Keith Raniere’s lawyer, Joseph Tully, came out swinging. His target is the FBI. In a fierce attack on the FBI, he accused several New York field office agents of being criminals.
If true, they may end up in prison.
Tully supplemented his Rule 33 motion for a new trial for Raniere on Friday. The Rule 33 motion focuses on evidence of child pornography and exploitation. Tully accused the FBI of tampering with that evidence “to gain a dishonest advantage at trial.”
Two devices are relevant. A camera card in a Canon camera –and a Western Digital hard drive – are the focus of the tampering allegations.
“The CF card and WD HDD constituted the entirety of the evidence against Mr. Raniere for… child pornography and child exploitation,” Tully wrote in his Memorandum of Law. The FBI seized both devices during a raid of Raniere’s townhouse at 8 Hale Drive in Half Moon, NY.
The hard drive was found on the shelf of Raniere’s library [right arrow]. The camera and camera card were found in a bag under the desk [left arrow].
The FBI found 22 child porn photos of Camila in a folder on the hard drive, along with 145 nude pictures of 11 adult women.
The DOJ alleged the date of the photos is 2005, when Camila was 15. The photos of Camila on the hard drive were evidence of possession of child porn. But the photos alone did not prove Raniere took them. The DOJ used the camera card to prove Raniere took the pictures with his camera.
The tie-in was not Camila’s photos. The tie-in were photos of the other nude women on the hard drive – taken by the same camera at around the same time in 2005.
The FBI showed that photos on the hard drive were on the camera card. This helped prove the sexual exploitation of a child.
The government never provided Raniere with a forensic copy of the camera card. A forensic copy would give the defense access to what was on the camera card. Instead, the government gave the defense FTK reports. An FTK report was what the government found on the camera card.
On April 24, 2019 – two weeks before trial – Raniere’s lawyers received an FTK report for the camera card. FBI Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley prepared the report on April 11, 2019. The FBI did a second FTK report during the trial. The defense received the report on June 11, 2019, when FBI witness Brian Booth testified.
The two FTK reports were different. The pretrial FTK report had four images of an adult woman, Angel, that matched images on the hard drive. The mid-trial FTK report had 37 new images not found in the first report. All 37 newly-found images matched images on the hard drive.
The 37 nudes “found” on the second FTK report of the camera card were also found in the folder on the hard drive. It bolstered the claim Raniere used the Canon camera to take Camila’s photos.
Tully wrote, “The FTK report from April 11, 2019, did not contain the thirty-seven new images that the June 11, 2019, FTK report alleged… This… constitutes a bad faith destruction of evidence… The destruction was caused by the intentional insertion of false data onto the CF card, which constitutes a planting of evidence, which is not only bad faith, but also a violation of the law.”
SA Lever took the camera card from evidence control on September 19, 2018. Someone examined the original camera card without a write-blocker. This examination violated FBI “critical procedure.” The camera card’s “date accessed” information was overwritten. This destroyed the file system dates.
Tully alleged FBI SA Mills not only committed perjury, but FBI SFE Brian Booth also did. Booth claimed not to know who had the camera card when someone made the improper examination.
The camera card had a broken chain of custody. The defense requested Booth’s notes, but the DOJ did not supply them before the trial. Booth knew about the broken chains of custody, though he said he did not. Booth had information about this in his notes.
Fully agree with you Frank that we need an honest investigation. If the FBI tampered with evidence and agents lied , let’s follow thru and investigate Tully’s allegations. I want to see what they have.
Thanks for understanding. It’s a bit creepy to hear readers say that holding the FBI to the “integrity” in their acronym is somehow endorsing Raniere.
It’s a false equivalence. One can be opposed to Raniere abusing a child and the FBI “adjusting” the evidence to get a guilty verdict.
That’s a false equivalency on your part. One can believe in holding the FBI accountable AND that in Raniere’s case there was no FBI malfeasance.
There were/are so many eyes on this case. Multiple teams of highly paid attorneys for the defense. Lots of “concerned citizens” aka cult members. Books written. Films made. Journalists. Pod casts. Dateline NBC. Paid expert witnesses. Blogs. Twitter warriors for justice not being blind. Dance parties. DOSsier projects. Websites for Raniere to Speak. Burner phones. Powers of attorney. Affidavits for prosecutors…
If there’s “something” there it’s gotten plenty of scrutiny. There just comes a time when all stones have been turned over. Every pioe dream has been dreamt. And it’s over.
Every case could be investigated forever if the resources are there – it does not mean in every instance that it’s a worthwhile endeavor – to pursue ad infinitum.
There have been legal cases where the truth has been buried for decades. I don’t care who else looked at it or overlooked it. I am investigating it. I have no pro-Raniere bias. I know the FBI is capable of deception. There should not be a presumption of regularity. But at this point, I do not know if they altered, adjusted, or tampered with evidence.
Why would anyone oppose the investigation if it costs them nothing personally?
I don’t think almost anyone opposes an investigation. People opposed using the premise of an investigation as a PR stunt.
Contrary to what you guys pretend – crying wolf about FBI malfeasance does not actually help people who are true victims of FBI malfeasance.
It also will eventually make people stop listening to any of you about anything.
Because every time it’s presented as: This is it! This is going to be the Earth shattering reveal that proves Keith is innocent.
And every time it’s absolutely nothing. So, once again – no one opposes a true investigation – which would be being done through legal channels and other professional channels.
Not on Twitter. Using social media and the media to Gin up outrage non founded accusations against specific FBI agents potentially putting them and their families in danger has nothing to do with the actual hard work and investigating of an honest inquiry into the trial.
These are, again, PR stunt type maneuvers.
And that’s all well and good – if someone has absolutely no media attention and 0 resources to pursue the legal channels.
That is not the case with Vanguard. Keith had every single advantage available to someone in the legal system in the country of the United States.
So investigate. Keep hiring attorneys. Pay for expert witnesses. But using the media and social media to attack victims and honest employees of the court and government over a personal grudge that your pedophile cult leader was found guilty is not the way to go if you want to garner true support for your cause.
Which is that you are alleging is tampering. Right?Alleging! The story changes a lot. But it’s alleged tampering these days, correct?
The media loves corruption stories. If there was a crumb of evidence of true corruption cover-up or malfeasance the media would be all over it.
The truth is almost no one buys what you guys are selling. Is there possible malfeasance in any case? Ever? Sure there are cases where that could be possibly proven. Is Vanguard versus the United States one of them? Not a chance.
But stop conflating people’s opinions. No evidence has been shown with an opinion that most readers believe all FBI agents are impeccable in their behavior. Because that is not what most people are saying. They don’t believe there was tampering proven in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
We don’t have control over you all investigating. Live it up. But we do not have to give it any serious weight. And most if us won’t anymore. That us all.
Exactly correct, Frank.
In the pursuit of justice, why would anyone oppose this?
Certain anonymous commenters may have a reason that they do not care to divulge.
Your favorite word, Frank: “may.” So definitive!
Viva Executive Success®!!!!!
May the wind be at your back. May you live long and prosper. May you never have to use may except maybe when may may be right word, when maybe you may not be sure what may or mayn’t happen.
Allen T. “Alanzo” Stanfield has returned to the his beloved barnyard of the powerless, just as I predicted!
Did you take a trip to the northwest to see if the allegations about Swami Chokeananda®’s slave girls banging homeless dudes are true?
So… which barnyard beast are you, our resident Wise One?
Nice Guy would say the pig, but I disagree.
You would be right to ask which creature I am. The answer: the fox that guards the hen house.
Glad to see you are back to share your deep philosophical insights. Have you learned some new big words since your last visit? Please share them with us!!!!!
Certainly you would count yourself an Anti-
LET ALLEN T. STANFIELD SPEAK!!!!!!
Vive Ring Dings®!!!!!
Tully’s opinion will change when he is no longer being paid. Funny how that works.
Agree w the other comment that it would seem that FR has turned in to a KR PR stunt. I’ll eat my hat if any of these rule 33s amount to anything much less Keith’s conviction overturned and a new trial granted. It’s all just smoke and mirrors.
How did this happen?
Another Hollyweird star in Pedophilia.
Keep your kids away from Comic Book Stars
The Flash Ezra Miller Situation Takes another Insane Twist with Cult like Behavior & More
Does Magoo have a PhD degree?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Merrick Garland, et al.,
No. CV 22-00212-TUC-RCC
Plaintiff Keith Raniere, who is confined in the United States Penitentiary-
Tucson (USP-Tucson) and is represented by counsel, filed a civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and paid the filing and administrative fees. He then filed a
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) and a Motion for Leave to Serve Complaint on
Governmental Defendants (Doc. 4). The Court will order Defendants to answer the First
Amended Complaint and will deny as moot the Motion for Leave to Serve.
I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity,
regardless of whether the prisoner is represented by counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); In re
Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required
to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full
filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not
differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). The Court must dismiss a
complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or
malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does
not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual
allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there
are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.
II. First Amended Complaint
In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following
Defendants in their official capacities: United States Attorney General Merrick Garland,
Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal, USP-Tucson Warden Barbara Von
Blanckensee, and Lieutenant Anthony Gallion. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief to enjoin prison officials from retaliating and “actively frustrating and impeding his
First and Sixth Amendment rights to access to the courts and counsel,” and his attorney’s
fees and costs.
Plaintiff alleges he is serving a 120-year prison sentence for, among other things,
child sexual exploitation and possession of child pornography. Plaintiff alleges that during
– 2 –
May 2021 visit with an individual (Chakravorty) who is both Plaintiff’s power-of
attorney and Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney’s paralegal, the visit was terminated and
Chakravorty’s visitation privileges were permanently revoked by Defendant Von
Plaintiff claims that for the five-month period preceding April 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s
attorneys had weekly calls with Plaintiff, without any interference. Plaintiff alleges that
on April 28, Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney filed a motion to stay an appeal in the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals because he intended to file a motion for new trial in the
district court based on newly discovered evidence, in the form of three expert’s reports
concluding the FBI had falsified and tampered with evidence and federal agents had
committed perjury relevant to Plaintiff’s child pornography and sexual exploitation
convictions. On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney filed the motion for
new trial in the district court. Plaintiff contends his criminal defense attorney anticipates
that the district court will conduct a hearing on the motion and that Plaintiff is best poised
to assist him in preparing for the hearing because Plaintiff has first-hand knowledge of the
criminal allegations against him.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 4, 2022, the day after his criminal defense attorney
filed the motion for new trial, he was on a privileged legal call with the criminal defense
attorney, and the call was terminated prematurely, without warning. Shortly thereafter,
Plaintiff was instructed to go to an administrative office, where Defendant Gallion asked
Plaintiff about certain individuals who were on Plaintiff’s approved telephone and
visitation list. Plaintiff contends many of the individuals were attorneys or “attorney’s
agents,” such as Chakravorty.
Plaintiff claims Defendant Gallion “made the affirmative
decision to ‘scrub’ Plaintiff’s approved callers and visitors list” and told Plaintiff that his
list was being scrubbed, he would have to apply to a unit manager to have anyone re
1 Plaintiff claims he can only communicate with Chakravorty if he is on Plaintiff’s
approved list of callers. He alleges his conversations with Chakravorty are recorded and
monitored by prison officials and are not treated as confidential, even though Chakravorty
is an agent of Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney.
– 3 –
approved, and it was unlikely Chakravorty would be approved. Plaintiff asserts that when
he asked Defendant Gallion why this was being done, Defendant Gallion only told him that
“there was an investigation.” Plaintiff alleges that on May 6, Defendants “interfered and
frustrated” a confidential legal call between Plaintiff and an attorney by “causing the phone
call to be cut off” before Plaintiff and the attorney had concluded the conversation.
Plaintiff asserts Defendant Von Blanckensee affirmatively decided to interfere with
Plaintiff’s First and Sixth Amendment rights by terminating Plaintiff’s telephone calls with
his defense attorney and removing Chakravorty from Plaintiff’s approved telephone and
visitation list. He claims Defendant Von Blanckensee was the moving force behind
Defendant Gallion’s actions, the events on May 4 and 6, and the prior denial of
Chakravorty’s ability to visit. He alleges Defendant Carvajal is aware that federal prison
wardens retaliate against individual prisoners based on personal animus, unrelated to any
legitimate penological purpose; failed to prevent this kind of retaliation; “affirmatively
carried out th[is] policy”; and “perpetuated the policy and practice” by allowing wardens
to engage in this type of retaliation. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Garland
“affirmatively maintained the policy of allowing Wardens to retaliate” based on personal
animus unsupported by a legitimate penological purpose.
In Count One, Plaintiff alleges his First Amendment right of access to the courts
includes “a reasonable opportunity to communicate in a contemporaneous manner with his
lawyers.” He contends Defendants frustrated and interfered with this right on May 4, 2022,
and “threatened to continue to frustrate and interfere” with this right by “effectively cutting
off Plaintiff’s ability to communicate by phone with his attorneys and their agents.”
Plaintiff seeks “reasonable access” to communicate with his attorneys and their agents in
person and “using contemporaneous telephonic methods,” subject to limitations that have
a reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests. He asserts he will suffer
irreparable harm absent court intervention.
In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to retaliation for exercising his
First Amendment right of access to the courts. He contends that prior to May 3, 2022, he
– 4 –
communicated with his criminal defense attorneys and their agents to assist them in
preparing a motion for new trial. Plaintiff asserts that less than a day later after his criminal
defense attorney filed the motion for new trial, Defendants substantially frustrated and
impeded Plaintiff’s ability to assist his criminal defense attorney when they “imminently
threaten[ed] to cut off all telephonic and in-person communication with his attorneys.” He
claims the short time between the filing of the motion and Defendants’ adverse action
“raises a substantial likelihood that Defendants[’] actions were retaliatory.”
In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. He
asserts Defendants have deliberately interfered with the confidential relationship between
Plaintiff and his criminal defense attorney and this interference “substantially prejudices”
Plaintiff by preventing him from helping prepare his attorney for the hearing on the motion
and preventing his attorney from providing effective assistance of counsel.
The Court will require Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s access-to-the-courts,
retaliation, and Sixth Amendment claims.
III. Motion for Leave to Serve
Plaintiff seeks leave to serve his First Amended Complaint prior to the Court
screening it. Because the Court has screened the First Amended Complaint and is calling
for an answer by Defendants, the Court will deny as moot the Motion for Leave to Serve.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Complaint on Governmental
Defendants (Doc. 4) is denied as moot.
(2) Plaintiff must serve each Defendant.
(3) If Plaintiff does not complete service of the Summons and First Amended
Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days
of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each
Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).
– 5 –
(4) Defendants must answer the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond
by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose
behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that
does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.
Dated this 17th day of May, 2022
Honorable Raner C. Collins
Senior United States District Judge
Raniere’s lawyer “came out swinging”.
Unfortunately his punches are weightless as feathers and they all miss.
What a joke.
What we have here is a bunch of baseless accusations, speculation, and a forest of technical mumbo jumbo intended to confuse, obfuscate, and delay. Delay, delay, delay.
The court of course has seen this all before. Crusading lawyer for guilty as hell convict, waiting till the last day to file a motion the convict has had 3 years to file. Claiming old evidence is new evidence. And employing that most desperate of defense arguments, “my client was framed.”
When you have no defense, go on the offense.
This of course is all for show. There isn’t a chance in hell of Raniere getting a new trial based on this thin gruel. It’s ridiculous nonsense as well as being procedurally irrelevant.
What is the point then? Raniere and the dead-enders apparently have this zany scheme to rehabilitate his image. Using the tired tropes of government conspiracy and mainstream media bias, they’re trying to drum up sympathy for this racketeering sex trafficker. This is the angle Clyne has been playing for months on social media.
“Do you trust the FBI? Do you trust the media? Of course not! Therefore, our Vanguard is innocent!”
This is what passes for logic in cults.
Tully came out flailing.
Unlike all the other actually competent and effective appeals attorneys the Bronfman sisters hired, Tully could only heap up a small pile of crap.
Jennifer Bonjean effectively appealed to win Bill Cosby his freedom (and R Kelly is hiring her), but Keith was too guilty even for her talents.
Keith will rot in prison where he belongs. The only question is whether he acts up so much the BOP puts him in a non-chomo joint where he won’t last long. Or in the Colorado Super-Max. I hope the latter, because he won’t get shanked there and will have many decades to contemplate his fate.
Viva Executive Success®!!!!!
But Tully is no longer vanguard’s attorney.
Keith is breaking in new legal counsel.
And trying to stall his own case again
Declaring Keith will be representing pro se
Keith filed to be his own attorney.
Tully is no one. Just an ineffective ex-counsel now.
Hey Mark Agnifilo,
Where was your voice about all this when you were defending Raniere? Giving innocuous interviews to the NYT that promote your self image? I’d rather have my dog defend me at trial than you.
Keith’s TRO was denied.
Re “The Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt.”
This does not apply here because Raniere has already been convicted.
As long as the verdict against Raniere is not overturned, he is guilty based
on the evidence used and accepted at his trial.
The presumption of innocence is for the FBI agents not Raniere.
Frank if this Patriot God really follows through on him writing an article in Jim Byrd’s defense are you going to publish it or are you just going to ignore it? I think if he isnt bluffing it would be really interesting to see what he says.
Thank God someone here has actual reading comprehension abilities, gheez..
Ran into this problem on another thread as well…
I had not read it. That’s why I don’t need reading comprehension.
FBI seems to have a full time job covering up the sex crimes of “important people”. Especially ones that involve minors.
— The camera card’s “date accessed” information was overwritten. This destroyed the file system dates.
BS. Nothing was “destroyed”. An OS creates three time stamps: creation, accessed, and modified.
Accessed was changed but the other two were not, implying that a read occurred of the contents/and or just the OS metadata of the file, while the creation and modified times (modifying the picture metadata of the file and/or the image would mark an OS modified file change) remained unchanged. In other words, stop blowing smoke where there isn’t any. The only way to modify an unencrypted OS timestamp is if there is a back door or to know the exact locations of the bits on the drive where data resides and and their bit patterns and arduously and tediously apply a bit by bit changing mechanism.
To know the exact location of those bits on the drive sounds like claiming to know the lottery numbers for next week…
I am pretty sure that the first thing the FBI does is mirroring the drives. The accessed data should be the same on the original piece of evidence. Everything else would be unprofessional.
I would suspect that several copies exist.