Stephen Flatley has an entirely different view than Brian Booth. And Brooklyn looks different than Ghana too.
In the USA v Hirst, Stephen Flatley, an FBI computer forensics professional, testified, over defense objection, that the FBI does not rely on metadata alone in determining a document’s date because metadata can be manipulated.
This was different from what forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified in USA v Raniere — that EXIF data [which is metadata] is hard to change and very reliable.
Here is Rick Kiper’s take on the matter of conflicting views of metadata reliability.
By J. Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
FBI Special Agent (Retired) and Forensic Examiner
Professional Background
I served as an FBI Special Agent for 20 years, from 1999 to 2019, with more than half of that career in cybersecurity and digital forensics. In the FBI, I served as a case agent, a supervisor, a unit chief, a forensic examiner, a trainer of forensic examiners, and a trainer of other trainers of forensic examiners.
I have personally sworn out affidavits for dozens of search warrants and collected, preserved, and analyzed hundreds of pieces of digital evidence. Therefore, I have in-depth knowledge of FBI evidence handling procedures and digital evidence examination procedures and policies.
Introduction
In the case U.S. vs. KEITH RANIERE et al., the government contended Raniere used a digital camera to take explicit photographs of women, saved them to a camera card, transferred them to an unidentified computer, and then backed them up to an external hard drive.
The camera card and the “backup” hard drive comprised the only digital evidence used at trial. According to the government’s narrative, all the backed-up photographs were taken in the year 2005, at a time when one of the women was 15 years old. The government argued that if the pictures were taken in 2005, then 22 photos of the backed-up photos would constitute child pornography.
In order to date these photographs, the government relied on two pieces of digital information – the names of the folders containing the photos and the “Create Date,” saved inside the content portion of the photo called EXIF data.
The problem is that both pieces of data are forensically unreliable. Any computer user who has created a folder realizes how easy it is to modify a folder name. And while fewer people know how to modify the embedded “Create Date” in a photo’s EXIF data, I have conclusively demonstrated the ease of modifying this data using Windows functionality with no special skills or tools.
Nevertheless, the government insisted that EXIF data is “hard to change” and “is extremely reliable.’
Senior Forensic Examiner (SFE) Brian Booth was the FBI’s expert witness who testified under oath about the reliability of EXIF data. He did so after being requested to conduct a second forensic examination of the camera card, which he had received in an unsealed package during the final days of the trial.’
SFE Booth produced a “replacement” forensic report of the camera card on 06/11/2019, and it contained 37 additional files not included in the first FBI forensic report.
Although 31 of the 37 new files had namesake counterparts on the alleged backup hard drive, the new files had several metadata issues and showed dispositive evidence of manual alterations.
SFE Stephen Flatley was the first forensic examiner to examine that camera card and had produced a report two months earlier, on 04/11/2019.
However, the government declined to put SFE Flatley on the stand to explain his report. Instead, during the fifth and final week of trial, the government abruptly gave SFE Flatley an overseas assignment and, through the hands of several people, transferred the camera card to SFE Booth in an unsealed package.
Until recently, the government’s refusal to use SFE Flatley and his report during the first four weeks of the trial was an inexplicable decision. However, I believe SFE Flatley’s testimony on a previous case could shed some light on this mystery.
As I will explain in the following pages, SFE Flatley’s previous testimony directly contradicted SFE Booth’s testimony regarding the reliability of metadata dates, and to be consistent [with his previous testimony], SFE Flatley likely would not have supported the government’s claims in the U.S. vs. KEITH RANIERE.
The 2016 Trial Testimony of SFE Stephen Flatley
On 09/20/2016, SFE Flatley was called to testify as the government’s expert witness in the U.S. vs. GARY HIRST case.
After qualifying SFE Flatley as an expert witness, prosecutor Brian Blais immediately began questioning SFE Flatley on metadata and dates:
Q. Where is metadata stored?
A. There is two different places overall where it could be stored. It could be stored in the computer’s file system in the computer itself. So the overall creation date of the file could be stored there. Certain files also have metadata stored inside them. Things like Word documents, PDF documents, some photographs, like JPEGs, and a certain type called JPEG Exif will have certain other aspects of metadata inside of it.
Q. How is metadata generated?
A. It’s generated at the time the file is created, and then it can be modified at later dates.
During this exchange, it was appropriate for SFE Flatley to mention the similarity of metadata stored inside PDF documents with that [metadata] stored inside JPEG (photo) files as EXIF data.
Indeed, PDF files and JPEG files store “Create date” information in essentially the same way – by inserting the date and time into the file’s content.
To illustrate this, I opened the PDF document Government’s Exhibit “GX 505A.pdf,” representing the FBI’s forensic report of the external hard drive in this case.
By clicking File> Properties> Additional Metadata, I could view the document’s imbedded “Create Date” as 04/11/2019.
.
Using a forensic tool, FTK Imager, I verified that the date is indeed part of the content of the file, rather than stored elsewhere in the file system, by opening the same GX 505A.pdf document and viewing the hexadecimal representation of the data:
Using these two screenshots, one can observe the imbedded date/time of “04/11/2019 11:32:44” is saved as the “Create Date” value inside the content of the “GX 505A.pdf’ file.
This is exactly what SFE Flatley described during his testimony. As SFE Flatley mentioned during his testimony, JPEG photo files also contain metadata, stored essentially in the same way inside the file’s content as EXIF data.
In the following screenshot, I viewed the properties of “IMG_0043.JPG,” a JPEG photo file in this case. The EXIF create date is displayed as “10/17/2005 12:30AM,” which Windows interprets as “Date taken.”
Loading this file into another program, Exiftool, one observes the name of metadata create date of the JPEG is identical to that of the PDF, which is “Create Date”:
Using the same procedure used for the PDF document, I opened the JPEG file using FTK Imager and verified the date in the content of the photo file:
Although the majority of SFE Flatley’s testimony addressed metadata embedded inside PDF documents, he immediately drew a similarity to metadata inside JPEG photo files.
Indeed, as the above exercise demonstrates, they are essentially created and stored in the same way.
More importantly, SFE Flatley stated another aspect of metadata in the transcript excerpt cited above.
Immediately after mentioning JPEG EXIF data, SFE Flatley revealed that metadata stored inside files “can be modified at later dates.”
How?
SFE Flatley testified that Exiftool and Xpdf, two freely available software tools, may be used to modify metadata in JPEG and PDF files. In fact, with respect to these publicly available metadata authoring tools, SFE Flatley testified, “[T]here’s a bunch of them.”!
How would a person obtain such a tool?
SFE Flatley testified, “You just download it from the web.”?
The Unreliability of Embedded Metadata Dates
Because their determination of child pornography solely depended on the created dates of the photographs, the FBI’s expert witness SFE Brian Booth and DOJ’s prosecutor Tanya Hajjar went to great lengths to convince the jury of the reliability of EXIF data.
What follows are just a few statements from their exchanges during trial:
Q. Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more difficult to alter?
A. They purposely designed it that way.
Q. Do you know —
A. It’s mainly to be able to store information. And they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed
to do that.
Later in his testimony, SFE Booth admitted that the file system Created date for all the “backed up” photos, including the alleged contraband, was in 2003.
Canon Camera EOS 20D. The create dates of the Camila photos are 2003, one year before the camera was manufactured.
This would mean the photos were copied to the external hard drive two years before the government claimed they were taken – a physical impossibility.
Therefore, after recognizing they could not rely on the file system create dates for the backup files, SFE Booth and prosecutor Hajjar turned their attention back to the easily modifiable EXIF data to support the create date they needed the jury to believe.
Q. You testified that the EXIF data shows the date and time associated with this is October 18, 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. And so between the dates here and the EXIF data, what’s the best evidence of when this photograph was taken?
A. Well, the best reference is the EXIF data because that gets put into the JPEG file and it’s not easily modifiable and it moves with the file the same way from device to device, no matter where you place it. It has nothing to do with the bearing of a file system at all or the dates and times associated with it. So, it’s on its own, but are created at the same time that you take the picture.
These are just a few of SFE Booth’s statements regarding the reliability of EXIF data and how difficult it is to modify. The court transcript records I 5 pages of SFE Booth and prosecutor Hajjar mischaracterizing the reliably of EXIF metadata.
Again, to support their narrative that the alleged contraband photos were taken in 2005, the government needed the jury to believe the reliability of the metadata.
The reliability of the EXIF data was so crucial to the government’s charge of child pornography, prosecutor Mark Lesko emphasized Booth’s testimony during his closing argument to the jury:
Mark Lesko
LESKO: … I’m no expert, don’t get me wrong, but I heard Examiner Booth, just like you did. Exif data is extremely reliable. It’s embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the exif data shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance, this particular instance, the 150 jpeg on November 2, 2005.”
SFE Flatley, the FBI’s expert witness in a previous trial, would disagree:
Q. Now, Mr. Flatley, does the FBI rely on creation dates alone in PDF files in determining the date on which that PDF file was, in fact, created?
A. No, we do not do that.
Earlier, I demonstrated that PDF and JPEG files use the same method for storing metadata for creation dates.
In fact, PDF files and JPEG files even use the same metadata tag, “Create Date,” to record this information. Since SFE Flatley discussed the composition of JPEG files alongside PDF files in his testimony, he would similarly testify that the FBI does NOT rely on creation dates alone to determine the date on which a JPEG file was created.
Why not?
According to SFE Flatley, the FBI “would require that we have some kind of corroborating evidence.’?”
To rely upon the metadata “Create Date” in either a PDF or JPEG file, the FBI would require corroborating data from other devices and mechanisms that possibly stored or transmitted the file, but these devices must be “outside the user’s control.”
A. So something that was not just from the standalone system that would require some kind of corroboration or something outside the user’s control.
Despite SFE Flatley’s claim to the contrary, in the case U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE, the FBI used no other devices, systems, or mechanisms to corroborate the easily modifiable EXIF metadata dates in the JPEG files.
Instead, the FBI consistently claimed EXIF metadata was reliable by itself and difficult to change, as SFE Booth testified on cross examination:
A [Booth]. But when it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those. You have to go through special processes to change those things.
By contrast, SFE Flatley gave a very different answer when asked for reasons why a create date “reflected in the file’s metadata may not match the actual creation date.”
SFE Flatley testified to several reasons why file metadata dates are unreliable:
Flatley A. A computer’s clock is too easily changed. It’s very easy to go down and change your time and date on the machine. It’s also a standalone system. It could just flat be wrong. The clock could be off, it could have been changed either inadvertently or by, what’s the word I’m thinking of, just, you know, just out of habit or something of that nature that they just change the time, date. Also, your machine, when it’s off, relies on a battery to keep the clock up. It’s called the cmos battery. If that battery dies, the clock will revert to its beginning.
Just as SFE Booth repeatedly testified that the FBI considered metadata create dates reliable, SFE Flatley repeatedly testified that the FBI considered metadata create dates unreliable:
Q. Based on your training and experience, would the FBI rely on the create dates alone in the metadata of Government’s Exhibits 509A through D in determining the dates on which these documents were created?
A. No, we would not.
SFE Flatley’s position regarding the unreliability of metadata create dates was not an ancillary opinion – it was the entire purpose for his testimony.
As the prosecutor concluded his direct examination:
Q. So Mr. Flatley, in your opinion, can you conclude that Government’s Exhibits 509A through D were created on the dates reflected in the metadata in those documents?
A. I cannot.
Conclusion
In the case U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE it is notable that SFE Flatley, an FBI expert witness who
previously testified to the unreliability of metadata create dates, was replaced in the last week of trial by SFE Booth, who testified to the reliability of metadata create dates.
And although the government did not allow SFE Flatley to testify in the RANIERE case, much of his prior testimony directly supports the findings in my Summary of Technical Findings report.
SFE Flatley testified about the impossibility of a file content being changed without its file
system Modified date being updated. When asked about the Modified date, SFE Flatley said, “It reflects the last time that a change was made to that file and then that file was saved again. So if you were to change something in a file and then not save it, that date would not be touched. But if you change anything on the file and then save it again, the modified
dated will be altered.”
This statement alone supports nearly all the findings of manual alterations in my Summary of Technical Findings report.
In addition to demonstrating elsewhere how easy it is to change metadata create dates, in this paper I forensically demonstrated that PDF files and JPEG files name and store the “Create Date” value in same way- inside the content of the file.
In his 2016 testimony SFE Flatley not only argued strongly that metadata create dates are unreliable, but he also did not waver from this opinion or draw any distinction between metadata create dates in PDF files versus those in JPEG files.
Consider SFE Flatley’s expert opinions made under oath:
- SFE Flatley highlighted the similarity between metadata stored inside PDF files and metadata stored inside JPEG files.
- SFE Flatley described two different free tools anyone could use to modify metadata such as EXIF data.
- SFE Flatley declared such tools are easy to obtain from the Web.
- SFE Flatley declared on at least four occasions that metadata create dates are unreliable.
- SFE Flatley described several ways metadata create dates could be altered.
- SFE Flatley declared that the FBI in particular does not rely on metadata creation dates alone to determine when a file was, in fact, created.
To defend SFE Booth’s testimony against SFE Flatley’s testimony, one may argue that a PDF
document is not the same as a JPEG photo. However, to discount SFE Flatley’s damning testimony about the unreliability of metadata create dates, one would need to prove that metadata stored inside the content of a JPEG photo file is somehow more reliable than the metadata stored inside the content of a PDF file.
It is not. In fact, quite the opposite – It is much easier to modify the EXIF create date of
a JPEG file.
Thus, in U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE, there is no doubt that the government mischaracterized the
reliability of EXIF metadata during trial testimony. No doubt SFE Flatley would agree with that assessment, based on his past testimony, if he were given the opportunity to testify in this case.
Joseph Tully, Raniere’s attorney, sums up:
SFE Booth testified while under oath that metadata, such as EXIF data and “creation dates,” was difficult to change and, in fact, was designed to be difficult to change.
This testimony regarding the reliability of the 2005 dates bolstered the government’s narrative that the 22 photos of Camila were contraband.
However, in actuality, EXIF data is quite easy to change, and anyone can do so on a home computer with no special skills or software needed. Moreover, simply performing an internet search for “change EXIF data on photo” yields a multitude of free tools appearing in the search results that can all easily change EXIF data.
In fact, changing Metadata such as EXIF data and creation dates, is as easy as changing words or sentences in a Microsoft Word document.
SFE Booth, as a senior forensic examiner for the FBI, had to have known this, but chose to lie about it on the stand.
Additionally… In 2016, three years before [the Raniere] trial, SFE Flatley, who was a material witness in this case before being abruptly reassigned to Ghana, Africa at the last moment,
testified as a qualified expert in United States v. Hirst that the FBI does not rely on metadata alone in determining a document’s date because metadata can be “manipulated.”
Flatley’s testimony in Hirst is the exact opposite of the testimony that the government solicited from SFE Booth in this case. It is no wonder that SFE Flatley was assigned to Ghana mere days before he would have otherwise testified.
Someone in the government, or some group of people, wanted to, and needed to, substitute SFE Booth’s testimony for SFE’s Flatley’s testimony.
As the government itself said, “the child pornography is also at the heart of our racketeering conspiracy.”
Without the racketeering charges, the government would have faced substantial venue, jurisdiction, and statute of limitations issues.
I do not think it is at all complicated, knowing as I do know, a little about human nature. I know people in position of power are not exempt from the nature that afflicts us all.
They do not get more angelic because they wear a badge or prosecute for the government. In fact, they do not get more perfect and purer just because they work for the government despite their telling us so.
So based on the simple knowledge that power corrupts, I can quickly solve this dilemma.
When the FBI needs an expert to say metadata is easy to change, they call on Flatley. When they need to get the jury to believe it is hard to change, they call on Booth and send Flatley to Ghana.
Did someone change the metadata – whether easy or hard to change – and was that someone lodged within the FBI?
Why did Flatley’s camera card FTK report have four matches to the hard drive and Booth’s FTK have 33?
Why did the FBI access the camera card improperly on September 18, 2018, hide its existence from the defense for 11 months and never turn over the forensic copy to the defense at any time?
This is not about whether Raniere is guilty. This is about whether the FBI cheated to convict him.
We have all decided that Raniere is corrupt – except for the few we call the dead-enders. But how about the FBI? Are they corrupt, too?
Ghana is a great country for FBI and non-FBI people to visit.
From Brooklyn it is a mere 5000 miles – a short puddle jump across the Atlantic.
Did Flatley really go to Ghana or did – once Booth testified – the need become obviated.
If Flatley did go, he might have seen some pretty women, for the country is known for that..
The EXIF data debate does not prove much one way or another. But strangely, they sent Flatley off to Ghana. He was in Brooklyn until the last three days of the trial. Why didn’t they call him during the first six weeks of the trial?
They called Booth, and he said, as you can read for 15 pages of transcripts, how hard it was to change EXIF data.
This testimony seems to qualify him for the Pinocchio award for 2019.
Brian Booth told a little white one when he said EXIF data is hard to change.
Maybe the EXIF data was never changed, but why lie and say it is hard to change? The answer may lie in Brooklyn, or Ghana, or down Mexico way.
The dude in Tucson knows the truth about what he did with Camila. And nobody condones abuse. But did the FBI cheat to get the varmint?
Enquiring minds want to know.
An evidentiary hearing ought to tell us. What is the possible objection to that? If the FBI is innocent, then that will become apparent. The burden of proof is on Raniere. Let’s see what he can prove.
Let’s give him the fullest measure of due process. And if this is all bullshit, then that will become evident and everyone, the dead enders included, will know it.
We will all be satisfied that justice was done.
[…] couple months ago, Joseph O’Hara attempted to refute it by posting that Dr. Kiper received a copy of the hard disk that wasn’t authentic (wasn’t given […]
“It’s mainly to be able to store information. And they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed to do that.”
I read Booth stating that it is very hard for the CONSUMER (meaning you’re regular, average John Smith) to modify, but then he also adds an exception to that assessment by implying the opposite — it is not very hard to do so if a consumer has software that is specialized to do it.
This means that Booth did not lie at all. In fact, it means HE TOLD THE TRUTH in an explicit way, unlike what the deadenders claim.
So, it is the deadenders who are lying about what Booth said because they clip the context (willful falsehood by omission) and then propagandize such an untruth by constantly asserting it about Booth.
And from this simple fact, using deadender “logic”, ALL of what they say from now on should be tossed onto the dung-heap of non-existence.
No comment.
A-men, Don Parlato.
Alanzo
I think that if you are truly curious, and have half a brain to examine ALL the facts of this case, you’ll sign up for Suneel’s substack, in addition to reading the Frank Report.
https://chakravorty.substack.com/p/judge-cabranes-quickly-denied-motion
Alanzo
I have an entire brain, so I think I’ll give Chakravorty’s substack tirades a miss.
“If you have half a brain…” Oh Lordy what an opening!
Aloozer-
—Judge Cabranes quickly denied Raniere’s motion to stay his appeal.
Please define Suneel’s definition of the word “quickly”.
Does Suneel mean:
1. Quickly go to the restaurant to pick up dinner
2. Let’s quickly cleanup!
3. “I come quickly, like in 3 seconds, I’m a premature ejaculator.”
-Sunneel
4. Alanzo can’t shit quickly, it takes him 5 hours.
5. “Quickly use the alien probe to probe Alanzo’s cavernous rectum.”
-Suneel
6. Please quickly rattle off the
one million reasons Alanzo is a total loser.
***
All US Federal Appeals court judges make decisions quickly and based on current law.
Nothing new!
I heard that Alanzo can run around a pole quickly, more quickly than anybody. In fact, Alanzo can run around a pole more quickly than it takes NiceGuy to down a vodka soda, and that’s super quickly!(Ice-nine can down a vodka soda pretty quickly too, but he’s not in NiceGuy’s league yet)
Love your humility.
I ain’t drinking anymore. Neurologists orders.
OMG!
Quickly?
3 days is quickly?
A video for Nicki Clyne
Vancouver is Dying | Full Movie
I, too, have been wondering where the “evidence” these “experts” say was “tampered with” came from. How was the data these people are referring to obtained? Where did it come from?
I’m pretty sure Suneel answered your questions in the series of articles Frank did with him here a few months ago. I’m not going to dig around for you, but I will provide you the link for you to do your own digging.
https://frankreport.com/author/suneel-chakravorty/
Good luck.
Alanzo
Dumbass!
I asked Suneel if his species as a anus. He never answered my question.
***
Alanzo- no matter how hard you try to kiss Suneel’s ass, he’ll never let you blow him……
Is it true you said, “I’m not sitting back here with another dude while there are two perfectly doable females in the car”? Just answer the question.
Ha ha ha the extremely lazy dude who frequenty demands other commenters do his research for him said he’s, ” not going to dig around for you” ?
“ Suneel enjoys ballroom dancing, playing piano, and getting lost on Youtube” – Suneel
Lol this nerd! Lost on YouTube and lost in life. For gods sake man, go have a drink, get laid, travel the world…do something you pathetic little weasel. – Sincerely Everyone
“Disappear”?
Are the FBI supposed to drop a pin
when they go somewhere for work?
Maybe they should post on Facebook.
Or tweet? #bigbust@217N.Palomar
Suneel stalks individual FBI agents linkedin profiles. FBI agents could give a detailed work location schedule and make Sunerel’s stalking more fruitful. Suneel could dance and gyrate outside and bring the FBI agents coffee and donuts.
Threats against FBI agents are at a record high. In addition to the very obvious reasons why the FBI does not broadcast their travel plans – they do deserve to make it home to their families alive whenever possible.
And hopefully, Suneel or another dead-ender won’t be waiting for them at that home lurking around so Suneel can “let them know they are being watched” as Keith directed his followers to do with a federal judge.
Ginning up the fringe lunatic extremists that the dead-enders now count as “friends” on social media with unfounded allegations is dangerous. Those cult dead-enders could easily get an innocent person doing their job hurt badly.
Let’s play another round of “Spot the Fed”.
Fed?
Or Not Fed?
Like most every large group in government, the FBI is divided into two camps:
The larger group keeps secrets for the right reasons. The smaller group keeps secrets for secret reasons.
When small groups in mainstream news pick up the camera card story to proclaim: “This is about whether or not Raniere is guilty!” larger groups with common sense must ask louder than that: “Who would want to sabotage the FBI’s case against Raniere?”
If Tom ONeill (his book, CHAOS was published in 2019) and/or Ben Szemkus (he filmed his memories of NXIVM in 2018) are right and if FBI agent(s) cheated in the Raniere case: They might be fall guys for a small group somewhere.
Remember when “no one could touch Epstein because he worked for intelligence”?
Did “Intelligence” sabotage the Raniere case, too?
If so, all the good guys at the local FBI offices need prayers and support — and fall guys set up to fail need forgiveness and a witness protection program as soon as possible. Project Veritas might know of a safe refuge. Hoping to see offers of protection for all who want to say what they need to say.
I don’t believe in coincidences. Apparently, Frank does. I’m disappointed he would write such a long and detailed article featuring Ghana, and not tie-in Ronnie and his lovely lady. Clearly, Flatley’s trip to Ghana had something to do with Ronnie & Nancy.
Ronnie broke up with Nancy, and out of delicacy, I left it out. It hurt. Then after he stopped sending her money, he got a call from a man who said he was from Interpol. And he gave Ronnie the chance to pay a fee and not be arrested for his association with Nancy.
I almost forgot about Ronnie. Did he pay this latest round of extortion?
Since he sold his house and spent most of the proceeds on Nancy, he is limited to what he can send her each month. I intervened and told him not to pay any money and that I would speak to “Interpol”. I did. I recorded the conversation, and frankly, I called them scammers and criminals.
He did not pay the extortion and promised me he would not pay Nancy ever again.
Can you post the recording please Frank? Thanks! And that DOS LESSON. too, please.
DOS lesson coming up tonight I believe. Just experimenting with some 400-calorie recipes. On the recording, I believe I offer these guys who have stolen so much from Ronnie some profanities that might not make me appear in the best light.
Frank-
Do you think Nancy purchased a bigger, thatched roof hut, with said proceeds?
Thanks!
If we don’t get to hear the recording with Interpol, can we at least get an update on if Nancy was able to purchase a bigger thatched roof hut?
She got a new ice stand. I need to do an update on Ronnie.
Yes, please.
Questions I’m hoping will be addressed in the upcoming Ronnie & Nancy article.
Does Ronnie see the irony in Nancy’s hut being a better living environment than his lack of a house?
Did Nancy ditch her hut and escape with Flatley to the US? If yes, is Frank housing her? Has she met up with Ronnie? How is her mental state after what she’s been through?
Is Interpol off Ronnie’s back? Or did the potty language from Frank just piss them off?
Is Frank housing Ronnie?
Is Nancy into Ronnie? Or would she like to meet other nutjobs?
Ronnie has a room in an old age home and has a refrigerator with ice.
“She got a new ice stand.”
-Frank
….Without electricity and a freezer how’s she going to make ice?
She should have stuck with the larger hut and a pair of used Nike sneakers.
This poor girl — even after $50k from Ronnie — could not get her out of Ghana – and she needs another $1000 right away – could you help?
“This poor girl — she needs another $1000 right away – could you help”
-Frank
I’ll help out! I’m a benevolent man.
I’ll ask my wife for a ‘bump’ in my allowance.
United States of America v. Raniere
Defendant: Lauren Salzman, Nancy Salzman, AKA Perfect, Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, Clare Bronfman
Appellee: United States of America
Defendant / Appellant: Keith Raniere, AKA Vanguard
Case Number: 20-3789
Filed: November 4, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report
A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Date Filed: November 10, 2020 Document Text: Filing 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 11/10/2020 by CM/ECF.[2972204] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/10/2020 06:12 PM]
Date Filed: November 6, 2020 Document Text: Filing 10 ATTORNEY, Tanya Hajjar, [ # 9 ], in place of attorney David C. James, SUBSTITUTED.[2970180] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 09:55 PM]
Date Filed: November 6, 2020 Document Text: Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 11/06/2020 by CM/ECF. [2970092] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 05:34 PM]
Date Filed: November 6, 2020 Document Text: Filing 8 NON-ADMITTED ATTORNEY, Marc Agnifilo, Esq. for Appellant Keith Raniere, orally informed to apply for admission forthwith and submit Addendum A to Notice of Appearance, NOTIFIED.[2969529] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:55 AM]
Date Filed: November 4, 2020 Document Text: Filing 7 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[2969522] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:51 AM]
Date Filed: November 4, 2020 Document Text: Filing 6 NOTE: See lead case, 20-3520, containing complete set of docket entries.[2969519] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:48 AM]
Date Filed: November 4, 2020 Document Text: Filing 3 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Appellant Keith Raniere, district court receipt # ANYEDC-13633489, FILED.[2969512] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:45 AM]
Date Filed: November 4, 2020 Document Text: Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 10/30/2020, RECEIVED.[2969504] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:43 AM]
Date Filed: November 4, 2020 Document Text: Filing 1 NOTICE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Keith Raniere, FILED. [2969478] [20-3789] [Entered: 11/06/2020 11:26 AM]
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person – but I feel compelled to pose one tiny little question to all these “experts” who have concluded that the FBI and/or the prosecuting attorneys tampered with some of the evidence that was used to convince the jury that Keith Raniere committed three of the predicate acts that were part of the RICO charge:
WHAT PHOTO EVIDENCE DID YOU ACTUALLY EXAMINE – AND WHO PROVIDED THAT PHOTO EVIDENCE TO YOU?
More specifically, were you allowed to examine the original camera card, the original hard drive, etc. – or did you examine copies of those data storage devices (SPOILER ALERT: THEY WERE COPIES)?
Also more specifically, did you obtain the copies that you examined directly from the EDNY prosecutors or FBI agents who were involved in the case – or were these provided to you by agents of – or attorneys representing – Keith Raniere (SPOILER ALERT: THE MATERIALS THAT WERE EXAMINED BY ALL THESE EXPERTS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE EDNY PROSECUTORS OR THE FBI)?
Exactly. I mentioned this in a comment on this site long ago.
Joe
A theory on why the Ghana assignment @ the last hour ?
Anonymous 12:35
The FBI sends its agents all around the world.
It’s hardly surprising the agent in question was sent to Ghana
Here’s a an FBI Ghana story:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vofaj7lYGX4
Why Ghana? Why are you a moron Anonymous? 😉
Know who’s not a moron? NUTJOB. 3 minutes into your youtube link is where they talk about Flately & friends arresting Ronnie’s nemesis for romance fraud. I called it from the back row.
Hopefully, they rescued Nancy and brought her to the US. If Frank is going Keeffe on us and hiding her in his house, I’m raising an eyebrow.
NutJob
Smart.
Frank will let you know it’s me.
I agree.
Personally, I want to hear Camilla testify as to 1) if KR photographed her; 2) how old she was.
Case settled.
I think she would have to identify the photos and their dates. That probably would settle it.
But do I recall reading somewhere that KR acknowledged in a text or something that their relationship started when she was a minor? Or a recording? I mean, that’s best evidence.
I don’t remember details.
Im also curious to see the DOJ rebuttal.
Anon @8:32 pm
You are correct.
Keith texted that their relationship started when Camilla was a minor. And that he took first photos then.
There is a a wealth of evidence to corroborate that Keith is a child pornographer and sexual predator of minors.
Unless,
Clare Bronfman pays her off….
Suneel and the motley crew of fools will attempt to pay Camie off.
Guaranteed!
I think they believe Keith when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that girl, Miss Camila.”
Would the supporters of Keith pay Camila to lie? I doubt they would try because it is fraught with witness tampering.
My view is that he did have improper sexual relations with her. But I have some doubts about their evidence or at least the evidence handling.
They supporters say the government paid Camila to lie by tempting her with victim restitution money. She got about $500,000.
Personally, I do not think she was lying when she said Keith abused her when she was 15. However, again, I have my doubts about the evidence used at the trial.
.
If they can’t pay her off, will they knock her off?
If she lets them pay her off, would they eventually knock her off anyway?
The wrong kind of people have WAY too much control in the world.
I do not think the remaining followers of Raniere are violent in the slightest.
Would that be too easy? 🤷♂️
God bless you Joe O’Hara!
***
I miss your articles!
(sincerely)
***
Awe. Such a tender comment.
By such a cruel dipshit.
(Sincerely)
That was an elegant comment, Alanzo. I bet you wouldn’t fail to leave a comment just because it’s dangerous. But Nice Guy is fast on the draw, so be careful.
My favorite ALANZO quote:
—Why are you[NiceGuy] on this crusade against Alanzo?”
Yes, Alanzo refers to himself in the 3rd person like most crazy people do.
***
Aye, Alanzo, I’m a cruel, mean-spirited, and wicked man.
Now go eat a tub of Nutella you crazy, fat f*ck!
My favorite Alanzo quote is “put you best fuck forward.”
“Put you best fuck forward.”
That’s funny Frank!
Alanzo’s ex said,
“The worst fuck, was the one behind me – the guy [Alanzo]]was so fat his penis couldn’t reach me….
…So we used a Black Thetan
fill-in [redacted]
He filled me up !
Lying is the most fun your friend has without taking his clothes off.
Glorious Alanzo says Nice Guy is a dipshit……
ALANZO provided free labor to the Church of Scientology over the course of 8 years……
NiceGuy provided “free love” to a multitude of women(23)….
One wonders who’s the bigger dipshit?
Women were gravitating towards Nice Guy from all directions like a planetary orbit.
Alanzo said, “Nice Guy, the birds fuck the bees.’
23? Until you married at 44? You da man!!!
—23? Until you married at 44? You da man!!!
I saw what you did there NutzSack.
LOL! Good one!
I’ve been with the same woman for over 25 years….
Numberers are for ‘sex’ not sex activities.
Nailed it, Joe,
I’ve been saying this since it first came out
I read in prison notes that Raniere has asked Suneel to pick up evidence from his attorney to go over it when Suneel told him his thoughts about it wasn’t hard to change the dates on metadata.
This was long before Tully took over the case.
So who if anyone changed the dates?
Is this another Smoke and Mirrors by Raniere and followers to get attention before the 2nd circuit makes its decision?
The Little Boy Who Called Wolf is going to catch up with Raniere
It’s not the first time he has altered evidence in a court case
It’s not the first time Sunell has lied for his Master is it Mr. Edwards
We all know Raniere has a history of photos of his women, so why not the 15 y/o
He wrote about photos in emails and text messages to her dating back to when she was 15
The 15 y/o has already, under oath said he took photos of her and had sex with her when she was underage
Now we just need the NDNY to get off their ass and press the charges against him for child rape and child pron that the EDNY couldn’t because they didn’t happen in EDNY
Good questions, A.P.!
Way to raise doubt on the evidence.
Snore.
https://frankreport.com/author/suneel-chakravorty/
Why don’t you do your own due diligence and show some intellectual honesty for once.
Alanzo
Couple of points:
Booth said Exif data was hard to change; he didn’t say it was impossible to change.
‘Hard’ is a relative term: what’s hard for some is easy for others. A simple example – my 81-year-old mum is technophobic. She finds it really hard to answer a phone using Whatsapp, despite the many lessons my brother and I have given her.
Whether it’s ‘hard’ or simple to change exif data on a photo is in any case completely irrelevant. Kiper’s charge is that the FBI tampered with the metadata. THE FBI. Not much a stretch of the imagination to assume that however ‘hard’ it might be, there’s bound to be a level of expertize in that organization to digitally manipulate pretty much anything. Just get the right guy to do it! Hmmmm…In this case seems like whoever tampered with the files hadn’t a bloody clue what they were up to.
Second point: Flatley was posted off to Ghana…Timing’s a little fishy right? Presumably the decision to post him was not taken by just one individual, or if so, it must have been a senior person, and even then such decisions require others to tick boxes, right? So are we talking about a major conspiracy here involving the higher echelons of the FBI’s human resources department?? Oh yeah, and 9/11 was carried out by George Bush and a bunch of Martians, just ask QAnon.
Finally, fundamentally both Booth and Flatley were saying the same thing: IT IS POSSIBLE TO ALTER EXIF DATA – in the post-truth world we inhabit it’s possible to alter any digital data! For that reason, such evidence can never be conclusive and must always be corroborated by other evidence. In Camila’s case there are the love texts between herself and Raniere, and just to preempt the deadenders, they had been transferred to a Word document, and therefore could also have been tampered with. And then there is what Camila herself has said, though admittedly she was not under oath. And then there is the fact that Team Raniere did not object to the evidence. And then there is Raniere’s pedo track record and his pedo teachings… Point is, this is all corroborating evidence piling up, which taken collectively, provides a strong case.
At this point I mostly read this stuff for laughs.
So now the FBI is disappearing its own investigators!
These long, repetitive, grasping at straws articles about the (groan, not again…) Exif files are just so… desperate.
Exif files are the equivalent of a date penned on the back of an old fashioned Kodak photo. Is that date reliable? Well, yes, pretty much. Could it be faked? Well, yeah, it’s possible.
This is the kind of bullshit that Chakravorty and the FR claim “proves” the FBI planted evidence.
It’s so silly it’s laughable. Nobody believes this Q-Anon level foolishness. The intricacy of this conspiracy theory, the stupefying endless technical complexities and jargon, remind me of conspiracy theories at their comic best. It’s all colored yarn and maps and articles torn from old newspapers connecting dots that don’t exist, scribbled over with nonsense. It’s manic.
So I got a chuckle out of this article. But the joke’s getting stale.
The technical details are fascinating and why somewhat important, but really the case was made when whatever FBI agent accessed the contents of the drive and created a copy for dissemination for the trial before a forensic copy was made. Moment he did that, all the card evidence became pretty useless. Which the defense should have attacked but failed to.
There is still the hard drive which proves that Keith had pedo pics, they just can’t prove he personally took them. He can try to claim many different theories but ownership is sufficient, otherwise most pedo cases would fail with the “not mine” defense.
While the pedo pics were very useful leverage in all kinds of ways, he wasn’t actually convicted for being a pedo and the accumulation of charges is such that even if that portion was tossed completely, what the jury decided he was guilty of would remain intact.
Having said all that, while the hyperbole from these and others is eye rolling, it does warrant an investigation. But the FBI will do the investigation so not expecting much. After all this fails, what will be next is an attempt of an appeal for incompetent defense.
Looking forward to the rage of the pedo lovers when this rule 33 thing doesn’t go anywhere.