Tully Accuses FBI Agents of Suppression, Destruction, Tampering and Perjury in Raniere Prosecution

— The camera card’s “date accessed” information was overwritten. This destroyed the file system dates.

BS. Nothing was “destroyed”. An OS creates three time stamps: creation, accessed, and modified.

Accessed was changed but the other two were not, implying that a read occurred of the contents/and or just the OS metadata of the file, while the creation and modified times (modifying the picture metadata of the file and/or the image would mark an OS modified file change) remained unchanged. In other words, stop blowing smoke where there isn’t any. The only way to modify an unencrypted OS timestamp is if there is a back door or to know the exact locations of the bits on the drive where data resides and and their bit patterns and arduously and tediously apply a bit by bit changing mechanism.

FBI seems to have a full time job covering up the sex crimes of “important people”. Especially ones that involve minors.

Re “The Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt.”

This does not apply here because Raniere has already been convicted.

As long as the verdict against Raniere is not overturned, he is guilty based

on the evidence used and accepted at his trial.

Keith's TRO was denied.

Hey Mark Agnifilo,

Where was your voice about all this when you were defending Raniere? Giving innocuous interviews to the NYT that promote your self image? I'd rather have my dog defend me at trial than you.

Who cares?

Keith filed to be his own attorney.

Tully is no one. Just an ineffective ex-counsel now.

But Tully is no longer vanguard's attorney.

Keith is breaking in new legal counsel.

And trying to stall his own case again

Declaring Keith will be representing pro se

Raniere’s lawyer “came out swinging”.

Unfortunately his punches are weightless as feathers and they all miss.

What a joke.

What we have here is a bunch of baseless accusations, speculation, and a forest of technical mumbo jumbo intended to confuse, obfuscate, and delay. Delay, delay, delay.

The court of course has seen this all before. Crusading lawyer for guilty as hell convict, waiting till the last day to file a motion the convict has had 3 years to file. Claiming old evidence is new evidence. And employing that most desperate of defense arguments, “my client was framed.”

When you have no defense, go on the offense.

This of course is all for show. There isn’t a chance in hell of Raniere getting a new trial based on this thin gruel. It’s ridiculous nonsense as well as being procedurally irrelevant.

What is the point then? Raniere and the dead-enders apparently have this zany scheme to rehabilitate his image. Using the tired tropes of government conspiracy and mainstream media bias, they’re trying to drum up sympathy for this racketeering sex trafficker. This is the angle Clyne has been playing for months on social media.

“Do you trust the FBI? Do you trust the media? Of course not! Therefore, our Vanguard is innocent!”

This is what passes for logic in cults.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Keith Raniere,

Plaintiff,

v.

Merrick Garland, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 22-00212-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Plaintiff Keith Raniere, who is confined in the United States Penitentiary-

Tucson (USP-Tucson) and is represented by counsel, filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and paid the filing and administrative fees. He then filed a

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) and a Motion for Leave to Serve Complaint on

Governmental Defendants (Doc. 4). The Court will order Defendants to answer the First

Amended Complaint and will deny as moot the Motion for Leave to Serve.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity,

regardless of whether the prisoner is represented by counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); In re

Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required

to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full

filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not

differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). The Court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or

malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does

not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

II. First Amended Complaint

In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following

Defendants in their official capacities: United States Attorney General Merrick Garland,

Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal, USP-Tucson Warden Barbara Von

Blanckensee, and Lieutenant Anthony Gallion. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive

relief to enjoin prison officials from retaliating and “actively frustrating and impeding his

First and Sixth Amendment rights to access to the courts and counsel,” and his attorney’s

fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges he is serving a 120-year prison sentence for, among other things,

child sexual exploitation and possession of child pornography. Plaintiff alleges that during

– 2 –

May 2021 visit with an individual (Chakravorty) who is both Plaintiff’s power-of

attorney and Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney’s paralegal, the visit was terminated and

Chakravorty’s visitation privileges were permanently revoked by Defendant Von

Blanckensee.

Plaintiff claims that for the five-month period preceding April 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s

attorneys had weekly calls with Plaintiff, without any interference. Plaintiff alleges that

on April 28, Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney filed a motion to stay an appeal in the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals because he intended to file a motion for new trial in the

district court based on newly discovered evidence, in the form of three expert’s reports

concluding the FBI had falsified and tampered with evidence and federal agents had

committed perjury relevant to Plaintiff’s child pornography and sexual exploitation

convictions. On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney filed the motion for

new trial in the district court. Plaintiff contends his criminal defense attorney anticipates

that the district court will conduct a hearing on the motion and that Plaintiff is best poised

to assist him in preparing for the hearing because Plaintiff has first-hand knowledge of the

criminal allegations against him.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 4, 2022, the day after his criminal defense attorney

filed the motion for new trial, he was on a privileged legal call with the criminal defense

attorney, and the call was terminated prematurely, without warning. Shortly thereafter,

Plaintiff was instructed to go to an administrative office, where Defendant Gallion asked

Plaintiff about certain individuals who were on Plaintiff’s approved telephone and

visitation list. Plaintiff contends many of the individuals were attorneys or “attorney’s

agents,” such as Chakravorty.

1

Plaintiff claims Defendant Gallion “made the affirmative

decision to ‘scrub’ Plaintiff’s approved callers and visitors list” and told Plaintiff that his

list was being scrubbed, he would have to apply to a unit manager to have anyone re

_______________________________________

1 Plaintiff claims he can only communicate with Chakravorty if he is on Plaintiff’s

approved list of callers. He alleges his conversations with Chakravorty are recorded and

monitored by prison officials and are not treated as confidential, even though Chakravorty

is an agent of Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney.

– 3 –

approved, and it was unlikely Chakravorty would be approved. Plaintiff asserts that when

he asked Defendant Gallion why this was being done, Defendant Gallion only told him that

“there was an investigation.” Plaintiff alleges that on May 6, Defendants “interfered and

frustrated” a confidential legal call between Plaintiff and an attorney by “causing the phone

call to be cut off” before Plaintiff and the attorney had concluded the conversation.

Plaintiff asserts Defendant Von Blanckensee affirmatively decided to interfere with

Plaintiff’s First and Sixth Amendment rights by terminating Plaintiff’s telephone calls with

his defense attorney and removing Chakravorty from Plaintiff’s approved telephone and

visitation list. He claims Defendant Von Blanckensee was the moving force behind

Defendant Gallion’s actions, the events on May 4 and 6, and the prior denial of

Chakravorty’s ability to visit. He alleges Defendant Carvajal is aware that federal prison

wardens retaliate against individual prisoners based on personal animus, unrelated to any

legitimate penological purpose; failed to prevent this kind of retaliation; “affirmatively

carried out th[is] policy”; and “perpetuated the policy and practice” by allowing wardens

to engage in this type of retaliation. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Garland

“affirmatively maintained the policy of allowing Wardens to retaliate” based on personal

animus unsupported by a legitimate penological purpose.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges his First Amendment right of access to the courts

includes “a reasonable opportunity to communicate in a contemporaneous manner with his

lawyers.” He contends Defendants frustrated and interfered with this right on May 4, 2022,

and “threatened to continue to frustrate and interfere” with this right by “effectively cutting

off Plaintiff’s ability to communicate by phone with his attorneys and their agents.”

Plaintiff seeks “reasonable access” to communicate with his attorneys and their agents in

person and “using contemporaneous telephonic methods,” subject to limitations that have

a reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests. He asserts he will suffer

irreparable harm absent court intervention.

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to retaliation for exercising his

First Amendment right of access to the courts. He contends that prior to May 3, 2022, he

– 4 –

communicated with his criminal defense attorneys and their agents to assist them in

preparing a motion for new trial. Plaintiff asserts that less than a day later after his criminal

defense attorney filed the motion for new trial, Defendants substantially frustrated and

impeded Plaintiff’s ability to assist his criminal defense attorney when they “imminently

threaten[ed] to cut off all telephonic and in-person communication with his attorneys.” He

claims the short time between the filing of the motion and Defendants’ adverse action

“raises a substantial likelihood that Defendants[’] actions were retaliatory.”

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. He

asserts Defendants have deliberately interfered with the confidential relationship between

Plaintiff and his criminal defense attorney and this interference “substantially prejudices”

Plaintiff by preventing him from helping prepare his attorney for the hearing on the motion

and preventing his attorney from providing effective assistance of counsel.

The Court will require Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s access-to-the-courts,

retaliation, and Sixth Amendment claims.

III. Motion for Leave to Serve

Plaintiff seeks leave to serve his First Amended Complaint prior to the Court

screening it. Because the Court has screened the First Amended Complaint and is calling

for an answer by Defendants, the Court will deny as moot the Motion for Leave to Serve.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Complaint on Governmental

Defendants (Doc. 4) is denied as moot.

(2) Plaintiff must serve each Defendant.

(3) If Plaintiff does not complete service of the Summons and First Amended

Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days

of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each

Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).

– 5 –

(4) Defendants must answer the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond

by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2022

__________________________________

Honorable Raner C. Collins

Senior United States District Judge

Does Magoo have a PhD degree?

Another Hollyweird star in Pedophilia.

Keep your kids away from Comic Book Stars

The Flash Ezra Miller Situation Takes another Insane Twist with Cult like Behavior & More

How did this happen?

Agree w the other comment that it would seem that FR has turned in to a KR PR stunt. I’ll eat my hat if any of these rule 33s amount to anything much less Keith’s conviction overturned and a new trial granted. It’s all just smoke and mirrors.

Tully's opinion will change when he is no longer being paid. Funny how that works.

Fully agree with you Frank that we need an honest investigation. If the FBI tampered with evidence and agents lied , let’s follow thru and investigate Tully’s allegations. I want to see what they have.