Raniere to File Rule 33 ‘Pro Se’ & Judge Denies TRO Motion to Speak With Suneel

US District Court Judge Raner Collins denied Keith Raniere’s motions for a Preliminary Injunction (PI) and a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The case is Keith Raniere, Plaintiff, v. Merrick Garland, et al., Defendants.

Per the motions, Raniere wanted the judge to order USP Tucson to allow him to speak with Suneel Chakravorty. The judge did not intervene. A judge issues a TRO if one party may suffer “irreparable harm” if an adverse party is not stopped from doing something. Judge Collins saw no merit here for a TRO.

Judge Raner Collins

Raniere “failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

That does not mean the BOP lawsuit is over. It must go the usual way, with evidence and hearings for both sides. It could also settle. The lawsuit’s goal is for Raniere to speak with Chakravorty as they execute legal strategies to attack his conviction.

The BOP pointed a way for that to happen: i.e., Have Raniere’s lawyer, Joseph Tully, confirm Chakravorty as his paralegal.

Keith Raniere’s attorney, Joseph M. Tully.

Tully must provide the warden with a signed statement certifying:

  1. Chakravorty has the ability to serve as a paralegal.
  2. He will supervise Chakravorty
  3. He will accept personal and professional responsibility for Chakravorty’s activities.
  4. He vouches that Chakravorty’s conduct won’t affect the prison, prisoners, or staff.

Vanguard Pro-se?


In Brooklyn federal court, in United States v. Keith Raniere et al., Raniere’s attorney, Joseph Tully, filed a surprising letter. Tully wants a 60-day extension of the deadline for filing Rule 33 motions. The deadline is midnight on Tuesday, June 21st.

Tully got his motion in on time. The extension is not for him. But for Raniere.

Raniere plans to file his own brand-new Rule 33 motion. It will supplement what Tully has already filed.

Tully wrote to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis:

“I respectfully request a 60-day extension to the Rule 33 filing deadline of June 21, 2022… on behalf of my client, Mr. Keith Raniere. Mr. Raniere has advised me that there are legal issues he would like to pursue in a supplemental pro se brief pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as now that the extensive tampering has been shown, there are additional anomalies and violations that need to be examined in a different light.

He respectfully requests the Court grant him this additional time as his incarceration severely limits his access to legal resources and hence his ability to research and draft as well as interview potential witnesses.

An extension of 60 days would be sufficient for Mr. Raniere to properly research and draft his remaining issues of concern. I inquired with the government via email, and Ms. Hajjar noted that the government would object to this request. In the interest of justice, I would kindly ask this Court to extend the deadline for filing until August 19, 2020.

Because the case is post-trial with all Rule 33 motions in abeyance pending a decision on the appeal from the Second Circuit, there will be no prejudice to the government.”


Hajjar Objects

AUSA Hajjar

Unsurprisingly, AUSA Tanya Hajjar objected to the requested extension. After all, part of this tampering motion impugns her. Hajjar was one of the prosecutors in the Raniere case. Tully named her in his Rule 33 supplemental brief.

He accused her of “eliciting false testimony” from FBI agent Christopher Mills. So now Raniere will file a Rule 33 motion pro se?


Judge Garaufis Can’t Grant Extension

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis sentenced Keith Raniere to a term of imprisonment of 120 years plus 5-years of post-release probation.

Tully filed his request for a 60-day extension late Friday – and by Saturday, Judge Garaufis had denied the request.

Here is his ORDER: “Defendant Keith Raniere’s [1177] motion for an extension is DENIED. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) provides that “[a]ny motion for a new trial grounded on newly discovered evidence must be filed within 3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). That language is mandatory and leaves the court with no discretion to permit a motion beyond the 3-year deadline. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/18/2022.”

Suneel Chakravorty

What newly-discovered evidence Raniere and Chakravorty have uncovered is anyone’s guess. But it will have to be filed by midnight on Tuesday, June 21st.

We will know by then.



About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • This website is trash….continues to push false narratives from a bunch of idiots and some dude who will die in prison. Sad this bull shit is considered journalism. Imagine all the people out there who were actually wrongfully convicted, begging for someone to notice but instead we give some pedophile/rapist the attention. Sad shit this world has become.

    • If the FBI tampered with evidence in this case – that may be the pathway to getting attention on those you lament for – the wrongfully convicted.

      But if the FBI cheated in his case — even though he is guilty – it is still cheating. I don’t think they should cheat. Not against you or me or even a scoundrel like Raniere.

      Let’s find out if they did cheat.

      • If…If…If…years and years with no real evidence from KRs defense. Is the FBI capable of doing shady stuff?..of course! Let’s boil it down here…Are any of the accusations against the FBI worth giving KR a new trial? Fuck no! Let that piece shit sit in prison. The world is a better place and we all know it.

        You aren’t doing anything noble by being the voice of a person whose life was built around ruining others lives. I know you are just trying to make a living but look in a fuckin mirror and chase a new story or something cause this page is garbage…garbage comments…garbage content…garbage.

        • It doesn’t matter if Raniere is guilty. That does not give the FBI the right to alter evidence – even to convict an obviously guilty person. I do not know if the FBI tampererd with evidence – on this guilty man — but the point is then there are two guilty parties.

      • If a woman is infected with HPV she is at a much higher risk of cervical cancer.

        If Raniere lives long enough to leave prison he will be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest man alive.

        If someone keeps posting the same thing over and over again and it doesn’t seem to convince anyone it isn’t working.

        If the moon is made of green cheese it would go nice on a green salad with vinaigrette.

        If Suneel were heterosexual I’d eat my panties.

  • Could this be a signal that Clare has finally cut the purse strings on funding Keith’s gaggle of attorneys ?

    If appeal has a snowballs chance in hell of being successful I would venture to guess that she’s finally cut Keith off; otherwise Judge G’s sentence was totally spot on in that if she were not incarcerated for the extended period of time of her sentence, she would be using her wealth to exact revenge on any and everyone she perceived to be her or Keith’s enemies (as was this was her prior pattern of behavior)

  • Re read Keith’s letter about Nancy Salzman that he wrote from lock-up.

    In the rather lengthy lletter Keith Raniere VERY clearly states that Nancy’s lawyers (attorneys on the same legal team as his own) communicated from the very BEGINNING that Nancy would plead out.

    Like day 1 of the legal saga.

    Then Keith Raniere explains why.

    In excruciating detail.

    It was NOT about the kiddie porn.

    It was never about the child porn discocery

    That is a late game retelling of this sad trial

    This post is another example of a desperate re “imagining” of reality.

    Imagine being truthful.

  • What a bunch of garbage and malicious rumblings this site has become. It’s devolved into another hateful site

  • I don’t believe the BOP pointed a way for Joseph Tully to confirm Suneel Chakravorty as his paralegal.

    I think they were talking about the fact they had a procedure in place that Tully never took advantage of.

    In the civil lawsuit against the BOP, all thirteen motions prior Raniere lawyer had been attempting to convince the Judge that Suneel Chakravorty was somehow already Tully’s paralegal.

    The BOP had to address the paralegal situation fully for the Judge to understandwhat was happening.

    There is no way in hell the BOP is going to allow Suneel Chakravorty and Raniere to have visitation that is unsurvived. I don’t believe that when this case has run it course, Raniere is going to win his visitation with Chakravorty back.

    I doubt Tully will risk his reputation by attempting to pass off Suneel Chakravorty off as his paralegal

    1. He is loyal to Raniere not Tully

    2. He doesn’t work for Tully, he has always worked for Raniere

    3. He has lied on a government form calling himself Issac Edwards to gain access to Raniere using a burner phone to gain access to Raniere.

    This makes him a confirmed lair, willing to risk a great deal for Raniere.

    4. He has no paralegal training, so he isn’t a paralegal. Saying so would be lying to rhe BOP. Why would Tully want to do this? What is in it for him to to go to such lengths?

    5. Chakravorty hasn’t and doesn’t live in CA nor work out of Tully’s office. Saying so would be another lying to the BOP. Again why would Tully do this for a legal client?

    6. Raniere and Chakravorty already have a history that they do not spend their time working on Raniere’s legal cases.
    Had they, all the motion needing to be filed would have been in already.
    There would of been no need to ask for an extension.

    The 272 page motion filed by the defendants in the civil lawsuit exposed some of the things Chakravorty and Raniere choose to spend their time in instead of working his legal defense.

    Had the two of them focus on his legal matters instead of the Raniere’s prison games, there would be no need for the civil lawsuit.

    Had Raniere used better judgment, which he seems to be incapable of, he’d have his visitation list opened the civil lawsuit, visitation thing wouldn’t be happening.

    Instead he does his same pattern. He blames others for what he has caused and files lawsuits when the effects of his behaviors hit him in the ass.

    It’s really the same the same pattern he’s been doing for decades.

    His consequences have gotten worse, his blame game continues, he still has people who cuddle him and people still pay his way.

    If people stop paying his way and cuddling him what would happen?

    Oh my

  • Frank
    Sarah E did get branded and YOU know it because she put a book out, with the photo of her branding.
    Second – the only damn thing the monster needs to tell is where Kris’ remains are.
    Bump rule 33. He doesn’t deserve any issues of speaking to anyone.
    Sarah was branded and the monster knows it too. This is “truth”- everyone knows it. Get her book & look @ the photo – geez-!!!!!

    • Who is saying she wasn’t branded? I think the question was – suppose she had not got branded – would things have been different.

  • Frank, I have to ask this question after watching The Vow multiple times. We know the chain reactions of events that took place once Sarah E got branded. That led to the whistleblowers taking down NXIM.

    My question for you is, what if Sarah E never got branded? What if Lauren used her common sense and said to Keith “she would never go for it. This could get ugly if she finds out.’ So Sarah E doesn’t take part in any branding ceremony. Only Mark and Bonnie would be the whistle blowers. Sarah does not get convinced by Mark. What happens? Could you see this thing still going the way it did? Or do you think NXIM would still be continuing to this day, and Keith still has his harem?

    • That’s a great question. Someone had to come forward. If Sarah did not get branded she might not have become the nuclear bomb she did become. Maybe someone else would have come forward. I think someone would have. But Sarah was the one and she risked all to do it.

  • It’s so hilarious got the dead-enders biggest criticism of evidence against Vanguard in the criminal trial is the time frame in which it was discovered.

    Which of course is not a legal argument. But still one that they have tried to employ to discredit empirical evidence against Vanguard. But now they’re claiming that three years later they have new evidence? 3 years after the criminal trial?

    By their own standard of what is suspicious and should be discredited. There alleged new Evidence is invalid. No matter what it is because of the time frame. Haha, they’re so stupid!

  • I’m interested in Mr. Tully’s letterhead: FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Is “justice” different from the outcome of the court system?

    If so, how; if not, why the letterhead?

    KR is king of the enthymeme. The argument with a missing (and in his case, faulty) premise. E.g., this appeal, in which the missing premise is, “If something is wrong with the images’ metadata, it must be the case that those images were not on KR’s hard drive.”

    But we know that premise is faulty because of the way he objected to the images at trial: “The government can’t introduce those pictures! I took them in 2005 and the FBI’s search warrant didn’t go back that far!”

    I actually enjoy playing find-the-missing-premise with KR’s intellectual pronouncements. It’s really obvious once you’re onto his shtick.

  • Keith expecting a 2-month extension when you had three years to file is an ethical breach. I hope your cage is larger than the one you had for your female cage

  • Pro se can you see
    By the dawn’s early light
    Vanguard will rot in prison
    The rest of his miserable life

  • As Bill Barr explains, Durham “crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign and launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it,” Barr said. “Second, I think he exposed really dreadful behavior by the supervisors in the FBI, the senior ranks of the FBI, who knowingly used this information to start an investigation of Trump and then duped their own agents by lying to them and refusing to tell them what the real source of that information was,” he added. “And that was appalling.”

    Appalling indeed. But now, after the testimony that came from the Sussmann trial, there’s more on-the-record information about the very direct role Hillary Clinton herself had in the Russia collusion hoax, as well as how the FBI was weaponized to go against a political enemy.

    I say fuck the FBI, they should be investigated if they did plant evidence. Especially after what they did to our country before the election in 2016. Never fully trust them and I can’t stand that piece of shit Rainere.

    • The FBI has become a secret police force that Joe Biden uses to stifle anyone who opposes him.
      James O’Keefe of Project Veritas had his home and office raided by FBI thugs looking for Ashley Biden’s diary, a diary which the FBI ultimately verified as true.
      The FBI is now the Gestapo of Joe Biden’s Regime.
      BIDEN DIARY UPDATE: Tucker Carlson’s EPIC Take Down of President Joe Biden “Resign!”

  • Edmondson v. Raniere (1:20-cv-00485)
    District Court, E.D. New York

    Jun 13, 2022: Order on Motion to Produce

    Jun 13, 2022: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 190 : Third-party Suneel Chakravorty is to produce the discovery materials by 6/21/2022.
    So Ordered by Chief Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak on 6/13/2022. (Nordstrom, Britta)

  • Raniere and his lawyers have not come up with a single truly legally persuasive reason for a successful appeal in the last three years.

    That’s why nothing has really happened in the last three years to warrant a Rule 33 motion. If it is filed, no one can have any hope that it will be successful.

    What do you suppose the new evidence is supposed to be, and how should it invalidate or refute all the other abundant evidence that has existed and been used in the trial so far? Anything that was known to counsel before and at trial can no longer be used in a Rule 33 motion.

    It can be said that Raniere [and Chakavorty] and his lawyers faced and face an unsolvable task and the world’s best problem solver known as Vanguard Keith Raniere cannot and will not solve it either. For Raniere it is all about everything, for his lawyers it is all about making money, nothing else.

    They don’t get paid to feel sorry for Raniere. And the bored Frank Report readers, can pass their time reading the Rule 33 motion, poking fun at what Raniere and Tully and Chakravorty have come up with to give Raniere a new trial, if this motion is even filed in time. Maybe the motion will inadvertently file pages and attachments incomplete again, that maybe Tully will be able to file for an extension of time again.

    We may see it. Maybe it will work. Tully should leave no stone unturned to buy time. That is mainly what this is about because they are so stumped as to what is viable as a ground of appeal. He should rely on Raniere’s legal expertise, after all, he is the world’s best problem solver, not Tully.

    • How is Raniere going to represent himself from Tucson pro se interviewing witnesses as a prisoner

      Does he think the BOP is going to haul is sorry ass around so he can gaslight and torture his victims again

      He cannot make people travel to Tucson to interview them. The BOP has already taken away his visitation rights of those ex-members they determined are considered problems for Raniere to have contact with.

      Besides, Raniere isn’t smart enough to be his own lawyer.

      He can’t seem to win cases when he hires the best legal minds. Look at his track record over the last few decades.

      You have to tell the truth to win in court and file lawsuits based on fact not made up crap like Raniere like to do.

      He most likely will lose all his motions and his appeals. Why, they are based on lies, blame and fantasy

      • ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Anders procedure no longer required.

        In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) and other cases, the Supreme Court held that before an attorney appointed to conduct a criminal appeal could withdraw claiming the appeal was frivolous, the attorney must draft and file a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal” and send the brief to the convicted person so that they could submit additional argument. This year, in Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000), a bare five-person majority of the Court approved a California procedure that does not require counsel to “refer to anything in the record that might arguably support an appeal.” The California procedure permits counsel who thinks a case is frivolous to merely summarize for the appellate court the procedural and factual history of the case, and leaves to the convicted person and the court the job of looking for arguable error in the record. The Supreme Court majority decided that this procedure adequately protects the right of the convicted person to a fair appeal, and found that an “Anders brief” identifying potential issues is not constitutionally required.

        Justice Souter pointed out for the four dissenting Justices that elimination of the Anders brief deprives the convicted person of something crucial to the fairness of the appeal, the convicted person’s own counsel’s identification of points that might arguably support an appeal:

        A simple statement by counsel that an appeal has no merit, coupled with an appellate court’s endorsement of counsel’s conclusion, gives no affirmative indication that anyone has sought out the appellant’s best arguments or championed his cause to the degree contemplated by the adversary system.

        To guard against the possibility that counsel has not done the advocate’s work of looking hard for potential issues, there must be some prod to find any reclusive merit in an ostensibly unpromising case and some process to assess the lawyer’s efforts after the fact. A judicial process that renders constitutional error invisible is, after all, itself an affront to the Constitution. 120 S.Ct. at 769.

        No right to self-representation on appeal.

        In Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 120 S.Ct. 684 (2000), the Court held that, unlike at trial, a defendant has no right to represent him- or herself on appeal. Criminal defendants have a limited right to represent themselves at trial if they validly waive the right to counsel. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). In Martinez, a nearly unanimous Court held that Faretta does not apply to appeals, and that the state may force on a convicted person a lawyer to conduct the appeal.

        Martinez is of interest partly because Martinez himself claimed to be “a self-taught paralegal with 25 years’ experience at 12 different law firms.” 120 S.Ct. at 687. He represented himself at trial on grand theft and embezzlement charges and won an acquittal of the grand theft charge, but was convicted of embezzlement. Despite his experience in the law and his partial success as his own lawyer at trial, the California courts and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request to represent himself.

        Notably, the Court did not say that convicted persons should never be allowed to represent themselves on appeal. The Court said only that the U.S. Constitution does not grant a right to self-representation, but left open other ways in which people can pursue self-representation: “Courts may still exercise their discretion to allow a lay person to proceed pro se.” “Our holding does not preclude the States from recognizing a right [to self-representation on appeal] under their own constitutions.” 120 S.Ct. at 692.

        Duties of trial counsel in assisting with filing appeal.

        The third case, Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (2000), dealt with what trial defense counsel must do to assist a convicted person in deciding whether to appeal. The Ninth Circuit had granted Roe’s habeas petition asking to reinstate his appeal because, under Ninth Circuit precedent, counsel’s failure to appeal without the defendant’s consent was automatically found to be ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court found that this automatic rule was not constitutionally required, and discussed when counsel must consult with a convicted person and file a notice of appeal.

        The Court majority first noted that when a defendant asks counsel to appeal and counsel does not, that is always ineffective assistance. 120 S.Ct. at 1035. The Court then said that where there is no specific instruction from the convicted person, courts reviewing ineffective assistance claims could not presume that an appeal should have been filed, but must determine whether counsel consulted with the convicted person about an appeal. However, the Court refused to say that every failure of trial counsel to consult with a convicted person would be ineffective assistance:

        We instead hold that counsel has a constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing. 120 S.Ct. 1029, at 1036.

        The Court then stated that even though consultation was not always required under this standard, nevertheless in “the vast majority of cases” there will be a constitutional duty of counsel to consult with the defendant. 120 S.Ct. at 1037. Justice Souter, in a partly dissenting opinion, argued for a duty to consult in virtually all cases. He pointed out the obvious, that many convicted persons have little knowledge of what an appeal is or means, have difficulty with English, etc., and so are unlikely to be able to “demonstrate to counsel” an interest in appealing unless there is full consultation with counsel.

        You must be legally competent before a judge will allow you to represent yourself in a criminal trial. Criminal defendants can only represent themselves if a judge determines that they are competent to do so.

        A Faretta hearing is when the judge rules on the defendant’s motion to go pro per. If the motion is granted, the defendant waives the right to counsel and represents himself or herself in a criminal proceeding. If the judge denies the motion, then the defendant must hire an attorney or have the court appoint one.


        Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Wikipedia,excerpts]

        Assistance of counsel

        Main article: Assistance of Counsel Clause
        A criminal defendant has the right to be assisted by counsel.

        In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the Supreme Court ruled that “in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him.” In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own.

        In 1961, the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no “ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like”. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), ruled that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), in which the Court ruled that state courts had to appoint counsel only when the defendant demonstrated “special circumstances” requiring the assistance of counsel. Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment. Regarding sentences not immediately leading to imprisonment, the Court in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), ruled that counsel did not need to be appointed, but in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), the Court held that a suspended sentence that may result in incarceration cannot be imposed if the defendant did not have counsel at trial.

        As stated in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel “[means] at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversary proceedings have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal assistance when the government interrogates him and that when a defendant is arrested, “arraigned on [an arrest] warrant before a judge”, and “committed by the court to confinement”, “[t]here can be no doubt that judicial proceedings ha[ve] been initiated.”


        Main article: Pro se legal representation in the United States

        A criminal defendant may represent himself, unless a court deems the defendant to be incompetent to waive the right to counsel.

        In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized a defendant’s right to pro se representation. However, under Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), a court that believes the defendant is less than fully competent to represent himself can require that defendant to be assisted by counsel. In Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts. In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Court ruled that a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial, but not competent to represent himself.

        In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of “meaningful access to the courts” can be satisfied by counsel or access to legal materials. Bounds has been interpreted by several United States courts of appeals to mean a pro se defendant does not have a constitutional right to access a prison law library to research his defense when access to the courts has been provided through appointed counsel.

  • P.S. I forgot to ask, Frank…

    Have you had Sue kneel down and look in Edward’s eye sack for the mysteriously missing DOS manual?

    Maybe, perhaps, possibly former attorney Crazy Cunha’s list of evidence for her Big Fat Jewish Conspiracy is there as well…

    Viva Crazy, Abusive, Incompetent, Rich Mothers of Connecticut®!!!!!

    • Sniv– I have the DOS manual. It is on/in my computer somewhere. Damn you get me so mad, I might just look for it today.

    • Mr. Sniveling.

      The DOS handbook is also available in court records. Maybe Kristen Keefe will.post it first on her new blog?

      You should send a request. The blog will be a collaboration with a Times Union writer.

      It’s a real crime news site. Not a Keith Raniere PR blog. No Suneel essays! Lots of Nxivm content promised.

      • Might Kristen Keefe have access to the list of evidence of Crazy Cunha’s Big Fat Jewish Conspiracy?

        That would be a HUGE help to Frank since he’s doubling down on all his CT Family Court nonsense.

        If not, maybe you could point him to some relevant material regarding the sunk cost fallacy.

        • Have you read the transcript of the hearing with Judge Moukawsher – where Cunha brought up the pro-Jewish bias of Judge Adleman? The hearing that got her disbarred.

          • That’s the one where the Catholic licker of Jewish boots gives her time to find her list of evidence and she can’t find it, right?

            Those Catholics controlled by Jews are so tricky, aren’t they!!!!!

            It is a Huge, Morbidly Obese Jewish Conspiracy!!!!!

            Viva Crazy, Abusive, Incompetent, Rich Mothers of Connecticut®!!!!!

  • 😂🤣😂

    I called it last week: the party is over, but the clown show has only really begun.

    Raniere going pro se! 😂🤣😂

    Even Two Lawyers can’t help him, huh?

    I have no doubt his pro se Rule 33 suppository brief (oops, I meant “supplemental”) is going to be Comedy Quadruple Platinum! 💿💿💿💿

    Viva Executive Success®!!!!!

  • I doubt Tully will confirm Suneel as his paralegal. Suneel is an interested party, and that is a conflict of interest. I also find it unlikely that Suneel can behave.

    And “new evidence?” I doubt that as well. All Suneel has shown is supposition and hearsay.

  • Where is Raniere’s Breach Report. I want to know about how his inability to file his reports on time will affect the whole entire world, his community, and himself… and then I want to reject the report and tell him he needs to think deeper.

  • These are the last spasms of Keith Raniere. Once all legal options are exhausted, all frivolous appeals denied, he will eventually pass away while incarcerated, long after everybody has forgotten about him.

    • It will take a few years, but he may run out of options earlier if other parties stop paying for his lawyers. He has the right to pursue his options, of course, but they are wishful thinking.

  • Hahahahahaha. They had three years and now they’re trying to convince the law that in 60 days they’ll have all the time need for whatever it is they’re doing? What a bunch of ridiculous phonies. Even without the uncompromising language of the law, the judge should’ve rejected this request on this fact alone.

  • “Without merit”. Bullshit usually is.

    “Request denied”. Raniere had three years. Get your homework in on time, loser.

  • Frank:
    If you can expose Raniere as a Pedophile, you can expose Biden.

    Biden Incest and Pedophilia Confirmed Ashley Biden’s Diary Legitimate

    • I watched this. I thought only Hunter was a drug addict, but tragically Ashly apparently also was one. In her alleged diary there was one entry about her being in the shower with her father when she was a child that could possibly be seen as inappropriate. They conclude this is definite proof of a pedophilic-incestuous act. So because of only one example that is not even confirmed by Ashly herself (“possibly inappropriate”) Joe has become an incestuous pedophile? Wat a joke! Then they start an unhinged rant against Joe Biden, and by doing so instantly undercutting the -minuscule- credibility of their previous accusations.

      • What evidence did the FBI turn up after investigating Donald Trump for four years?
        None unless you consider Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to investigate corruption in Ukraine to be a crime in America.

    • Notice: US mortage rates surge to 5.78% in biggest jump since 1987.

      After inflation and rising costs of living, energy and fuel costs, mortgage rate increases are now being added to the mix.
      Paying off mortgages with stagnant incomes will likely become difficult to impossible for most citizens. But for that, we
      have Biden’s slogans to settle for.

  • That’s ridiculous to imply that the only reason the prosecutor objected is because it impugns her. That’s not the only reason to object.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com