Camila Could Destroy Raniere’s PR With 1 Sentence; Tully Claims Scar a ‘Misnomer’

Camila by MK10ART.

Joseph Tully of California is Keith Raniere’s attorney. He represents Raniere in two of his four pending legal matters.

Tully represents Raniere in his challenge to his 2019 conviction. This is a two-fold attack. First, he represents him before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal of his conviction.

He bases the appeal on a series of alleged improper trial judge rulings.

Tully also represents Raniere before the US District Court on a Rule 33 motion. He bases his motion on allegations that the FBI tampered with evidence to convict him.

Keith Raniere talks to his followers.

Two courts cannot hear attacks on a conviction simultaneously. The appellate court has priority. The district court must stay the Rule 33 motion until the appellate court rules.

If the higher court reverses Raniere’s conviction, Raniere can have a new trial.  The DOJ must decide whether to retry him. If they choose not to, Raniere would be free.

The appellate court may also “split the baby” and decide that some of Raniere’s claims have merit, while others do not.

This could lead to some years being shaved off his 120-year sentence. Raniere is 62, so anything less than a drastic reduction does not mean much.

If Raniere gets his conviction overturned, the district judge will not hear the Rule 33 motion. If the appellate court affirms some or all of the conviction, the district court may hear the Rule 33 motion.

Complicating the matter is that Raniere filed a motion for the trial judge to disqualify himself. Raniere claims his trial judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis railroaded him because of bias.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

If the 2nd Circuit denies Raniere’s appeal, Judge Garaufis will decide the Rule 33 motion. He has several options. He can disqualify himself, and the court will assign a new judge.

If he chooses not to disqualify himself, he may hear the Rule 33 or dismiss it without hearing it. If the latter happens, Raniere can appeal the dismissal of Rule 33 to the 2nd Circuit.

If Garaufis disqualifies himself, the replacement judge also has the choice to hear or not hear the Rule 33 motion.

As for the appeal, Tully and the DOJ have filed their briefs, and a panel of three judges heard oral arguments. What remains is for the panel to make a decision.

There’s no timeframe for any decisions now.

Meanwhile, Raniere has taken to the media to get support for his Rule 33 FBI tampering motion.

Attorney Tully does not represent Raniere in a civil lawsuit, where he is a defendant against about 70 plaintiffs who claim he abused them. Ranniere is unrepresented in that case.

Tully does not represent Raniere in his civil suit against the Bureau of Prisons. Raniere is represented by Stacy Scheff or Arizona in that lawsuit.

Apropos of their attempt to get media, Tully and five others held a press conference on October 6. In that press conference, they introduced Alan Dershowitz as a member of the Raniere legal team.

Below is what Raniere’s lead attorney said about the FBI tampering.

Joseph Tully wants an evidentiary hearing to present his “shocking” evidence of tampering.

There is no need to fabricate evidence for a guilty man. The fact that they fabricated evidence here and to the degree they did, shocks the conscience – Tully.

By Joseph Tully

The level of government malfeasance uncovered here is extreme. Top forensic experts have documented multiple instances of evidence tampering, requiring the coordination of multiple actors to frame Keith Raniere with some of the most heinous charges in our judicial system. The government would not have needed to go to such lengths to create evidence if he were guilty. However, his innocence or guilt is irrelevant. This is about all our rights to due process and our right to receive a trial free of manufactured and altered evidence by bad government actors. The court must hear this evidence immediately and grant the appropriate relief.

I am further concerned about Mr. Raniere’s well-being in custody. It appears he has been retaliated against in prison based on our filings. First, he was kept in solitary confinement conditions in the special housing unit [SHU] for 97 days without cause and was not given timely hearings. Now, he is enduring more confinement in the special housing unit again, without cause—this time for over 60 days and counting. I call upon the warden of the facility where Mr. Raniere is housed, Warden Mark Qataris, to investigate Mr. Raniere’s conditions. I’m further concerned that Mr. Raniere may be transferred to another location where his safety may be threatened.

So right now, this is a post-conviction case. So this is after a jury trial. There is an appeal filed, and it was argued, and it is now waiting for the Second Circuit to file it. So there’s a trial court and then the appellate court. Right now, the case is with the appellate court. However, the tampering issues that we’re uncovering can only be addressed in the trial court.

. We’re basically waiting to hear from the Second Circuit and the District Court…

[Editor’s Note: Shaila Dewan with the New York Times asked, ‘I thought they also used the existence of a scar to date the photos.’Tully responded:]

There was some testimony regarding that. However, there is an absolute defense to that. The existence of a scar is a misnomer. The subject of these photos had an appendectomy, and when she leans over, you can see scar tissue bunch up. So it’s not the existence of a scar. It’s scar tissue bunching up in certain positions. In other positions, that scar tissue doesn’t bunch up, and it doesn’t show. So the existence of the scar was used in the trial. However, it went unrebutted, and there is clearly material to rebut it.

Commentary Begins here:

Tully believes the FBI and others may be guilty of perjury and tampering with evidence under USC 1519.

In the scar tissue “issue,” Tully takes an unusual position. There was no scar. Camila does not show marks of her appendectomy in certain poses. 

I have never seen the contraband photos. I doubt Tully has seen them. None of the forensic experts Raniere retained have seen them, as far as I know. They base their reports on metadata.

From written filings and testimony, we know there are 22 photos of Camila. Of these, most do not include her face.

Based on an FBI affidavit, two photos show her face. She is described as posing naked on Raniere’s loft bed at 8 Hale.

Photo of loft bed at 8 Hale.

She was 15 if no one altered the metadata, which dates the photos to Nov. 2 and 24, 2005. According to FBI Special Agent Michael Weniger, no scar tissue is visible in the photos.

According to Weniger, the vast majority are closeups of her genitals. In a closeup, the appendectomy scar tissue, or lack thereof, would not be within the range of the camera.

Lauren Salzman

No one who knew Camila, who testified at the trial, identified her photos. Only Weniger, who had never met her, identified the photos.

Her biological sister, Daniela, and her founding sister of DOS, Lauren Salzman, testified.  They testified Raniere used a camera to photograph them during the same time in 2005. 

The prosecution did not ask Daniela – who testified she knew what the scar looked like – or Lauren, who posed nude with Camila – to identify Camilla’s photos.

The DOJ did not even ask them to identify their own nude photos.

Camila did not testify at trial. She spoke at Raniere’s sentencing. She did say he took photos of her when she was 15. She did not say the photos used at trial were photos Raniere took when she was 15.

This may have been an oversight.

The DOJ knew Raniere was challenging the authenticity of the photos. She could have virtually put this to bed in 2020 by declaring the photos used at trial were authentic.

She has yet to do so. 

Talk about media strategy. If she did it now, this would implode the PR efforts of Raniere and company.

If Camila declared under oath that Raniere took the photos used at his trial in November 2005, the media would pounce on it.

 The FBI would be spared.  Almost any lingering doubt about their integrity would be extinguished.

The FBI’s integrity is being challenged, if not extinguished, in many places. This would be a strategic move. Easy to pull off. 

It would mute Dershowitz, Tully, and Kiper. It might even mute the intrepid Suneel Chakravorty, Raniere’s power of attorney.

Suneel top right. Raniere top left.

It would not necessarily kill the Rule 33. There is still the question of how the photos got to a curiously culled hard drive.

The FBI found the camera under the desk and hard drive on a shelf in Raniere’s library.

At some point, Camila would be subject to cross examination, but it would smash the PR to pieces. 

And shut everyone up on the PR end.

If Camila filed an affidavit that those photos were real. That they were of her and taken by Raniere in 2005, this show is all but closed.

It’s curtains, boys.

All it would take is one sentence: “Keith Raniere took the 22 photos of me used at trial in 2005 when I was 15.”

Scar tissue would not mean a damn thing.

All the press conferences in all the world, with all the biggest names in law and forensics in attendance, would not mean a damn thing.

I wonder why they don’t do it.

Camila by MK10ART.


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. To leave a name, click on the email icon)

    • Watch part 2 of the Vow!

      Obviously the plaintiffs watched it and realized Nancy is a good person who was duped.

      What’s your problem?!? I guess you didn’t get enough blood. Anti-cultist asshole!

  • Nicki Clyne is so lame. Tweeting that she never watched The Vow season one? Until recently? Ohkkkay. Sounds belivable. Lol

    How then did Nick Clynei comment previously on everything from The Vow’s production values, actual content, the score, and every other aspect of the show?

    Without ever watching The Vow?

    Nicki never watched The Vow but had such intense feelings and. Strong opinions that she posted as an authority on the show very frequently? That’s what Nicki expects people to believe?

    Nicki who us obsessed with her self-image? Didn’t watch for herself last season? Or to see how Keith was portrayed? Nah. Not. A. Chance.

    Nicki scours the internet for even an off hand comment that relates to Keith or ESP/Nxivm – good or negative – like it’s Nicki Clyne’s job. Maybe it IS her job?

    But Nucki never watched The Vow? Until really recently? Ha ha come on now. Lol. Okay. Nicki. Okay.

    What about Mark Elliott? Did he ever watch Seduced? Or is Marc just suing them sight unseen?


    These dead -enders are such clowns and so deceitful.

    How anyone can take them seriously or believe a single thing they say or tweet is beyond comprehension

    • Nicki has an excellent imagination and was able to anticipate every aspect of ‘The Vow’ without ever seeing it. This comes when you accept and internalize the teachings of NXIVM and you evolve into a better, higher being as a result. Anyone who has not joined NXIVM has only themselves to blame for not having evolved personally like Nicki, who is now intellectually superior to most people because she followed Raniere’s teachings and is now a winner and shining example in the world and an outstanding leader and guide.

      • Oh yeah, and Nicki has also claimed she HAS watched it and prefers it to Starz, though of course they are both only “shows” and not “documentaries”!!! Like Nicki can tell the difference lol

  • We should all celebrate Raniere for this tremendous sacrifice he is making — sending himself to prison for being “at cause” for all of the acts he has committed. In his prison state, he can joyously live out his most upheld principles of “love is pain”, “inner deficiency”, and “attachment” for the rest of his life. By submitting voluntarily to abstinence from sexual relations, he shows us mere mortals that he is no longer attached to one of the strongest human bonds the vast majority of us seek: intimate companionship. With his voluntary intake of prison food, he shows us that he is no longer attached to pizza with hot sauce and various forms of cake, and that he also lacks any inner deficiency with respect to the joyous consumption of food as he now only eats for mere survival. And he does this for all of us, because in what those who are so below his lofty standard would call pain, which he has paradoxically turned into joy for himself, he shows how much he loves us all by exemplifying the principles he once enforced upon others.

    • Exactly. They did the exact opposite: they kept her as far away as possible from the courthouse: in Mexico to be precise. For obvious reasons. The defense knew Camilla’s testimony would have been devastating for Raniere.

      • It might have confused the jury too. Camila was an unindicted coconspirator who participated in the confinement of her sister, Daniela, in the sex trafficking act with Nicole, and in the deception of the first Line DOS Masters.

        The DOJ admitted this in court at the trial and at pretrial hearings.

        Camila played the dual role of victim and perpetrator. So though she was a victim of Raniere, the prosecution also called her a co-conspirator. It was probably best for both sides not to have her at the trial.

        • That may be true. But the DEFENSE chose NOT to subpeona Camilla.

          If the big issue was a simple quesion, the defense could have called Camilla to the stand and asked that one simple question.

          “Camilla are these photos of you that Keith Raniere took when you were 15 years okd?”

          Thank you. No more questions.

          The end.

          The defense DID NOT.

        • Nah. Juries aren’t stupid. The defense didn’t want to call Cami because they knew everything she would say was true.

          A jury would be far more sympathetic to a groomed thirteen year old as a victim than a perpetrator.

          Besides, she was no longer loyal to him due to a coercive cult influence because someone far greater in power had control over him, and she no longer had to be afraid.

          In playing devil’s advocate in the very unlikely event she would ever defend Raniere as a defense witness, any form of Cami testimony would look bad for Raniere because she couldn’t perjure herself on the stand and face cross examination for him nor be indicted as a co-conspirator and suffer the consequences. She would always stuck between a rock and a hard place as a witness for the defense.

        • You have to see her behavior in the context of the ordeal she went through: abused as a kid by Raniere, raped as adult by Raniere, never went to school, no friends, psychologically destroyed by Raniere from her early teens to early adulthood. I think the jury would see that and would have weighed it appropriately against her actions as unindicted “coconspirator”.
          It’s not a 50-50 balance.

          • I agree. However, no one knew in advance how the jury would take Camila. Based on what we know now, she would have won the sympathy of the jury. But during pretrial the DOJ could not be confident of that. So the DOJ decided not to call her. They had the power to bring her in to confront Raniere.

      • Or maybe the civil suit complaint explanation of why she was not called: page 11 of 217, paragraph 39.
        The whole complaint is a good read.

    • The defense had a right under the 6th amendment to confront the witness testifying against the defendant! Camilla? She never testified or latex foundation to photos that were harmful!

  • —It would not necessarily kill the Rule 33. There is still the question of how the photos got to a curiously culled hard drive.

    Actually it’s not curious at all.

    Raniere put all the photos in a separate hard drive partition to partially hide the photos. So a small portion of the hard drive was not culled because the partition was not registered with the operating system. In short there was no registry marker(registry key).

    {Once again in layman terms the OS didn’t know about the partition.}

    Frank try asking Suneel or his IT experts about what I just stated.

    I gotta get back to picking up shit and Suneel & company will feed you bullshit. Just remember you don’t have to eat it(buy into it.)

      • Suneel isn’t touching this topic with a ten foot pole or a tractor beam.

        The jig is up.

        Suneel’s public defense of Raniere hinges on the public not understanding the technology involved, whatsoever.

    • Simple explanation to basis of question:

      If a LAYPERSON only deletes a disk partition (A) then disk partition (B) would still be present.

      Extremely Important:
      The LAYPERSON would see the partitions labeled as,
      hard drives A and B.
      “Drive A”, “Drive B”

      The words “disk partition” would not appear.

      A LAYPERSON wouldn’t understand this fact. I worked in IT and no layperson ever understood this simple nomenclature.

      Please give a response. I’m simply trying to understand your position on the subject.

      Thank you!

      Keep in mind it was an XP operating system not a Mac.

  • Giving someone 40 years for taking some photos of a 15 year old girl, CRAZY! Someone, who has no previous record! Someone who has not been violent with a woman or a man!
    Raniere is sick and narcissistic; he’s not a crazed psych-killer but the sentence he got is worse than murderer’s get. 3-5 years would have been more suitable on this charge.
    King Garaufis had his way in protecting women

    • Ruining a young girl’s life and destroying her mental health is not a small thing.

      Child pornography must be treated as a very serious crime.

      A) because it is very serious crime

      B) because it is a deterrent against more wide spread sexual exploitation of children.

      Do you want child pornography on a massive scale because it’s treated lightly?

      What if it were a child you cared deeply for? What if it were your own child?

      Children are among the most vulnerable members of a society. That is why civilized societies have chosen to protect them from predators.

      Just because a criminal has no previous record they should get a mulligan? A pass? A freebie crime?

      Maybe they just hadn’t bern caught yet?

      Most criminals commit a multitude of crimes before they are caught and successfully prosecuted.

    • Engaging in sexual contact with minor is far worse than being ‘violent’ . His whole non-violence schtick means nothing. He ruined people without ever having to draw blood.

      • Good point.
        And let’s not pretend his non-violent schtick was real. Fuck, he told people he’d had others killed for his beliefs. He was infatuated with sending innocent people to prison. He was/is NOT non-violent, and he was/is a danger to anyone he came in contact with.

      • Absolutely raping a 15-year-old is violent.

        Takibg really exploitative sexual photos of a minor is violent.

        Losing virginity can be painful and bloody for a female. But at least if the young female is with a peer sharing the experience and someone who cares about the girl deeply (instead of a person who’s exploiting and taking advantage and abusing them) it can still be a wonderful and positive experience
        And not a trauma.

        Camilla had no one to talk to about this tormenting experience.of being preyed upon and losing her virginity with a 45-year-old man who’s also taking sexually explicit child pornography of her. And it’s all a big secret.

        Keith was in a position of powerful leadership and was seen as a mentor, a savior, almost Godlike throughout the community. There’s the additional mental strain of having to keep a dirty secret at that age and the fact that Keith was involved with her sisters and every aspect of her family life.

        Frrom Camilla’s mom and her dad to older sisters and her brother. Camilla had no friends or family with whom to share her burden. Even her pregnancy termination. Camilla was alone for her abortion except for Pam. That’s fucked up.

        It’s extremely mentally violent having to compartmentalize and deal with the shame and the secrecy that Keith created in this child’s life.

  • Off topic. I have been listening to Mark Vicente’s new podcast. After seeing him on The Vow and now hearing him on the podcast. I am very confused by him.
    It appears that he was some sort of cult prior to joining Nxim. And then he was sucked in to NXIM for years. How did he not see any signs? Outside of Nancy he was the closest confidant of KR. I understand the brainwashing done in many of the young people joining the organization (women and men in their early 20s). But here is a guy that experienced some creepy cult stuff before Nxim. He was a little bit older. How did he not see it? He should have run for the hills right away.

  • Losers gonna lose. KR will continue to take the Big L and he’ll continue to enjoy all the comforts of prison.

    • Frank you say the truth is always fair
      What if, the truth is Keith Rainier is guilty of all these crimes and since his conviction his followers have spent countless hours & countless amounts of money of Ms. Bronfman’s money putting together a package that will not stand up in court?
      It has been stated more than once that nothing other than freedom for Raniere will be enough to satisfy his followers.
      We all know Raniere will ne er admit to his crimes. Nor will his loyalists.
      With the Bronfman legal defense fund behind Raniere, if he loses his appeal and motions set in place, what options are left for this Narcissistic guy?

    • That’s right. Full board, including infirmary, paramedics and 24/7 protection by bodyguards called correctional officers. There are even meditation rooms called Special Housing Units (SHU). Somehow, this makes Raniere the winner he always wanted to be. But we are not intelligent enough, like the smartest man in the world, to judge. But why does he want to leave there? Simply incomprehensible.

  • Ok, so if the above is true, then Lauren is an accomplice to child pornography. Lauren received no jail time and sympathy from the judge.

    Allison, who was never involved in any child pornography and did not lock a girl in a room for two years, got three years.


      • It’s because to Kevin everything is some sort of competition who is worse than another ESP person. Who is more at fault? If this person is at fault then they should be forgiven because another person is also at fault in a different way. None of it is logical or tracks or has connecting dots. It’s the argument of a 5-year-old. A maladjusted 5-year-old. A very vindictive and obsessed with Sarah Edmondson 5-year-old. And Lauren. And Mark Vicente. Pretty much anybody who helped put their beloved leader Keith in sex offender prison where he belongs

      • Huh??? WTF are you saying? Nobody ever said Lauren did that. If that’s your point, do you mind explaining how you’re not a liar?

    • Kevin(Thomas Sekera),

      You need to read up on:
      1. RICO Law

      If you don’t like the laws, write your congressman.

      Allison Mack helped blackmail, (via the collection of collateral) women into having sex with Kieth Rainere. Blackmail is a state and federal crime.

      The DOJ has an incredible amount of discretion in picking and choosing whom they prosecute.


      Since sending a voluminous amount of letters to Allison, has she written back to you?
      If yes, what pen name are you using so I can alert her?

      • The District Attorney’s office called. He would like to see you about how you knew the kind of bushes Sekara was hiding in, and what he was doing if you weren’t there.

          • Frank-

            You pervy-mervy! I was referring to the Rose of Sharon…..

            ….While, we’re on the subject – the curtains don’t match the carpet.

          • Sometimes you have asked yourself, “Am I gay? Am I straight?” And one day you may finally realize you’re just a pervert.

    • Raniere also received no time for child pornography. He was not indicted for child pornography. He was convicted on all seven charges of the indictment, none of which were for child porn.

      Do try to keep up with the facts.

      Raniere’s 7 counts include: racketeering and racketeering conspiracy; sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy; forced labor conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy. 

      Where does possession of child porn enter into the case? Only peripherally.
      The racketeering offense included predicate acts of extortion, identity theft, and production and possession of child pornography.

      The prosecution needed to prove any two of those 3 predicate acts. The jury convicted on all 3.

      The Camila nude photos, which is being made so much of around here, it utterly irrelevant to Raniere’s appeal. It turned out to be irrelevant in his trial too.

      You can bet the appellate judges know that well. That’s why his appeal stands no chance.

      As for Mack, she’s guilty of racketeering and conspiracy. Admitted her guilt. That’s why she’s serving 3 years in prison.

    • There is no evidence nor testimony that Lauren was present when photos were taken of Camila at 15 yo.
      This is a comment by Frank only, and probably refers to later photographs taken of all the 1st line slaves. Camila was in the group.

    • I think Frank was referring to later photos when whole 1st line slaves were photographed for Keith. Camila and Lauren included. Not when Camila was 15. Correct, Frank?

      • That is correct. The 8 first-line masters took group nude photos for Raniere on a regular basis from 2015-2017. [Lauren joined DOS in 2017] Camila was in her mid-20s, and Lauren was around 40.

        Raniere was convicted of taking nude photos of Camila when she was 15 in 2005. The DOJ presented evidence that Raniere also on a different day took photos of Lauren in 2005. Lauren was in her 20s then.

  • Oh what’ll that asshole think of next?

    It was planted. It was doctored. It was actually her sister Dani in the photos. There were procedural errors. The camera was too far. The camera was too close. Now, it’s that she’s just leaning over? Man things are getting desperate over there.

          • “I disagree. He looks like a musician.”

            Which musician are you referring to:

            1. Pete Townshend of The Who, “I paid for kiddie porn for a book I was writing”

            2. John Phillips of the Mamas & Papas
            “I banged my daughter for 10 years.”

  • Suneel Chakravorty
    Reply to

    The charged conduct was a single incident of oral sex on 5/31/16 where Camila (26) performed oral sex on Nicole (29). 40-yr sentence. Amazing the specifics that can be hidden by headlines.

    Read more, w links to transcripts:

    Below is from gov’s closing:
    6:47 pm. · 18. Oct. 2022
    ·Twitter Web App




    Suneel Chakravorty

    A ‘Sex Trafficking’ Charge With No Sex Trafficking
    Coercion is the final element required for sex trafficking. Coercion requires intent and the threat of “serious harm,” meaning that any reasonable person of a similar background in a similar circumstance would comply with the act to avoid the harm. The prosecution argued that since Nicole was in DOS and had given collateral, that there was coercion and she could not consent.

    Read More

    AUSA Kevin Trowel called the assertion of FBI tampering, “frivolous.” A frivolous claim is one that has no arguable legal or factual basis. Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether it is ultimately proven true or untrue, the Rule 33 motion is not frivolous.

    Read More

    FBI Photo Log Shows ‘Crime Scene’ Was Staged
    The way FBI agents collected and photographed the evidence seized from 8 Hale Drive suggests the actual purpose of the raid was to obtain the camera and the hard drive that contained the alleged child porn taken in 2005, not for the purposes of searching for DOS collateral and other evidence relating to the alleged sex trafficking offense, as stated by the search warrant.

    Read More

    How to Debunk the FBI Tampering
    Three computer forensics experts concluded that digital evidence was manipulated in the Raniere case. They did not have access to a forensic copy of the hard drive or the camera card… One might object, saying how were they able to arrive at such definitive conclusions without access to the original devices, or forensic copies of the devices?

    Read More

    The Timeline of the Prosecution of Allison Mack
    Today is Allison Mack’s first birthday in prison. She is 40. I believe she is innocent of the charges she pleaded guilty to. In upcoming posts, we will examine those charges. In this post, we recap the timeline of her prosecution.

    Read More

    The Vanishing Jury Trial
    Popular legal TV shows and movies paint the picture that we all get our day in court. We have the right to an impartial jury of our peers, who must be unanimous to convict. Yet at the federal level, jury trials are going extinct. Only 2% of federal cases go to trial. The rest take plea deals.

    Read More

    What Were the Charges in US v. Raniere?
    On June 19, 2019, Keith Raniere was found guilty of all seven counts he was tried for. The jury’s verdict sheet lists all the counts. Below are the counts… [and] the sentence the judge imposed for each count:

    Read More

    Active Case of Government Corruption
    The case of US v. Raniere is now an active case of government corruption. The media has ignored or downplayed the scientific evidence of government malfeasance. This evidence was publicly filed on April 27, 2022, in the form of three computer forensic experts’ affidavits. Additionally, the media is furthering the salacious government narrative and publishing puff pieces.

    Read More

    • Why do dead Enders think the fact that it’s a single act of sex and it’s oral sex and it’s between two women makes it any less of a violation? Or a crime? Ask a lot of dudes how they would feel if they were blackmailed into a Anonymous man giving them a BJ. Rape is rape. This dude doesn’t get to decide what constitutes rape or sex trafficking just because it’s an act he’s seen in a p**** movie doesn’t make it okay for the woman who is sex trafficked.


    NXIVM Leader Keith Raniere Had a Son 7 Months Before His Arrest
    OCT. 18 2022, PUBLISHED 11:36 A.M. ET

    If you’ve been watching The Vow or reading about NXIVM, you know all about the accusations about the treatment of children within the organization. But does NXIVM leader Keith Raniere have children himself?

    According to the Daily Mail, Raniere — who is serving a 120-year prison sentence after being convicted in 2019 of racketeering, sex trafficking, and other offenses — has at least two children. And that info comes straight from court documents Raniere and his legal team filed after his 2018 arrest.

    What do we know about Keith Raniere’s children?

    [ … ]


    The Childhood of NXIVM Cult Leader Keith Raniere Was a Lonely Existence
    Jennifer Tisdale – Author
    OCT. 17 2022, PUBLISHED 8:53 P.M. ET

    According to former FBI agent Joe Navarro, who has studied cult leaders extensively, they have a few key traits in common. First and foremost, they are “pathologically narcissistic.” And with that diagnosis comes an irrational belief that they’re special and because of that, should be admired. This, in turn, leads to an expectation of unquestioning loyalty from others as well as an inability to receive criticism.

    This sounds a lot like Keith Raniere, who founded and led the NXIVM sex cult. He’s currently serving a 120-year prison sentence in Tucson, Ariz. after being found guilty of sex trafficking, child pornography, and racketeering, to name a few. How did Raniere become this manipulative person who seems to enjoy the suffering of others? We’re looking to Keith Raniere’s childhood for answers — or at the very least, some understanding.

    [ … ]

  • SC

    NXIVM’s Nancy Salzman Still Believes ‘17,000 People Got Good Results’—Where She Is Now

    by SOPHIE HANSON OCT 17, 2022 AT 4:30 PM EDT

    In October 2021, Keith Raniere was sentenced to 120 years in prison for his role in leading NXIVM (pronounced Nex-ee-um), the cultlike group and multi-level marketing scheme in which female “slaves” were branded with his initials and coerced into having sex with him. Nancy Salzman was the co-founder and president of the group, devising its Executive Success Programs (ESPs) as it masqueraded as a self-help organization. Raniere received the brunt of the punishment and as HBO’s riveting documentary series The Vow returns for The Vow: Part II many are wondering where Nancy Salzman is now.

    [ … ]

  • CityWatch

    Keith Raniere: FBI Evidence Tampering, Trial Oddities Confirmed By Arizona Lawyer
    MARC ANG 17 OCTOBER 2022

    GREG STOLTZ, ESQ INTERVIEW – When I first broke the news of the FBI tampering of evidence to slap on “child pornography” charges on NXIVM “cult” leader Keith Raniere, no one was reporting on this.

    But after a press conference and my article, soon Daily Wire and other conservative outlets picked up this important story about tampering. Keith’s Arizona-based lawyer Greg Stoltz reached out to me to give further detail on his experience. My interview with Stoltz in its entirety can be found here.

    Our discussion transitioned over to important specific findings in the case. Stoltz, as the assigned Arizona lawyer, has a unique perspective on the Raniere case, having never heard of NXIVM before May 2022.

    [ … ]

  • Just to clarify Frank – the Appeals Court cannot rule on the FBI tampering evidence? Only the District Court can rule on that as it’s part of the Rule 33 motion?

      • Thanks Frank. Seems unlikely Garaufis will recuse himself so Camila might then be called to give evidence under oath.

        • Joseph Tully looks a Jewish leprechaun…..

          …..And if you want the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow…..

          …..He’ll loan it to you for 90% interest.

          • Well, it is true that lookism may work against people like him and me.

            But not Nice Guy. He has a prepossessing appearance. He has dark hair and thick, bushy eyebrows. He talks in a loud, blustery manner. He gives the impression of being violent. He was wearing a light gray suit and a gray hat when I saw him this morning.

          • Frank,

            Typical! I figured Tully was more of a beige man than a gray man.

            Then again beige has hints of gray.

          • His gun was on his hip. A Webley-Forsby automatic shot. They don’t make ’em anymore. Hadn’t been fired. His overcoat was buttoned.

          • Why only a modest 90 percent? In the past, people were confronted with completely different interest rates and manipulated settlements. People are becoming more and more modest in their greed; they should take an example from earlier times.

            Annotation about: Edward I (17/18 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), was King o England from 1272 to 1307.

            [ … ]

            On a smaller scale, the wardrobe account submitted by John de Droxford for the twenty-fifth year of Edward’s reign [1297] records the receipt of a loan of £300 sterling from Albisso Fifanti and Jannoro de Mikele, merchants of Florence, secured against a pledge of royal jewels. According to the more detailed account in the wardrobe book, the king actually paid £34 5s 8d sterling ‘To Albisso de Fifanti, merchant of Lombardy, for a loan of 930 livres parisis that he made to the king from the feast of St Michael until the feast of All Saints in the present year [29 September to 1 November]’. This case serves to illustrate the mathematical abilities of the merchants and Exchequer clerks, even using roman numerals. The exchange rate used by the Exchequer at that time was £1 sterling to 3 livres 10s parisis. The 930 livres parisis converts to £265 14s 3½d sterling, and this figure, when added to the £34 5s 8½d sterling paid for the use of the money, exactly equals the £300 sterling of the pipe roll account. It should also be noted that the annualised rate of interest charged by Fifanti, as calculated using the method described above, is equivalent to 145.3%, telling evidence of the dire situation in which Edward found himself. Similar tricks were used when repaying the loan to the king made by Bonasius Bonante, to be discussed at length shortly.

            [ … ]

  • The Free Raniere Club finds it suspicious that Camila never testified under oath that the pictures introduced in evidence were pictures of her.

    They find everything “suspicious”.

    The FR seconds them on both points. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and point out that the FR is in league with them. The FR is flailing desperately trying to get Raniere’s conviction vacated.

    For chrissake Camila testified before the trial judge in open court that Raniere took naked pictures of her when she was 15. When they were shown at trial even the defense never challenged that they were pictures of 15 year old Camila. Nor did the defense challenge the fact that they were pictures were found in Raniere’s backups.

    The Free Raniere Club keeps making demands. Now they demand that Raniere victim Camila state under oath that the pictures of her presented at his trial are pictures of her at age 15. Anything short of that will not meet their demands.

    Well I got news for you: Raniere’s supporters don’t get to make demands. They’re nobodies. They don’t get to demand resignations at DOJ. They don’t get to demand that a Federal Judge disqualify himself. They don’t get to demand an official inquiry into their absurd allegations. They don’t get to demand access to their cult leader.

    Camila is no longer under Raniere’s influence. So they can fuck right off with their demands that she do anything.

    But this would clear things up, the FR insists. Just accede to the dead-ender’s demand and all will be resolved.

    No it won’t. If Camila does all this, swears under oath to Raniere’s scripted message, neither Chakravorty nor Clyne nor Tully nor the FR will say “okay, my bad, that settles it”.

    It would settle nothing: “It would not necessarily kill the Rule 33”

    They’d all argue on. And on and on. So why this futile idiotic demand?

    “ it would smash the PR to pieces”

    What PR? Nobody other than the FR is covering this nonsense. Not even purchasing Dershowitz onto their team caused a ripple in the media. No media coverage, no PR. It was a complete bust.

    “And shut everyone up on the PR end”

    Since the PR end is pretty much just Clyne’s Twitter account and the FR, and neither of them is ever going to shut up about this foolishness, I’d say nah.

    The FR and the dead-enders are living in a dream world.

    Raniere was convicted on a mountain of evidence by unanimous jury verdict. His conviction will not be vacated. He’s in prison for the rest of his life where he belongs. He’s not there because of some bizarre government conspiracy.

    This article begins with a long list of “Ifs”. If Judge Garaufis disqualified himself. That one and all the other “ifs” ain’t gonna happen. I can tell you what will happen. The courts will give the Rule 33 and motion for appeal all the consideration they’re due and dismiss both of them. Raniere will remain in prison filing lawsuits and motions until Bronfman gets tired of him. Chakravorty and Clyne and the FR will continue banging their pots and pans.

    And I’ll keep laughing at this comedy…

    • I agree with AS 100%. I think FR took the wrong turn when teaming up with Suneel, Clyne etc. To the extend filing an affidavit in defense of Raniere. Incredible. Yes, obviously there should be no cheating by the government. But there is no solid proof presented yet that there was any cheating. At best the FBI didn’t follow protocol 100%. Not good, but not to a degree that would be of any concern as of the validity of his conviction.

      • FBI should not cheat. That is where Suneel and Nicki and I converge. We disagree on the content of the character of Keith Raniere.

        As for me, I have no pony in this. I have no desire to free Raniere, so he can go after me again and possibly hurt other women and girls. On the other hand, I know much more about the evidence than Aristotle
        Sausage or you.

        Perhaps not one thing is dispositive, but the weight of all the evidence makes me suspicious. And to be clear, I am not saying the FBI cheated. I am saying an evidentiary hearing is warranted.

        I have been asked if the FBI cheated, and I have answered I do not know. But if you put a gun to my head, and told me if I answer right, I can live, I think I would answer yes.

    • Hi Suneel!

      Two things,

      1.Are you still uglier than a dead toad or have you availed yourself to pulling a paper-bag over your head?

      2. Do you consider yourself Kieth’s Igor? You’re kind of a stooge like Frankenstein‘s Igor, plus you’re incredible loyal—to the point you don’t realize your loser ass is being played.

      People say you’re uglier than Igor, but more loyal than him to your credit.

      Please let me know how feel about the comparison. I don’t want to offend.

      Have a wonderful evening!

    • Alanzo-

      “I wonder why they don’t do it.”


      It’s called procedural law. The courts must follow the law, not Alanozo’s fleeting fancies and wishes.

      Let me know when you post your next crummy video. I promise to watch it.

      • Plus the FBI/DOJ are holding their cards close to their chest, waiting to play their hand.

        The DOJ is under no obvious to do anything.

        “Let’s see how it plays out in court first.”

        • Yeah. But they could blow this up – kill the enthusiasm to support Raniere and make press conferences like the one they had with Dershowitz non starters. It is so simple to end this but they do not do it. Why?

          • Frank. Lol
            Come on.
            It’s a handful.of people on Twitter and paid lawyers and pundits

          • The press conference was a non-starter. So no need to make it one.

            “It’s so simple to end this” Let’s stop and think about this for a sec. You want Camila to testify under oath that the pictures of her that were presented at trial were in fact her. Which is impossible for her to do since she wasn’t AT the trial.

          • So “why don’t they do it?” Let me offer some possibilities:

            1. They have better shit to do with their day.
            2. Perhaps Camila doesn’t want to be bothered yet again to make public a humiliating experience that will be splashed all over US and Mexican media.
            3. The DOJ is pretty busy these days with one Donald J. Trump. How many laws can one guy break, that’d keep me busy!
            4. Perhaps they just don’t give AF about Vanguards, Prefects, and men dancing outside of prisons to the delight of other men anymore.

  • You don’t think that the authorities showed Camilla the pictures and asked her to identify them as herself at 15? For verification?

    And Camilla already said that those are photos Keith took of her when she was 15. In court. Publicly.

    Eloquently, Camilla said that sexual exploitation from a child predator is something that she could never forget. Sealed into her brain.

    With which probably any 15-year-old virgin who came from the kind of background Camilla did would agree. “The virgin Camilla” as Keith lived to refer to her – was very inexperienced.

    Girls don’t just forget at that tender age when they have virtually no experience that some old man is taking pictures of them in extremely explicit, revealing and humiliating poses.

    That would be highly traumatizing and a very new and invasive experience and that is not a crime a young girl would misremember. Also, medical records back up that Keith was sexually exploiting Camilla because he is listed as her only sexual partner and the origin date is at 15 years old.

    The texts from Keith verify 15 years old as the date he started sexually abusing Camilla.

    There is no way the prosecution would have gone forth with that charge of pornography of a child without extensive cross-referencing and finding corroborating evidence.

    That would include multiple statements and questioning of Camilla. Many people who were vetted and interviewed for the trial did not end up testifying (an example would be India).

    Just because Camilla did not testify in that trial really has no bearing on how much corroborating evidence and testimony and interviews were done to verify Camilla’s truth.

    There are multiple reasons prosecutors decide not to bring forth a witness and sometimes it’s not to further traumatize a victim.

    Especially when the human was victimized as a minor child.

    There could be other reasons Camilla wasn’t brought to testify.

    But you can flip around what you said. The defense absolutely had the opportunity to subpoena Camilla and force her to testify or make a statement and they chose not to.

    And there’s only one reason they would have done that. Because the defense knew those photos were of Camilla. They knew Keith took them. And they knew Camilla was 15 in the porn photos.

    And the defense knew that if Camilla testified Keith was sunk right then and there.

    So that was a tactical decision the defense made and are now trying to play it as some kind of thing that was nefariously done to them as opposed to a decision they actively participated in.

    Nobody called Camila, nobody subpoenaed her and that’s the way the case went. It’s not always for nefarious reasons or a conspiracy.

  • They’ll just say Cami is lying. The deadenders will never submit until their criminal cult leader is free. Raniere did it and because this is true, it means he’s just a liar trying to use any means to get himself off.

    The prosecution produced objective, tangible evidence that should’ve been rebutted in court. Raniere didn’t do so because 1) he knows he’s guilty 2) he’s either an idiot or 3) he wanted to take his chances on such appeals and other legal nonsense in trying to draw out such doubts after a conviction he knew as coming outside the rigors of evidence necessary within a court proceeding. After all, it’s not his money that is being wasted.

  • Frank states the following: “In a closeup, the appendectomy scar tissue, or lack thereof, would not be within the range of the camera”. I doubt if that is true.

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