Keith Raniere filed a pro se Rule 33 motion for a new trial 30 minutes before the three-year deadline. Raniere is seeking “an immediate evidentiary hearing based on ‘newly discovered evidence.”
Raniere moved to disqualify US District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis. He filed his motion before Judge Garaufis or another judge “to whom this matter is reassigned.”
In the motion, Raniere writes of himself in the third person.
The court timestamp shows he filed it on June 21, 2022, at 11:30 pm.
Raniere includes exhibits to bolster his claim the FBI tampered with evidence. Raniere includes “Expert Reports by Dr. J. Richared Kiper, Steven Abrams Esq, and Wayne B. Norris. They are not new but are re-attached from the Rule 33 motion filed on May 3 by attorney Tully.
Raniere writes the experts “concluded to a scientific certainty” that the FBI tampered. He writes, “government actors created, destroyed and changed digital evidence.” Raniere’s experts are “pro-law-enforcement” and “disturbed by their findings.”
Parlato in the Rule 33
I am writing an “Analysis of Allegations of FBI Tampering of Evidence in US v Raniere.” I include in my report redacted excerpts of seven emails from attorney Neil Glazer to myself. Raniere’s power of attorney, Suneel Chakravorty, is co-authoring the report.
Suneel wanted Raniere to be able to use the excerpts. I was going to publish them anyway. I had one condition for letting Raniere use the excerpts in his Rule 33. He must agree to include my affidavit. In it, I would state that Raniere sexually abused Camila starting when she was 15. I did not care if he agreed or not.
It pleased me to have Raniere include my affidavit in his plea for a new trial. For in that affidavit, I state that he is guilty of the despicable crime of raping a child. I said that up front. I want everyone to know Raniere is guilty.
But I also feel that the FBI should not cheat to convict guilty criminals.
Glazer represents about 70 ex-Nxivm members suing Raniere in a civil suit. The excerpts show Glazer is an aggressive, dedicated attorney. They raise concerns over whether the FBI acted in bad faith.
My affidavit explains, “I am Raniere’s adversary. I am opposed to Raniere and deplore what he has done. I believe Raniere is guilty of abusing the victim, Camila. He abused her. It was child sexual exploitation.”
I also wrote, “I do NOT think Glazer would participate in tampering or permit a client to do so. One of the best reasons to doubt FBI tampering is Glazer. He represents Camila and her sister, Daniela.”
In his pro se Rule 33, Raniere lays it on. He writes, “In addition to the government’s premeditated creation, planting, and adjustment of digital evidence, the newly discovered evidence, including the experts’ reports, also demonstrates precise and specific perjury among the major government witnesses, including government agents, as well as government intimidation of potential defense witnesses.”
Raniere points out that AUSA Penza said before the trial: “the child pornography is … at the heart of our racketeering conspiracy.” She also said,“the alleged victim of the child pornography charges [Camila] goes throughout this case … there’s very little evidence in this case that does not relate to that victim.”
Raniere tied it in with something Glazer wrote to me. “On April 3, 2019, Glazer wrote to Parlato that Camila would not be testifying, but that ‘Moira [AUSA Penza] told [him], and this is a quote, ‘we have all the evidence we need.’”
Raniere wrote, “The alleged victim, Camila, who was at the ‘heart’ of the case did not testify in the trial. The government relied upon FBI Senior Examiner Brian Booth to date the photos to establish her age in them.”
Raniere says that SFE Booth lied twice and told the truth once.
He testified about EXIF data. He also testified that evidence “does not always come to us sealed” and chain of custody “does not always need to be kept.”.
Raniere wrote, “FE Booth lied repeatedly about EXIF data and chain of custody and yet he told the truth about the camera and CF card being given to him unsealed. Unsealed evidence is a critical issue of admissibility. This evidence was at the ‘heart’ of the case. To admit to this issue of admissibility would, on the face of it, appear to be a serious risk.
“That SFE Booth was willing to[tell the truth about the camera and CF card being given to him unsealed] means either he was certain that it would be admitted [as evidence] or there was some benefit to him, or both. The only benefit to him from admitting break in the chain of custody is that it provided SFE Booth plausible deniability of his involvement in the tampering, for the tampering on the CF card could have taken place before it was given to him, while it was in the custody of SA Elliot McGinnis, or SA Mills.”
Raniere included the FBI chain of custody reports on the camera and camera card in his exhibits.
Raniere also said that FBI Special Agent Christopher Mills “lied” when he said the his office handled the camera “according to the FBI protocol.” Raniere noted that this was established in Tully’s supplement to the Tampering Rule 33.
Lexar camera card similar to the one the FBI used in evidence.
Raniere went back to a theme raised by Tully – that the FBI seized the camera and hard drive first at 8 Hale.
“Agents seemed to home in on the items, Raniere wrote. He quoted Dr. Kiper, “It was as if the FBI agents knew what would eventually be ‘found’ on those devices and used at trial.”
Evidence Item #1 was the camera with a camera card inside.
Evidence item #2 – the hard drive.
Raniere accuses Daniela of participating in the FBI scheme. He writes, “Daniela testified that she managed the computers and backups at 8 Hale Drive.” He says “Glazer represented Daniela,” and that Daniela is “his favorite” client.
Then he references a Glazer excerpt that predated the raid of 8 Hale.
Glazer wrote: “I am not working on the civil litigation angle at the moment, there are far more important matters to resolve. There are moving pieces you are unaware of, interested eyes beyond the Albany region… We are learning precise locations of evidence, we need time to get rock solid warrants.”
Raniere concludes: “Mr. Glazer writes about ‘precise locations’ and roughly four months later, this comment is solidified as agents strangely collect the camera and hard drive as the top priority, bypassing and ignoring dozens of other evidentiary items along the way.”
Raniere then goes through a list of things he thinks are peculiar:
- Daniela and Lauren Salzman were never asked to identify their own photos on the hard drive, nor the camera that was used, yet they were both asked to describe the photos and the camera.
- Neither of them were asked to identify the alleged photos of Camila, despite both knowing her well and Daniela being her sister.
- Only FBI SA Michael Weniger identified Camila as being the one in the photos.
- Lauren Salzman testified Mr. Raniere took two photos of her, yet on the hard drive there were six in Lauren’s folder on the drive.
- Daniela testified that presence or lack of a visible appendectomy scar would determine Camila’s age in the photo. However, she was not asked to view the photos to confirm whether or not there was a scar.
- The alleged photos of Camila belonged inside a folder dated the month and day as Daniela’s anniversary with Mr. Raniere (November 2
- FBI SA Michael Lever was able to identify a fifteen-year-old Camila in the accidentally discovered photos, yet even her friends sometimes cannot distinguish between her and her sisters.
Raniere moves on to witnesses who lied and the government’s intimidation of his witness.
He includes eight witnesses’ affidavits describing their encounters with the prosecution team.
- Michele Hatchette,
- Danielle Roberts,
- Nicki Clyne,
- Samantha LeBaron,
- Sahajo Haertel,
- Brian Elliot,
- Marc Elliot,
- Brandon Porter.
Parlato Started Hate Campaign
Raniere has a few choice words for me:
“Mr. Raniere holds Mr. Parlato to be responsible for crafting and disseminating a false, hate narrative against him and his organization. He believes this narrative was engineered to inspire public outrage through exaggeration. This public outrage, supported by a ‘mad dog’ media, allowed this prosecution to commit malfeasance, which is historical in its premeditation, complexity, the number of actors involved, the high-profile nature of the case, and the credible scientifically certain proof of the malfeasance.
“In including Mr. Parlato’s evidence in this motion, Mr. Raniere is not in anyway condoning Mr. Parlato’s conduct against him or Mr. Parlato’s conduct against anyone who had been involved in his organization NXIVM, or in DOS.”
He also accuses AUSA Tanya Hajjar of being part of the scheme.
He writes, “Because the prosecution failed to correct SFE Booth’s perjurious testimony about chain of custody, and this Court did not intervene, the jury was taught that a broken chain of custody is not abnormal in the FBI.
“Note also that AUSA Hajjar questioned SFE Booth and Mills…. AUSA Hajjar likely knew that the camera was not handled according to protocol, and thus proactively elicited false testimony from Mills. However, even if AUSA Hajjar did not know her witnesses perjured themselves, which would require assuming egregious incompetence and negligence on her part, it does not matter. AUSA Hajjar, and in fact the entire prosecution team, is imputed with knowledge of Booth’s and Mills’ perjury, for they are government agents who testified.”
At the end of the day Raniere wants the judge to “grant a complete reversal of Mr. Raniere’s conviction on all charges, not only because this falsified digital evidence was at the ‘heart’ of the case but because anything less would condone structural error in the form of government criminal malfeasance, reliably proven, that involved, at a minimum, multiple government agents breaking protocol, spoliating and manipulating evidence, and perjuring themselves repeatedly….
“This Court should not condone the prosecution’s violation of Mr. Raniere’s due process nor their Orwellian tactics of methodically silencing ordinary, law-abiding civilians through fear of imprisonment.
“The newly discovered evidence reveals multiple government actors were involved in criminal malfeasance that was executed over an 18+ month period and was orchestrated to deprive Mr. Raniere of his constitutional rights and to dishonestly win a conviction.
“Mr. Raniere moves this Court to grant a public evidentiary hearing so that he, and the public, are allowed to ask the pertinent questions of our public servants.”