By Bangkok
I hate to burst your bubble, but Keith’s Rule 33 motion still has legs.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis will deny it, of course, but the appellate court – the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – will ultimately decide it.
Many naive people believe the suggestion of ‘FBI collusion’ is farfetched.
Let’s examine the DETAILS here…
The original FBI computer expert, Stephen Flatley, who analyzed Raniere’s digital evidence, had testified in another, 2016, case that EXIF data is mostly unreliable for dating files, including digital photographs, and that altering EXIF data is easy.
He swore that under oath. That’s part of the record.
In USA v Hirst, the defense planned to show that metadata on files proved their client was innocent. The prosecution called FBI Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley who testified, over defense objection, that the FBI does not rely on metadata, such as EXIF date, to determine a document’s date, because metadata is easy to manipulate.
This was different from what FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified in USA v Raniere in 2019 — that EXIF data [which is metadata] is hard to change and very reliable.
However, the EDNY did not like Flatley’s previous testimony —- because they needed to make the jury believe that EXIF data (proving Cami was 15) is totally reliable and could not have been altered easily.
Therefore, four weeks into Raniere’s trial, this same FBI computer expert Flatley (who said EXIF data is unreliable) was suddenly removed from the case and sent to Ghana, Africa, making him unavailable to testify at Raniere’s trial.
Then, lo and behold…
The FBI assigned a new examiner (FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth) to analyze Raniere’s digital evidence. And, lo and behold, Mr. Booth then CONTRADICTED the previous FBI examiner Flately, saying that EXIF data is extremely reliable and that it was DIFFICULT for anybody to alter EXIF data.
In other words, Mr. Booth backed up the EDNY’s desired narrative by contradicting the previous FBI agent’s testimony.
Lacking an actual photo, FR uses this image for FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth. When he told the jury in USA v Raniere that EXIF data is hard to alter, his nose grew several inches.
When you look at this alteration of FBI testimony to fit the FALSE narrative of the EDNY (since we now know that even a 12 year old can download free software to alter EXIF data in seconds) —- it shows the FBI was colluding with EDNY prosecutors to produce a desired narrative.
That’s not my main point.
There are hundreds of YouTube videos to teach anyone how to change EXIF Data.
My main point is this…
When you look at the PROVEN collusion demonstrated above, this makes it much more plausible that Dr. Kiper’s other allegations (regarding file tampering) also took place.
Dr. Kiper’s report still has not been refuted by anybody.
A 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 to him by any trusted court sources) and thus Joe was implying that somebody from Raniere’s team may have altered the hard disk to support his own case.
But, that suggestion is beyond laughable BECAUSE the first thing the prosecution will do is verify that Kiper’s copy of the hard disk is identical to the prosecution’s copy of that same hard disk.
If it’s not, the Rule 33 motion would be permanently rejected (as the deadline for filing a new one has elapsed).
In other words, Joe was tacitly admitting that the EDNY will have a hard time refuting the detailed allegations made in Kiper’s report. Therefore, he has resorted to questioning the SOURCE of the data, rather than the REPORT ITSELF.
The facts are: Dr. J. Richard Kiper, a former trainer of trainers of FBI forensic examiners, swore under oath how and in detail how he got the FBI digital exhibits – exactly as they were produced from FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team (CART). It only makes sense, since evidence handling was a larger part of his job with the FBI during his 20 years.
IMO, I think this Rule 33 motion has a decent chance to succeed.
And if it succeeds, there will never be a 2nd trial on any charges —- because MOST of the key witnesses will not be available or willing to testify again.
Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman 2017.
Lauren, Allison, and Nancy will not assist the EDNY in future trials, since they’ve already been sentenced and cannot have more prison time added if they refuse to assist the government again.
Other witnesses have already moved-on with their lives and won’t wanna be put under the spotlight of a sex-cult trial for a second time. Many of them live in other countries and can’t be forced to testify anyway.
Witnesses like Mark Vicente would be easily impeached in a 2nd trial, after putting his name on a multi-million dollar lawsuit and tainting his own credibility as a money-grubber.
Plus, the EDNY will not wanna risk having egg on their face for possibly losing a second trial — especially if the FBI was shown to have altered evidence & testimony in a biased manner (if the Rule 33 motion succeeds).
Raniere’s team would destroy any FBI witnesses and humiliate them in a second trial.
A 2nd trial will never happen.
If the Rule 33 motion succeeds, the EDNY will likely offer Keith a plea deal for time served for all convictions which were reversed due to the Rule 33 motion.
There’s just no other REALISTIC possibility.
I challenge anybody to refute what I’ve just said.
Have a good day. 
PS — Yes, I’ve argued differently in the past. But, I now believe differently after seeing how despicable the FBI has behaved.
Jesus christ, the comment section on this website is a fucking cesspool of disgusting men and alt-right weirdos…you would given the content you people would go easy on the misogynistic and sexually harassing comments but nah. And if my readership were comparing me to alex jones I’d off myself 🤣
B.W.
Uhm….You’re very observant.
[…] Bangkok wrote an impressive story. Raniere’s Rule 33 Motion Has Decent Chance; If It Succeeds, Raniere Goes Free […]
If kr comes out, he will be empowered and worse than ever.
Anon 8.15am
Anon 8.01am
Anon 7.57am
Anon 5.49am (again)
Anon 5.49am
Anon 5.46am
Oh Bangkok! Looks like Antifa are back out on the streets again:
Bangkok wrote: “IMO, I think this Rule 33 motion has a decent chance to succeed. And if it succeeds, there will never be a 2nd trial on any charges —- because MOST of the key witnesses will not be available or willing to testify again.”
Testimony given under oath is admissible in subsequent legal proceedings if the declarant is unavailable. Federal Rules of Evidence rule 804(b)(1). In practice, a person takes the stand with the transcript in hand, counsel reads the questions, that person reads the answers. Happens in most major retrials with large numbers of witnesses.
Getting kinda gullible in your old age, my old Cocky?
Thank God. Thank God for lawyers that Raniere employs. Each one making certain he stays in jail. They are all awful, to a fault. Money certainly doesn’t buy your expertise. A friend of a friend and I sat around a table on New Years Eve. We discussed the NXIVM trial, I for the standpoint of being a viewer of the Vow, and the subsequent publicity. And my friend of a friend, a pit bull of an attorney, and three other attorneys two from another state, revealed a flaw that could easily be injected into his defence to make a retrial. And I don’t know much about law, but it made sense to me. So I said to this, friend of a friend, why don’t you contact him then, and he said, because I have two daughters. And the subject of our conversation changed.
Raniere will continue to throw Bronfman money at a wall, none of it will stick. But hey, what else has he got to do with his time?
In life there is rarely fairness. And things are never black or white.
But once in a universe they are.
The life sentence Raniere was given is fair. And just. And warranted.
“By coincidence, James handled his agency’s Seagram’s account and said he knew Edgar Bronfman Sr. professionally during the 1970s.“
https://observer.com/2010/08/poor-little-rich-girls-the-ballad-of-sara-and-clare-bronfman/
LOL. Frank is Bangkok.
You flatter me.
Regarding your last paragraph, does this mean you are actually the mysterious Claviger of earlier FR postings?
I hate to burst your bubble too: the second circuit will deny the appeal. In the event he can appeal to the Supreme Court: they will not take the case. Off course this is all speculation. I can’t lie about your chances….but you have my sympathy…..
words I never thought I’d utter.
I have held the firm belief that the Rule 33 doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of being successful and Raniere released (and is nothing but something he just pulled out of his tired bag of tricks)
BUT….
NOW?
I may think differently having just learned that in an unrelated matter, the 2016 FBI Flatley expert testified that EXIF unreliable and easy to alter and that Flatley was the original FBI expert assigned to the NXIVM case.but removed and shipped off to AFRICA and that Booth was then put on the case and then provided an expert opinion that COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED the original expert’s opinion.
I’m not sure how I missed this REALLY JUICY detail in the NXIVM saga (as an avid FR reader for years do not ever recall reading this tid bit previously) of an expert SWAP-A-ROO by the GOVERNMENT and FBI
WTF?
I’ll have to opine this more to come to a solid conclusion on where I stand now on this topic
AND
I MIGHT owe Subeel an apology at the end of all of this for my prior harsh criticism of him and his championing this whole Rule 33 motion
Also words i thought I’d never utter
Where can I find the info on the unrelated Flatley 2016 testimony and where is it documented he was originally the expert assigned to the case ?
Click on the links Bangkok provided in the article.
If you say so.
This bullshit again? Yawn.
Is it easy to steal a car? Well, yes and no. Kinda depends on how you define “easy”. Cars certainly CAN be stolen. But there’s a long way between showing something can be done and proving that it was done in any particular instance.
Imagine a DA trying to prove a defendant guilty of auto theft by presenting in court a bunch of YouTube videos on how to steal a car. “It’s easy!”
And that’s where the whole “FBI tampering” fairy tale falls flat. There has never been the slightest shred of actual proof that the FBI or anyone else planted these pictures. The fairy tale is based on nothing more than Chakravorty’s wishful thinking.
Not a shred of actual proof. Appellate judges tend to notice things like that…
It’s all so desperately sad. Well no, actually it’s hilarious.
Judge Garaufis deserves a good laugh, and this ridiculous Rule 33 motion ought to provide it.
This midget has better odds of winning the lottery. Get outta here with this nonsense. Who wrote this? A team of monkeys with no legal background?!
We had no choice. Our team of Monkey Paralegals were off at a conference.
Flying monkeys
We are raised to believe America is the land of the free and we have unalienable rights.
It’s just the opposite. We are slaves to the government. We are trained not to question, to believe the word of a judge or indictment actually means something. They don’t.
They mean you’re getting fucked over.
Short of a publicly televised jury of peers, and full trial, the defendant is fucked. And even with a jury there’s little guarantee of fairness.
We have allowed out legislative branch to enact laws which promote corruption. The laws have made it too easy – too tempting for even well intended attorneys or prosecutors to conduct themselves ethically.
And we need to ask where the logic originated behind some of the laws that create an uneven playing field to begin with.
The concept of Brady material and how it’s assessed is lunacy—
A “Brady material” or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused–evidence that goes towards negating a defendant’s guilt, that would reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.
Really? Why are we even playing this charade? It was proven in the scandal of Enron that critical brady material was buried and withheld. Men’s lives and the lives of families were destroyed.
But nothing will change bc this is what the government wants. It’s what’s best to keep those with money and control in positions of power- where they create the narrative and annihilate anyone who dares to challenge their integrity.
This is exactly why Frank Parlato was indicted – with bs charges that were dropped.
And then they still couldn’t accept wrongdoing so two more superceding indictments followed.
All for a misdemeanor charge that ordinarily wouldn’t result in even an arrest. God help us all.
There is an evil idealism here that’s very NXIVM. First, he’s ignoring that Keith’s lawyers have continually shown themselves inept. They made no defense the first time. The transcripts show Agnifilo’s crosses went no where to help his client. I believe the appellate courts told his latest lawyer to “check his notes” in this last ruling.
I went through the meta data myself and didn’t find it very compelling and I was interested. I can’t see disinterested judges coming to a far fetched conclusion. Keith has the right and funds to go through the appeals process but him getting out on this “technicality” would not be in interest of Justice. He’s right where he needs to be.
The courts prey on the credulity of the people who are indoctrinated in public school bullshit rhetoric and leave with a false sense of security and zero understanding of truth.
Your tinfoil hat is showing…
The Flatley Booth swap is laughable. This is what we the people are paying government employees to do— to us.
The lengths government scoundrels will go to for the “win” knows no bounds.
EXIF data is reliable. Can it be modified? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be trusted and modification can’t be detected. Booth never said it was hard to change period, like the deadenders claim. He said it was so for the general consumer “unless they had specialized software to do just that”. Why is the latter always omitted by the former? Because it destroys their narrative and the notion that the jury didn’t know. Even Raniere’s defense team got Booth to admit that it can’t be trusted at 100%. Practically all digital data is modifiable, even encrypted and hashed data if the algorithms are compromised, or a brute force attack is possible within a practical amount of time. It’s just a bunch of bits (zeros and ones) stored on hardware and just a matter of how hard.
Most people aren’t as corrupt and fraudulent as Raniere, projecting his
attributes onto others. The FBI had no reason to modify anything since Raniere is just an arrogant fool who incriminated himself with his own pattern of behavior, and because God loves to expose “ethical” frauds. He’s not a genius nor a criminal mastermind. The revelation of his academic credentials exposed him with his C level college GPA.
Another classic example of Team Reniere not checking their notes. Cherry picking and not quoting fully because it would tear their theories to shreds. MO of a cult leader it’s all smoke and mirrors in order to rewrite history in their favour. This item freedom is on the line. At least Tilly is being paid to be played.
“A 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 to him by any trusted court sources) and thus Joe was implying that somebody from Raniere’s team may have altered the hard disk to support his own case.”
Why would the fbi except an altered disk? Who gave them this altered disk?
I thought he meant that Kiper received an altered disc from Team Reniere not the FBI. Kiper and the other paid for experts based their conspiracy on a scam but they don’t care. They are paid to be played.
Joe O’Hara is a petty moron.
Don’t like Joe O’Hara?
Scott you don’t like Joe because he’s more intelligent than you.
***
Scotty-
How come you didn’t stream your Dungeons and Dragons tournament quest this weekend? It was scheduled.
The experts are credible and reports thorough.
No doubt it took Parlato months to synthesize the entire trial and all the new evidence gathered by Raniere supporters.
The way Frank laid out all of the information will be appreciated once the hate dissipates. It’s brilliant work that will expose the FBI in this case.
Frank ABSOLUTELY proved FBI tampering!!
People just can’t see past their hate of Raniere (and perhaps bored with the tediousness of the computer terminology and evidence).
Happy to hear Bangkok is on board!
And if this scenario plays out, do the women who made plea deals to avoid being tied to child porn that they had nothing to do with, and might have been manufactured, do they get released early? Since tying them to the child porn via RICO made it impossible for them to get their own trials and a fair opportunity to defend themselves?
It might be time to start profiling some of the people who Moira has locked up over the years, and their respective cases. You know, since it’s looking more and more like the prosecutors in this case lied, maybe some of those people are innocent?
Agree with your suggesting re Moira. She needs to be investigated.
Kevin-
I agree with you! You are 💯 correct. Therefore I believe you should write your Congressmen instead of [redacted].
Forgot to add regarding “Raniere’s team would destroy any FBI witnesses and humiliate them in a second trial”. Prosecution doesn’t need the camera card pics which would be excluded in a new trial. The hard drive has not been successfully attacked besides a post it note (gives me a chuckle to remember how much Frank and Suneel hammered a post it note in their aborted series of articles) where the evidence log (the thing that matters) does correctly ID it and its serial number.
Replacing the card – the testimony of Camilla. Unless you know how Raniere plans to prevent her from appearing. Want to share?
Blah blah blah. Not covering any new ground here.
No point in countering, there are about a dozen or so variations of this same article with the same counters. Just go find one of those.
Identify yourself writer if you want any credibility. Then I’ll consider your points. That’s how journalism works.