Raniere’s Demand From Prison: Give Me the Camera Card!

Keith Raniere continues to argue that the FBI framed him.
Here is a letter he filed recently with the court. I will make my explanatory comments under my logo.

Raniere may be out of the SHU. He is not saying. But we know that USP Tucson was on lockdown starting on January 1, 2024, for at least 40 days. Consequently, Raniere had sporadic and limited legal communication with his attorneys and had no legal visits in more than 4.5 months.

Because he was not in touch with his lawyers, Raniere penned his supplemental argument to the court.

Raniere writes:

SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT

The government introduced critical new evidence in their latest response. For the first time, they mentioned that the recently disclosed, unidentified “photograph technician” is a “Federal Bureau of Investigation photograph technician.” Although the disclosure of the alleged photograph technician’s FBI affiliation may seem minor, it gives rise to significant implications.

This new disclosure by AUSA Tanya Hajjar to the Court, if true, now demonstrates that at least three FBI employees – SA (Michael) Lever, the unidentified FBI “photograph technician” and at least one unidentified “law enforcement agent” – were involved in the unauthorized operation on …the Canon camera and its unpreserved memory card, on September 19, 2018, which permanently altered the original card … and which the government kept secret until 4+ years post-trial

FR comments:

This is about the camera card the FBI found inside the camera they seized from Raniere’s library. The FBI found the camera in a bag under his desk.

They also seized a hard drive where the FBI said they found 22 images of Camila, a Mexican woman who was 15 at the time when the photos were allegedly taken.

Inside the camera was the camera card that Raniere is going to discuss at length.

The FBI found the pictures of Camila on the hard drive. They worked it backward to determine that Raniere took the photos with the camera. He transferred them to a camera card. Next, he moved them to a computer and a hard drive. The FBI did not find the computer.

Raniere writes:

Significantly, the FBI employees involved in this secret operation knowingly violated critical FBI evidentiary procedures. Such actions, if discovered, “could result in an agent’s termination.”… These conclusions are supported by a joint analysis from four former FBI CART examiners, who served the FBI for a combined 55 years and are experts in FBI evidentiary procedure. (Id. at  1-3.) Note that because original digital evidence is volatile and especially easy to alter or destroy, the FBI uses CART specialists to ensure the preservation and integrity of such evidence.

All FBI personnel are trained and required to sign the chain of custody form when they handle evidence, ensuring that the evidence’s handling is properly recorded…. However, in this case, the FBI “photograph technician” accessed the evidence without signing the chain of custody, and despite the fact that original digital evidence is the sole purview of CART.

SA Lever, who facilitated the operation and gave them the evidence, knowingly allowed this critical breach of protocol. The FBI “photograph technician” then used unknown forensic software on the original memory card, without a write-blocker, and caused the evidence to be permanently changed.

Since preserving evidence is a fundamental pillar of FBI evidence handling, SA Lever, the FBI “photograph technician” who was not a CART member, and any other agents involved, clearly knew they were violating critical protocols.

Finally, the FBI “photograph technician” returned the evidence to SA Lever, again not signing the chain of custody, and SA Lever allowed this. (Chain of Custody.) This improper operation was “directed” by multiple, unnamed “law enforcement agents,” meaning that in the least, SA Lever and another, currently unidentified agent directed it and were involved.

Remarkably, of over 60 produced devices in this case, only Item IB 15. the Canon camera and its memory card, was mishandled in this way. This occurred in one of the most significant cases in the Eastern District of New York at the time, raising the question: Why would this group of at least three FBI employees knowingly risk their careers and the integrity of the evidence, and secretly mishandle only this particular evidence item?

The only plausible reason is an intent to tamper with the camera card.

The copy of the camera card has never been turned over by the prosecution.

Further evidence strengthens the conclusion that the camera card was deliberately tampered with during this operation: Its contents were permanently changed, and the specific files that the FBI “photograph technician” used the unknown forensic software on overlap with the specific files that the seven independent Defense experts determined were deliberately tampered with. …

This discovery of intentional evidentiary misconduct by the FBI “photograph technician” – knowingly facilitated by S A Lever – casts a shadow over the unauthorized copying of the same camera card by SFE Booth, as that was also facilitated by SA Lever.

FR comments:

Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified at trial. He knew that someone at the FBI who was not authorized to do so accessed the camera card and changed the files. He testified he did not know who did that.

Raniere writes:

This increases the likelihood that the camera card was tampered with before Booth’s copying and analysis, explaining why 37 additional photo files appeared only in Booth’s report, with at least 28 of these files being demonstrably and deliberately tampered with, according to the seven independent Defense experts….

FR comments:

The seven independent experts Raniere refers to are ones his devotee Clare Bronfman has paid to write their reports. However, Raniere is right that there were 37 new images on the camera card between the first and second examinations. For some inexplicable reason, the government refuses to turn over the camera card – which they were legally obligated to do before the trial.

Raniere writes:

The government could easily disprove this explanation, if it were untrue, by disclosing the withheld two camera card copies, yet they refuse to do so, merely repeating government expert Loveall’s unsupported assertion that additional files in the Booth report are due to “different settings,” though Loveall does not provide a single detail or proof….

This intentional evidentiary malfeasance involving SA Lever, the unidentified FBI “photograph technician,” and at least one other unidentified “law enforcement agent” carries serious implications beyond Mr. Raniere’s case. It calls into question the integrity of these FBI employees’ conduct in other cases – past, present, and future. Full disclosure of their currently concealed identities and the full extent of their actions must be compelled.

The only other possibility is that AUSA Tanya Hajjar is intentionally misleading the Court regarding the circumstances of this secret operation on the camera and card, and the existence of an FBI “photograph technician.” Supporting this, there appears to be no “photograph technician” role officially recognized by the FBI, based on our experts’ 55 combined years of experience in the FBI and no description or job postings for such a role on the FBI job website….

Additionally, no one with this title appears in the evidence’s chain of custody, and no FD-302 forms, which document investigative activities, have been disclosed which would prove their existence and involvement…

This is despite the government’s promise to “produce everything” related to the alleged child pornography evidence before the trial…  Intentionally misleading the Court about this improper operation would likely aim to conceal something more serious.

Finally, the government’s late and unsubstantiated disclosure about the FBI affiliation of the alleged photograph technician is a further use of secret evidence. This exacerbates existing due process concerns and further obstructs Mr. Raniere’s ability to challenge the evidence against him. …  Here, the government alone has access to the withheld evidence, forcing the Court to accept or reject the government’s assertions without independent verification. This level of secrecy impedes the Court’s ability to function as an impartial arbiter and poses a threat to the fundamental fairness of the judicial process.

In conclusion, disclosure of the withheld evidence is imperative. Moreover, AUSA Hajjar has consumed far more time, including the Court’s time, opposing disclosure than it would take to simply disclose the evidence, which the government promised to the Court and Defense it would before trial, and after trial misrepresented to the Defense that it had….  The withheld evidence is essential not just for fairness in Mr. Raniere’s case but also for its potential to affect the integrity of other cases involving SA Lever or the unidentified FBI employees discussed above, which may be ongoing. Therefore, the Court’s ruling will either aid in the exposure and curbing of government malfeasance or contribute to its concealment.

FR comments:

The strongest point Raniere makes is that the government refuses to surrender a copy of the camera card, which was used as evidence of child porn and sexual exploitation charges. There is not a rational explanation that consists of honest actions by the prosecution, which allows them to withhold evidence used to convict Raniere of what was undoubtedly the most damning charges in the case.

The difficulty here is that it was not the camera card that convicted Raniere of child porn. The camera card was marginally relevant and was used only to prove Raniere took similar pictures of adult nudes, which were found on both the camera card and the hard drive.

However, the hard drive was the only device to contain the child porn images of Camila.

Raniere claims some images on the hard drive were also tampered with. So, the camera card is a brick in the wall that might fall. If it is proven the FBI tampered with the camera card – it will be easier to show that the FBI tampered with the hard drive.

There is plenty of uncertainty about the hard drive and metadata of the photos, with their conflicting dates.

The challenge Raniere faces is that he likely took photos of Camila when she was 15. She says he did. She has identified the images.

The issue is that even if Raniere is guilty (and likely is), the FBI cannot just fabricate evidence to convict him.

In other words, just because law enforcement “knows” someone is guilty, we do not want to dispense with due process by just letting the police and prosecutors decide who is guilty and create evidence to prove it.

For my part, I find it suspicious that the prosecution won’t turn over discovery — the camera card — that they should have done before trial.

Their fight to keep it from Raniere only strengthens the suspicion it was tampered with, that the FBI added files  – maybe 37 new ones – to make it appear as a much stronger connection between the hard drive where the illegal photos were found (on the eve of trial) and the camera card.

As I explained in the past, the hard drive was used to prove Raniere had possession of the child porn, but the camera card was used to prove Raniere took the photos.

It is unlikely that Raniere’s argument will get much traction with the judge or the public. After all, Raniere is guilty, and we all know he abused Camila when she was 15 and he was 45. However, it is not Raniere I am advocating for. I am advocating for due process. No matter how sinister or sure we are, a defendant is entitled to due process.

Raniere should get the camera card, and the only reason I can think of for not giving it to him is that the FBI tampered with it. If that is the case, did they tamper with the hard drive?

I can imagine a scenario where Raniere is guilty, but the FBI did not have the evidence, so they planted it. It might be a short-term gain to put away Raniere, but it is a lousy plan for those who are innocent to whom they will do the same thing.

But prove me wrong. Release the camera card. The FBI should have done that more than four years ago.

Frank Parlato