” about FBI tampering and then writing posts and comments as if ALLEGATIONS are facts.
In the last 24 hours you commented that “maybe the FBI” tampered. Now it is fact?
It’s a a really big jump from even proving tampering to then pointing a finger at an entire agency as the culprits.
This is really irresponsible reporting.
Frank, you should just recluse yourself from NXIVM articles because you’re bias is become so obvious that you must he getting paid to be Keith’s PR campaign now.
Recuse
Frank cant be a recluse
It’s kind of fun to watch Frank acting as though he’s about to publish the most explosive & viral story of 2022, which, in his own mind, will probably be picked up by mainstream media and catapult himself to a Pulitzer. lol.
Somehow, I seem to doubt that this Rule 33 Motion is anything more than a typical motion, supported by paid experts, who can’t definitively PROVE that evidence tampering took place.
There are 2 reasons why I doubt Frank’s confidence in this Rule 33 motion.
Reason #1: Frank Parlato, along with his NXIVM 5 friends, keep saying that the ‘credentials’ (of Rick Kiper) will be the deciding factor in ‘PROVING’ (to the court) that evidence tampering took place.
In fact, Frank’s already got a huge BONER from talking about Rick Kiper’s credentials.
Based on his tone…. It seems as though Frank literally WORSHIPS the ground this guy walks on, judging by how ‘giddy’ he sounds when redundantly laying out Kiper’s credentials for us (which he’s already done in previous articles, and which he’s getting ready to do again this week, and probably again next week, lol).
Frank feels honored to be in this man’s presence and is totally enamored by Rick Kiper, in the same way that Sultan is enamored by Kreuk.
Problem is, true scientific ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’ — which are submitted AFTER a guilty verdict has taken place — are not reliant upon credentials to prove their truthfulness (only DEBATABLE OPINIONS are dependent on credentials).
This Rule 33 motion is not the same thing as presenting evidence to a jury again.
In a typical trial, the jury gets to decide, based on gut feelings, which witnesses are telling the truth (where ‘credentials’ can sway their feelings).
However… After a conviction happens, the threshold for getting a new trial is MUCH HIGHER than a typical jury trial.
It’s not enough to cite ‘credentials’ as a reason to overturn a verdict.
You need to PROVE you’re point with more than dueling experts, for the prosecution and defense, interpreting the data in different ways.
Now, if the government responds by admitting that everything Kiper says is true, then I’ll agree with Frank. But I seriously doubt it’s gonna happen like that.
To reverse a conviction and proclaim that ‘evidence tampering’ actually took place (which could possibly lead to indicting FBI agents) there needs to be more than typical courtroom OPINIONS expressed, regardless of the credentials of the person making the statements.
Credentials don’t establish facts. Data will establish facts. But if that data can be interpreted in different ways, then there’s NO FACTS which can be presented, only opinions.
In essence, Frank is trying to scream that “My daddy can beat up your daddy”.
Frank is trying to claim that Kiper’s credentials make his OPINION an infallible ‘fact’ (which nobody can dispute unless they’ve also worked for the FBI for 20 years, LOL).
Kiper is probably a smart guy, but he’s hardly the best cyber-crime expert in the world.
Truth is, the FBI’s cybercrime unit has lagged WAY BEHIND their civilian-world counterparts for many years, which is why the top cyber experts in the world do not work for the FBI.
Let’s not forget, people like Carl Mark Force and Shaun Bridges were invited to be part of the government’s cyber-crime ‘task force’ for the biggest cyber-case in government history.
Yet, these 2 guys were among the dumbest federal agents on the planet (they actually registered LLC’s, using their own real names, to launder their stolen bitcoin from the Silk Road investigation, lol).
Just the fact that our governmental task force would INVITE these 2 guys (to join their team) shows that the US government is not really ‘ground zero’ for the best and brightest cyber-crime people.
Even though these 2 guys worked for the DEA and Secret Service, the FBI coordinated that entire investigation, and it was sloppy from start to finish.
Reason #2: The 2nd reason why I doubt that Frank is sitting on the most explosive story (of 2022) is because of the Silk Road aftermath.
Let’s remember… When 2 governmental cyber-crime agents (from the biggest cyber-crime investigation in history) were caught with their hands in the cookie jar — and were fired and sent to prison for years — it wasn’t a viral story and nobody really gave a shit, after a few weeks.
Nor did these fraudulent agents derail the conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.
There was no ‘vacatur’. There was no “get out of jail free” card.
It was a big NOTHING BURGER even though the scope of the ‘misconduct’ (by these federal agents) was way beyond what Frank and Suneel are asserting here.
I’d like to know if Mr. Claviger can write an article to tell us just how much evidence is needed to toss out a conviction for a Rule 33 motion.
In other words, if an expert cites his credentials and then expresses an OPINION (saying that he ‘thinks’ something ‘likely’ happened), is that enough to toss out a conviction if the government can present alternative explanations for the same data?
Frank, please allow Claviger to challenge your point of view here. Please encourage him to do that. If the truth is really fair, then stop trying to force us to listen to your same DRIVEL about how enamored you are with Rick Kiper.
Yeah. We get it, Frank. You love Rick Kiper’s credentials and you likely get a boner every time you think about him.
We get it. You believe he’s the greatest cyber crime expert in human history. You probably hope to build a statue of him on your Florida estate one day. That’s fine. Go ahead and do it.
But please let Claviger tell us how the LAW actually works.
Give us at least ONE real article on this topic — written by Claviger — which presents the OTHER side of the story, for once.
magoo
thanks for the detailed explanation,.
It gives all of us, without legal training, a deeper perspective on how opinions are viewed post trial.
“the same way that Sultan is enamored by Kreuk.”
Mr. Bangcunt Magoo, Sultan’s problem was his extreme loyalty and trust in the word of an actress and a cult member. That’s mondo gullibility and double the chance at deception.
Bangkok,
Anonymous 8:40 ain’t me.
Suneel is in the private sector.
Not a behind the times FBI
cyber security employee.
And they are both in agreement
Food for thought
Dear Bangkok(Magoo)
What in holy ass-shit, TarNAtion!
Bangkok is all mature now and a whole lot smarter. Bangkok must be taking his vitamins or gave up pulling on his Jimmy 24/7.
I am proud of you Bangkok!
A piece of advice:
“It’s all fun and games until you forget to pullout.”
Take care little dipshit amigo!
Sincerely your uncle,
Uncle Bangkok
P.S. Next time you kiss your girlfriend’s lips just remember all the penises [redacted] before you. Now that’s a mouthful. 😉
Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud.
That did not work out well for the FBI.
He is about to reveal that the prosecution presented tampered
evidence in the Raniere trial.
Until we hear what he says, we shouldn’t dismiss him.
He might take the matter to the US Senate. Frank Parlato
Senator Grassley is one of the most fearless members of the US Senate.
He has been in the Senate since 1981.
If the Republicans do well in the November election Grassley will be the President pro Tempore of the Senate and a powerful member of Congress.
Right now Grassley is occupied with the Hunter Biden case and the possibility that the Biden Administration has been running a Pay to Play scheme.
But with Grassley’s past experience with Kiper I am sure Grassley will find time to listen to any complaints Kiper has about the FBI’s handling of the Raniere case.
“Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud.”
Kiper is buddies with James Comey. How in tarnation do you weave these bullshit narratives…..
You are so living in a fantasy land.
Do you inhabit Narnia, OZ, Middle Earth, or Walt Disney Land?