FBI’s Evidence Shenanigans Fuel Motion to Vacate But Attorney Needs More Time With Raniere

Attorney Deborah Blum, representing Keith Alan Raniere in his 2225 application to overturn his conviction, has requested additional time to amend the filing.

Raniere’s motion is pending before the judge who tried and sentenced him, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.

Judge Garaufis has already granted Blum several extensions to amend the motion, with the most recent deadline extended to October 31, 2024.

Attorney Blum needs one more extension because she has had difficulty meeting with her client and is “requesting what will actually be my final request for an extension of time, for an additional 21 days to November 21, 2024.”

As she wrote her request for an extension to the judge, Blum was in Arizona visiting her client at USP Tucson. Raniere is serving what remains of his sentence – 98 years – unless the conviction is tossed.

“Even prior to the visit, I realized that I needed to have more time,” Blum wrote “… but my time with him solidified this as new information came to light which necessitates me obtaining declarations and taking further steps.”

Blum explained there have been difficulties getting to see Raniere. He is only allowed one legal visit per month, and the prison was on lockdown for a time.

The delay is unavoidable because she needed information that only Raniere could provide regarding his claim that rogue FBI agents tampered or planted evidence of child porn on a hard drive, altering the course of his trial.

The FBI, led by Special Agent Elliot McGinnis, conducted a raid on Raniere’s “executive library” in Clifton Park, NY, on March 27, 2018 – one day after Raniere’s arrest in Mexico.

Special Agent McGinnis and other agents faced scrutiny following Raniere’s conviction. This arose after Dr. J. Richard Kiper, a former senior forensic examiner for the FBI, claimed in a motion filed by Raniere that the hard which contained the 22 contraband photos, was likely tampered with.

Among the anomalies were conflicting metadata, which indicates someone manually altered the dates of the photos. This included metadata showing that the images were created a year before the camera that took them was manufactured.

Interestingly, the hard drive that allegedly contained the contraband (which is black) was never photographed during the raid. Instead, a silver device was photographed and labeled the hard drive in FBI records.

Not the hard drive, but labeled the hard drive.

During the trial, the jury was shown the photo of the silver device, described as the seized hard drive. Later, however, a black hard drive was presented to the jury and identified as the device containing the contraband photos.

Curiously, the FBI photographed the silver hard drive twice. The silver hard drive appears as evidence item #2 and item #37. It was not likely a mistake: The FBI moved the silver hard drive to the left of where it was first photographed as evidence item #2. Then they positioned books and a Rubik’s Cube near it.

The metadata of the images on the black hard drive shows a Canon camera took the photos.

McGinnis and other agents also played hide-the-evidence as the custody of the camera card went hither and yon.

On September 18, 2018, the FBI lost custody altogether, then regained it hours later. During the time the FBI lost custody, someone connected it to a computer and changed all the last access dates.

In violation of discovery requirements, the prosecution declined to provide the defense with a copy of the camera card.

During the trial, the prosecution swapped the FBI’s initial FTK report of the camera card with a new report that contained 30-plus new digital photo files that were not on the original report, but somehow matched files on the hard drive, making it appear much more certainly that Raniere’s camera took the contraband photos.

Judge Garaufis has declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the FBI’s possible evidence tampering. Raniere’s latest motion is certain to bring it up again. Considering McGinnis’ alleged misconduct in the OneTaste case, which includes telling one witness to destroy evidence, another witness to hide evidence with him, and his own hiding of evidence from his superiors so he could use it illegally, Judge Garaufis might want to take a second look.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio