US v. Keith Raniere Rule 33 (Pro Se) - June 21, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-CR.-204 (NGG)
v. NOTICE OF MOTION
REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
KEITH RANIERE, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon this Memorandum of Law, dated June 21, 2022, by
Defendant Keith Alan Raniere, will move before the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York or before the United States District
Judge to whom this matter is reassigned, for an Order granting all appropriate relief under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 which to the Court may appear just and proper.
Dated: June 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Tucson, AZ
/s/
Keith Alan Raniere
Register #: 57005-177
US Penitentiary Tucson
9300 S Wilmot Rd
Tucson, AZ 85756
TO: AUSA Tanya Hajjar

United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of New York
271-A Cadman Plaza E.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
-------------------------------------------------------
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-CR.-204 (NGG)
v.
KEITH RANIERE,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT KEITH RANIERE’S MOTION FOR RULE 33 RELIEF
Dated: June 21, 2022 Keith Alan Raniere

Tucson, AZ Register #: 57005-177
US Penitentiary Tucson
9300 S Wilmot Rd
Tucson, AZ 85756
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Raniere respectfully informs the Court that there was not enough time for the issues
in this motion to go through Mr. Tully’s extensive and rigorous review process. Yet in the interest
of justice, Mr. Raniere seeks to raise them and brings the instant motion pro se.
Mr. Raniere moves the Court for an immediate evidentiary hearing based on newly
discovered evidence pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 33. The newly discovered evidence includes (1)
three computer expert reports (“Expert Reports”), re-attached from Mr. Tully’s Rule 33
(“Tampering Rule 33”, Dkt. 1169), (2) select email excerpts between an adversary of Raniere,
Frank Parlato, and Neil L. Glazer (“Glazer-Parlato Emails”), and (3) eight affidavits from
potential defense witnesses (“ Witness Affidavits”).
In the Tampering Rule 33, the three experts concluded to a scientific certainty that
government actors created, destroyed and changed digital evidence used to convict Mr. Raniere
of possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child. The experts are
pro-law-enforcement and were disturbed by their findings showing illegal conduct on the part of
government agents. In their century of combined experience, they have never seen anything like
this before.
Assistant US Attorney Kevin Trowel of the Eastern District of New York found the
experts’ disturbing findings of government malfeasance, which occurred in this Court, to be
“frivolous.” See Exhibit C at Bates 002 point 3. This Court chose not to designate this
government conduct, proven by credible experts, to be a substantial issue, instead choosing to
defer ruling on Mr. Tully’s Rule 33 (Dkt. 1169).
In this motion, Mr. Raniere offers newly discovered evidence that further illustrates the
scope of the government's unlawful actions in his case. In addition to the government’s
1
premeditated creation, planting, and adjustment of digital evidence, the newly discovered
evidence, including the experts’ reports, also demonstrates precise and specific perjury among
the major government witnesses, including government agents, as well as government
intimidation of potential defense witnesses. This constitutes an indisputable structural error.
Mr. Raniere respectfully requests that this Court examine the additional issues, determine
that these issues are substantial, as per Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3), and grant an immediate
evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of the historic level of proven government criminal
activity in this case.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description
A Expert reports of Dr. Kiper, Mr. Abrams, and Mr. Norris
B Defense Trial Exhibit 945 (Chain of Custody of Camera and CF Card)
C AUSA Kevin Trowel’s Opposition to Motion to Stay
D Witness Affidavits
E Affidavit from Frank Parlato, Jr., Critic of Raniere
F Supplemental Affidavits and Attachments from Nicole Clyne, Eduardo Asunsolo,

and Suneel Chakravorty
G Select Excerpts from Post-Trial Podcasts and Docuseries
BACKGROUND
I. Testimony Pertinent to the FBI Tampering Issue
Mr. Raniere was convicted of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. Three of the
racketeering predicate acts were child pornography and two instances of sexual exploitation of a
child. See Dkt. 430. AUSA Penza said of these charges, “ the child pornography is … at the
2
heart of our racketeering conspiracy.” See Transcript 3/18/19 at 19:15. She also said,“the
alleged victim of the child pornography charges [Camila] goes throughout this case … there's
very little evidence in this case that does not relate to that victim.” (emphasis added) See
Transcript 4/4/19 at 13:8-11.
On April 3, 2019, three weeks after the superseding indictment that included the new
charges relating to Camila, Glazer wrote to Parlato that Camila would not be testifying1, but that
“Moira [AUSA Penza] told [him], and this is a quote, ‘we have all the evidence we need.’”
(emphasis added) See Exhibit E, Attachment 2 at Bates 007.
The alleged victim, Camila, who was at the “heart” of the case did not testify in the trial.
The government relied upon FBI Senior Examiner Brian Booth to date the photos to establish her
age in them. SFE Booth, testified that EXIF data of the photos on the hard drive had dates in
2005. See Trial Transcript 6/13/19 at 4876:8-9. He testified EXIF data is “purposely designed
[to be more difficult to alter]” and it is the “best evidence” of when the photos were taken. See
Trial Transcript 6/12/19 at 4820:12-4; 4830:3-11.
SFE Booth also testified that evidence “does not always come to us sealed” and chain of
custody “does not always need to be kept.” See Trial Transcript 6/13/19 at 4887 - 4889.
These have been established as lies in the Tampering Rule 33 based on FBI protocol and
Dr. Kiper’s report. See Dkt. 1169 at 14 ¶ 3.
FBI Special Agent Christopher Mills testified to the seizure of the devices at 8 Hale. See
Trial Transcript 6/10/19 at 4290. He lied that after collection, the camera had been handled
according to the FBI protocol, though he correctly describes the protocol. This was established in
Mr. Tully’s supplement to the Tampering Rule 33. See Dkt. 1176 at 9 ¶ 1.
1
See Ms. Clyne’s affidavit in Exhibit F for email exchanges between her and Camila shortly after the accidental
discovery of the photos and before the Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 430) was issued..
3
On September 27, 2018, in a pre-trial discovery hearing, AUSA Hajjar explained that
discovery materials had been taking longer to be produced to the defense, but that not everything
had to go through their vendor. Other times, such as “an 8 Hale camera… [w]e just pulled out the
pictures and gave them everything. That search is done.” See Transcript 9/27/18 at 35:3-17. The
camera and CF card had not been turned over to a forensic examiner. The extraction of pictures
was done outside of normal FBI protocol.
It is worth noting that during his testimony, SA Mills had custody of the camera and CF
card. See Exhibit D at Bates 003. This means that while he was giving testimony, the items had
already been unsealed or they were unsealed afterward, and before he turned them over to SFE
Booth.
SA Mills testified that the camera and hard drive were the first two items seized at 8
Hale. Agents seemed to home in on the items. See Trial Transcript 6/10/19 at 4294:22 - 4295:19;
4304:16 - 4307:5; 4308:1 - 4308:23. Dr. Kiper wrote of this, “It was as if the FBI agents knew
what would eventually be ‘found’ on those devices and used at trial.” See Exhibit A at 51.
Glazer represented Daniela, the sister of Camila. Daniela testified that she managed the
computers and backups at 8 Hale Drive. See Trial Transcript 5/28/19 at 2572:9-17. On
November 7, 2017, around the time that the EDNY investigation began, Glazer informed Mr.
Parlato that he had started working with law enforcement. He wrote:
“I am not working on the civil litigation angle at the moment, there are far more
important matters to resolve. There are moving pieces you are unaware of, interested
eyes beyond the Albany region… We are learning precise locations of evidence, we
need time to get rock solid warrants.” (emphasis added) See Exhibit E, Attachment 2 at
Bates 004.
4
A Selection of Oddities in the Trial:
There were a number of things that occurred in the trial, with respect to this digital evidence, that
are peculiar:
● Daniela and Lauren Salzman were never asked to identify their own photos on the hard
drive, nor the camera that was used, yet they were both asked to describe the photos and
the camera.
● Neither of them were asked to identify the alleged photos of Camila, despite both
knowing her well and Daniela being her sister. Only FBI SA Michael Weniger identified
Camila as being the one in the photos.
● Lauren Salzman testified Mr. Raniere took two photos of her, yet on the hard drive there
were six in Lauren’s folder on the drive.
● Daniela testified that presence or lack of a visible appendectomy scar would determine
Camila’s age in the photo. However, she was not asked to view the photos to confirm
whether or not there was a scar.2
● The alleged photos of Camila belonged inside a folder dated the month and day as
Daniela’s anniversary with Mr. Raniere (November 2).
● FBI SA Michael Lever was able to identify a fifteen-year-old Camila in the accidentally
discovered photos, yet even her friends sometimes cannot distinguish between her and
her sisters.3
II. Government Handling of Potential Defense Witnesses
2
See Ms. Clyne’s affidavit in Exhibit F.
3
See Mr. Asunsolo’s affidavit in Exhibit F.
5
The government’s alleged victim for the predicate acts of sex trafficking and forced labor
was Nicole, a woman in her late twenties at the time. Both predicate acts require the element of
coercion to be met. Specifically, “a reasonable person of the same background and in the same
circumstances [would be compelled] to perform [the sex trafficking or forced labor act] … in
order to avoid incurring that harm.” See 18 USC § 1589(c)(2).
The government argued that there was coercion because Nicole gave Allison Mack
“collateral.” See Trial Transcript 6/17/19 at 5388-6-17; 5413:5-8; 5414:1-2. Thus, Nicole was
afraid her collateral would be released if she did not participate in the oral sex act with an adult
Camila which Mr. Raniere organized and the government alleged to be sex trafficking. See Id. at
5409:4-21. The government applied the same argument of coercion to the alleged forced labor
conduct.
Michele Hatchette and Danielle Roberts were DOS members in the same ‘circle’ as
Nicole, under Mack. See Trial Transcript 6/7/19 at 4011:23 - 4012:2. They were all educated,
adult women who gave collateral to Ms. Mack. They also participated in the video transcription
task that the government alleged was part of the forced labor of Nicole. See Trial Transcript
6/7/19 at 4037:13-23; Exhibit D at Bates 011 ¶ 24; Exhibit D at Bates 038 ¶ 7.
Ms. Hatchette writes in her affidavit that in a proffer interview, the government
“maintained that I felt pressured, threatened or coerced … and that [DOS] collateral was ‘held
over my head’… I countered multiple times that based on my experience the collateral was …
never used in this way, and that I was not afraid.” See Id. at Bates 014 ¶ 33. Shortly before the
trial, AUSA Penza told Ms. Hatchette’s attorney that they would “ be likely to charge [her] with
perjury” if she did not meet with them a third time before taking the stand. See Id. at Bates 014 ¶
6
40. She writes, “This threat of perjury only came after my attorney informed them that I would
most likely refuse to meet with them again or [be] willing [to] testify on their behalf.” See Id.
Ms. Roberts writes in her affidavit that “collateral was used as a tool to back our promises
to ourselves, like surety, not as a tool of fear, force, or blackmail.” See Id. at Bates 038 ¶ 10. In
her proffer, when she “offered a different motivation [for her experiences in DOS] other than
coercion,” AUSA Penza “seemed to get visibly upset.” See Id. at Bates 041 ¶ 39. At the end of
Ms. Roberts’ second proffer interview, [AUSA Penza] threatened to subpoena [her] to testify in
the trial against Mr. Raniere.” See Id. at Bates 041 ¶ 46.
Ms. Clyne, one of the founding members of DOS who had been in DOS longer than any
of the government witnesses, writes in her affidavit, “I never witnessed any threats or negatives
[sic] consequences enacted upon [women leaving DOS] and I am most certainly not aware of
anyone’s collateral being released.” (emphasis added) See Id. at Bates 045 ¶ 6. Less than a
month before trial, with jury selection already in progress, Ms. Clyne received a grand jury
subpoena after being recognized by AUSA Penza in the courthouse, where she was for an
unrelated matter. Ms. Penza told Ms. Clyne’s attorney, “First, we are going to cut the head of
the snake off and then we’re coming for the body. This is not going away for her.” See Id. at
Bates 044 ¶ 5. Ms. Clyne concludes, “Had I not been frightened by the threat of retaliatory action
by the Government, I would have chosen to testify.” See Id. at Bates 047 ¶ 11.
Samantha LeBaron was a DOS member underneath government witness Sylvie. See Trial
Transcript 5/8/19 at 276:22-23. She wrote in her affidavit that the government asked her
“questions, to the effect of if I thought in DOS, they used fear to motivate me and at one point,
one of the interviewers remarked something to the effect of, But we want her to answer [that
they used fear].” (emphasis added) See Id. at Bates 049 ¶ 18. In her interview, she recalls SA
7
Michael Weniger “raising his voice and hitting the table at times.” See Id. at Bates 050 ¶ 25.
AUSA Penza concluded the interview saying, “I am glad you are here in Brooklyn so that we can
call you whenever we need you.” See Id. at Bates 050 ¶ 29. Ms. LeBaron writes, “Because of the
way I was treated during my interview I would have been too scared to testify on behalf of the
defendants.” See Id. at Bates 051 at ¶ 35.
Brian Elliot is a graduate of Stanford University, Harvard Kennedy School, and Harvard
Business School. See Id. at Bates 052 ¶ 2. He co-founded an LGBT advocacy group to win
marriage equality in New York State when he learned of NXIVM. See Id. He was never involved
in DOS. See Id. at Bates 052 ¶ 8. He writes in his affidavit, “I remember the prosecution asking
me about the use of “collateral” in NXIVM and why I did not view it as blackmail. I explained
that my understanding of collateral and its use within NXIVM was that it was a voluntary tool
used by consenting parties for personal growth. My understanding of collateral was based not
only on what I had learned from NXIVM courses, but also from Behavioral Economics research
from Yale University, which I had found on a public website called Stikk.com.” He recalls the
prosecution got “frustrated and [seemed] unsatisfied with what I was sharing.” See Id. at Bates
053 ¶ 13.
After the trial, Brian Elliot helped his brother, Marc Elliot, to plan a public speech,
entitled, “Who’s Next? The Rise of Character Assassination and Loss of Human Decency.” See
Id. at Bates 054 ¶ 21. According to Mr. Marc Elliot, the talk was inspired by his “journey of
beating Tourette’s syndrome with the help of NXIVM, a group misrepresented as a sex cult in
the media." See Id. at Bates 058 ¶ 14.Days after Mr. Marc Elliot publicly advertised the talk on
social media, AUSA Penza called the brothers’ shared attorney, demanded they immediately
cancel the talk and said something to the effect of “If it weren’t for the First Amendment, I
8
would be coming after them.” See Id. at Bates 054 ¶ 22 - Bates 055 ¶ 25. Both brothers
interpreted this as a terrifying threat, so much so that they immediately moved out of New York
City. See Id. at Bates 055 ¶ 30; Bates 059 ¶ 18. Additionally, Mr. Brian Elliot severed ties with
longtime friends who were involved with NXIVM. See Id. at Bates 055 ¶ 29.
In total there are eight witness’ affidavits describing their encounters with the prosecution
team. They are Michele Hatchette, Danielle Roberts, Nicki Clyne, Samantha LeBaron, Sahajo
Haertel, Brian Elliot, Marc Elliot, and Brandon Porter. See Exhibit D.
III. Glazer and the Civil Lawsuit
Daniela and Nicole were government witnesses in the trial. Nicole and Daniela were both
represented in the criminal case by class-action attorney Neil Glazer. See Trial Transcript 6/10/19
at 4268:10-11; Trial Transcript at 5/31/19 at 3275:6-20. Catherine Oxenberg introduced Nicole to
Glazer on November 3, 2017, before the DOJ investigation began. See Trial Transcript 6/10/19
at 4268. From then onwards, Glazer represented at least fifteen witnesses interviewed by the
government and was present for at least thirty-three interviews. See Dkt. 853 at 2. It would have
been clear to the government that Glazer’s work, time expenditures, and travel expenses from
trips from his base in Philadelphia to New York was in contemplation of an impending civil suit.
Daniela testified she did not intend to file a lawsuit. See Trial Transcript 5/31/19 at 3275-3276.
The Glazer-Parlato Emails contain emails where Glazer discusses the progress of his civil
lawsuit.4 See Exhibit E. Additionally, the background of facts cited in Mr. Agnifilo’s prior Rule
33 (Dkt. 853) is adopted here.
4
Additionally, see Mr. Chakravorty’s affidavit in Exhibit F, Attachment 1.
9
In one email exchange, on June 9, 2018, Glazer asked Parlato to take down a blog post
naming Daniela. He wrote, “I am more devoted to Dani’s well-being than any other client,”
(emphasis added) and followed up with, “"I implore you to please take down the post. You do
not, and cannot, know all of the implications of this...We represent dozens, growing by the day.
The criminal investigation is massive and the civil action will be unprecedented. That is soon."
(emphasis added) See Exhibit E, Attachment 2 at Bates 005 - 006.
Weeks before the trial, on April 3, 2019, he wrote to Parlato:, “I am building a civil case
and have more than 80 clients to serve, and it grows by the week." (emphasis added) See Id. at
Bates 007. Nicole also testified that they did not intend to file a civil lawsuit and that she had not
discussed the matter with anyone. See Trial Transcript 6/10/19 at 4276-4277.
On January 28 2020, after the trial, Glazer filed a civil lawsuit against Raniere, Bronfman
and others. There were over 80 plaintiffs. Daniela and Nicole were among them. See Dkt. 1 in
1:20-cv-00485.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, “Upon defendant’s
motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(a). “In evaluating a Rule 33 motion, the court must “examine the
entire case, take into account all facts and circumstances, and make an objective evaluation,”
keeping in mind that the ‘ultimate test’ for such a motion is ‘whether letting a guilty verdict
stand would be a manifest injustice.’” United States v. Alston, 899 F.3d 135, 146 (2d Cir. 2018)
(emphasis added). Relief under Rule 33 is based on whether:
(1) the evidence [was] newly discovered after trial;
10
(2) facts are alleged from which the court can infer due diligence on the part of the
movant to obtain evidence;
(3) the evidence is material;
(4) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and
(5) the evidence would likely result in an acquittal. United States v. Forbes, 790 F. 3d
403, 406-407 (2d Cir. 2015).
ARGUMENT
I. Mr. Raniere is Entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing Based on Newly Discovered
Evidence of Perjury by Four Major Government Witnesses and Subornation of
Perjury by the Government
A. Applicable Law
When a government witness commits perjury, the conviction must be set aside "'if there is
any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.'"
Perkins v. LeFevre, 691 F.2d 616, 619 (2d Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S.
97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976))
Where the government had either actual knowledge of witness perjury, or, at a minimum,
should have known of it, reversal is virtually automatic. United States v. Wallach. 935 F.2d 445
(2d Cir. 1991).
When a testifying government agent commits perjury, the prosecution is imputed with
knowledge of the perjury:
● That knowing perjury by a federal agent who is involved in the prosecution can constitute
"knowing use by the prosecution" is supported by case law in this Circuit regarding
11
Brady disclosure requirements. United States v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. 241, 247
(S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 35 F.3d 673 (2d Cir. 1994).
● In United States v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1975), the court held that "[w]hile the
prosecutor cannot be charged with the failure to produce information in the possession of
any government official, in this case it seems fair to view [the agent] as an arm of the
prosecutor." United States v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. at 247 (internal citations omitted).
● In Pina v. Henderson, 752 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1985), the Second Circuit distinguished
government officials who may be treated as an "arm of the prosecutor" from those who
may not. United States v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. at 247. The court in Pina held that a
parole officer who "did not work in conjunction with either the police or the prosecutor"
was not sufficiently linked with the prosecution so as to impute the officer's knowledge to
it. Pina v. Henderson, 752 F.2d at 49; See also United States v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. at
247. However, a police officer who "did testify in [the] trial and was the investigating
officer," was found to be an "arm of the prosecution" whose knowledge was to be
attributed to the prosecution. United States v. Pina, 752 F.2d at 50.
● "Whether knowledge is to be imputed from a government agent to the prosecution for
Brady purposes is instructive in determining whether knowing perjury by a government
agent should be considered 'knowing use' by the prosecution. Cases establishing the latter
proposition have often relied on case law developed to address the former." United States
v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. at 247.
● "And where cases involve both nondisclosure and perjury, courts consider them jointly
under the rubric of 'prosecutorial misconduct.'" Id. at 248. (internal citations omitted)
12
● "In fact, the argument to charge the prosecution with knowledge of a government agent's
perjury is even stronger than the argument to impute knowledge of Brady material. While
the prosecution's failure to disclose relevant information might be due to a negligent lack
of communication, perjury by a government agent can only be a knowing, intentional
decision to lie by a member of the institution which is charged to uphold the law and seek
just convictions. Therefore, it is a short step indeed to apply case law regarding Brady
obligations to instances of perjury." Id.
The Glazer-Parlato Emails are newly discovered for they were not known to the defense
until after trial. The defense would not have been able to obtain these emails prior to trial and
thus exercised their due diligence. It is well-known that Mr. Parlato is staunchly opposed to Mr.
Raniere and has been for many years. He only offered select parts of these emails after he saw
their potential significance once he began investigating the allegation of FBI tampering. Not only
would it not have made sense for Mr. Raniere’s trial counsel to subpoena Mr. Parlato, Mr. Parlato
is a journalist and enjoys a well-established legal privilege of protecting his sources.
Additionally, Mr. Raniere holds Mr. Parlato to be responsible for crafting and
disseminating a false, hate narrative against him and his organization. He believes this narrative
was engineered to inspire public outrage through exaggeration. This public outrage, supported by
a ‘mad dog’ media, allowed this prosecution to commit malfeasance, which is historical in its
premeditation, complexity, the number of actors involved, the high-profile nature of the case, and
the credible scientifically certain proof of the malfeasance.
13
In including Mr. Parlato’s evidence in this motion, Mr. Raniere is not in anyway
condoning Mr. Parlato’s conduct against him or Mr. Parlato’s conduct against anyone who had
been involved in his organization NXIVM, or in DOS.
As a separate issue, the Glazer-Parlato Emails show that Glazer was working on a civil
lawsuit before and during the criminal investigation, even just weeks before trial began and he
considered Daniela “his favorite” client. Based on his involvement with government witnesses
before the trial and Daniela’s critical role in the case, and the fact that Daniela was in fact a
plaintiff in the post-trial civil lawsuit, Mr. Raniere concludes that it is shown that Daniela lied
about not intending to file a civil lawsuit. That she was Glazer’s favorite client and he had been
contemplating filing his suit before the trial belies her testimony on this point. Similarly, it is
shown that Nicole also lied about not intending to file a civil suit or discussing the matter with
anyone. It defies common sense that Glazer would bring a civil lawsuit, have dozens of plaintiffs
in the weeks before trial, but never had discussed the matter with one of this top clients and one
of the key government witness for sex trafficking.
The Glazer-Parlato emails are also material to the tampering issue. Mr. Glazer writes
about “precise locations” and roughly four months later, this comment is solidified as agents
strangely collect the camera and hard drive as the top priority, bypassing and ignoring dozens of
other evidentiary items along the way.
In the Tampering Rule 33 motion, it is established that the Expert Reports are newly
discovered, the defense exercised due diligence, and it is material, not merely cumulative or
impeaching, and would likely result in acquittal based on its revelation of extensive government
criminal tampering with – according to AUSA Penza – the lynchpin evidence that was at the
“heart” of the government’s case.
14
The Expert Reports also demonstrate that SFE Booth and SFE Mills committed perjury
about the integrity and competence of the digital evidence. Indeed, given the multiple violations
of protocol, including those by SA Rees and SA Lever, the perjury was evidently to hide from
the jury that the evidence was incompetent and had been falsified by the government.
Additionally, it is telling that SFE Booth lied repeatedly about EXIF data and chain of
custody and yet he told the truth about the camera and CF card being given to him unsealed.
Unsealed evidence is a critical issue of admissibility. This evidence was at the “heart” of the
case. To admit to this issue of admissibility would, on the face of it, appear to be a serious risk.
That SFE Booth was willing to do so means either he was certain that it would be admitted
regardless or there was some benefit to him, or both. The only benefit to him from admitting
break in the chain of custody is that it provided SFE Booth plausible deniability of his
involvement in the tampering, for the tampering on the CF card could have taken place before it
was given to him, while it was in the custody of SA Elliot McGinnis, or SA Mills. See Exhibit B
at Bates 003 ¶ 3. Because the prosecution failed to correct SFE Booth’s perjurious testimony
about chain of custody, and this Court did not intervene, the jury was taught that a broken chain
of custody is not abnormal in the FBI.
Note also that AUSA Hajjar questioned SFE Booth and Mills. Given AUSA Hajjar’s
comments during the September 27, 2018 hearing, it appears AUSA Hajjar likely knew that the
camera was not handled according to protocol, and thus proactively elicited false testimony from
Mills. However, even if AUSA Hajjar did not know her witnesses perjured themselves, which
would require assuming egregious incompetence and negligence on her part, it does not matter.
AUSA Hajjar, and in fact the entire prosecution team, is imputed with knowledge of Booth’s and
Mills’ perjury, for they are government agents who testified.
15
Thus, this Court should grant a complete reversal of Mr. Raniere’s conviction on all
charges, not only because this falsified digital evidence was at the “heart” of the case but because
anything less would condone structural error in the form of government criminal malfeasance,
reliably proven, that involved, at a minimum, multiple government agents breaking protocol,
spoliating and manipulating evidence, and perjuring themselves repeatedly.
II. Mr. Raniere is Entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing Based on Newly Discovered
Evidence of Government Intimidation of Potential Defense Witnesses
A. Applicable Law
The Second Circuit has held that, “[u]nder certain circumstances, intimidation or threats
that dissuade a potential witness from testifying may infringe a defendant's due process rights....”
United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 932 (2d Cir.1988) (internal citations omitted). “The
circumstances will warrant reversal only if the government's conduct interfered substantially
with a witness's ‘free and unhampered choice’ to testify.” Id. “That interference may involve
threats of prosecution…or other intimidating conduct…that was designed to intimidate.” Id.
(internal citations omitted); See also United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 479 (4th Cir.
1982) (holding that “[t]he government's ‘suggestion’ destroyed the choice of [the witness] to
testify freely.”).
This Circuit has a three-part test to demonstrate a due process violation based on the
government's intimidation of witnesses. The defendant must show:
(1) that he was deprived of material and exculpatory evidence that could not be
reasonably obtained by other means,
(2) bad faith on the part of the government, and
16
(3) that the absence of fundamental fairness infected the trial.
United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 55 (2d Cir. 2019); See also United States v.
Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 29 (2d Cir. 2000); Buie v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 10, 11 (2d Cir. 1990)
B. Analysis
The affidavits from eight potential defense witnesses are newly discovered. The specifics
and extent of the government’s intimidation tactics were not known to the defense until after
trial, in part because the witnesses to it were silenced. The prosecution team successfully
silenced these material potential witnesses, including the key and exculpatory witnesses, Ms.
Hatchette and Ms. Roberts, through threats, including misuse of the Grand Jury process and the
threat of a perjury prosecution. Government agents scared these potential witnesses from being
willing to testify or support the defense. Thus Mr. Raniere could not have discovered this
information and thus acted with due diligence. All of the witness affidavits affirm and
corroborate with consistency the means and methods of the government agents tasked with
menacing these, and other individuals. In particular, the affidavits of Ms. Hatchette and Ms.
Roberts are particularly exculpatory for they were similarly situated to Nicole and would have
prima facie invalidated the government's theory of serious harm stemming from the DOS
collateral. The sex trafficking and forced labor charges would have been shown to be invalid.
The affidavits of Ms. LeBaron and Mr. Brian Elliot confirm the government’s refusal to accept
an alternative viewpoint on DOS collateral, which was the keystone of their case on the
aforementioned charges. That Mr. Marc Elliot’s intimidation occurred after trial shows that even
after a guilty verdict on all counts, the prosecution team was insistent on suppressing and
silencing any counter-narrative. This shows the prosecution was in pursuit of winning, not truth.
17
This Court should not condone the prosecution’s violation of Mr. Raniere’s due process nor their
Orwellian tactics of methodically silencing ordinary, law-abiding civilians through fear of
imprisonment.
CONCLUSION
The newly discovered evidence reveals multiple government actors were involved in
criminal malfeasance that was executed over an 18+ month period and was orchestrated to
deprive Mr. Raniere of his constitutional rights and to dishonestly win a conviction. Mr. Raniere
moves this Court to grant him all available relief under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure that to the Court may appear just and proper.
In particular, Mr. Raniere moves this Court to grant a public evidentiary hearing so that
he, and the public, are allowed to ask the pertinent questions of our public servants.
18
EXHIBIT A
Case 20-3520, Document 202, 04/28/2022, 3305861, Page7 of 138
EXHIBIT A
6
Affidavit of Dr. James Richard Kiper, Ph.D.
State of Florida
County of Leon
COMES NOW Dr. James Richard Kiper, Ph.D., being first duly sworn, under oath,
and states that the contents of the following attached reports, including their
appendices, and exhibits are true and correct statements of relevant facts and his
opinions in the case of United States v. Keith Raniere et. al., in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case#: 1:180-cr-00204-NGG-VMS, to
the best of his knowledge and belief:
• Summary of Technical Findings

• Summary of Process Findings
• Analysis of the Testimony of Special Agent Christopher Mills
• Expert Opinion Regarding Time to Review Digital Evidence
Signature:
Address: 818 Shannon Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32305
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this j( day offl/Jrc / , 2022, by

-Jc;vvi~J )(l/l--v-- .
NOa: FOR FLOR
Q)
Michael Jordan
It I'} 3
Comm.lGG388579
~:Ocmbar1,2023
BondedTiluAaun ttiary My Commission Expires: fClr,
001
J. Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
FBI Special Agent (Retired) and Forensic Examiner
April 25, 2022
Summary of Technical Findings

Professional Background
I served as an FBI Special Agent for 20 years, from 1999 to 2019, with more than half of that
career in cybersecurity and digital forensics (See attached CV). In the FBI, I served as a case
agent, a supervisor, a unit chief, a forensic examiner, a trainer of forensic examiners, and a trainer
of other trainers of forensic examiners. I have an in-depth knowledge of FBI digital evidence
examination procedures and policies.
Review of Evidence
On May 21, 2021, I signed the Protective Order Regarding Discovery in U.S. v. Raniere, et al., 18
CR 204 (NGG) and was subsequently provided access to certain evidence in this case. My review
of evidence includes court testimony, a hard drive copy of logical files, and examination reports
generated by members of the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team (CART). Based on my
review, I discovered specific actions that were taken to manually alter the evidence, in support of
the government’s narrative that photos were taken by a Canon EOS 20D camera (GX 520), saved
to a Lexar CF card (GX 524), copied to an unknown computer, and then backed up to a Western
Digital hard disk drive (GX 503). In this report I will refer to the latter two items as the CF Card
and the WD HDD.
In my 20 years serving as an FBI agent, I have never observed or claimed that an FBI employee
tampered with evidence, digital or otherwise. But in this case, I strongly believe the multiple,
intentional alterations to the digital information I have discovered constitute evidence
manipulation. And when so many human-generated alterations happen to align with the
government’s narrative, I believe any reasonable person would conclude that evidence tampering
had taken place. My analysis demonstrates that some of these alterations definitely took place
while the devices were in the custody of the FBI. Therefore, in the absence of any other plausible
explanation it is my expert opinion that the FBI must have been involved in this evidence
tampering.
1
002
Key Findings
1. Some digital photo files found on the CF card had the same filenames and date/time stamps as
their supposed backups on the WD HDD, yet they depicted two different people. Moreover,
these same CF card files contained thumbnail pictures from another existing set of photos, thus
proving manual alteration of the CF Card contents.
2. Additional files appeared on the FBI’s forensic report of the CF Card, between 4/11/19 and
6/11/19, in an apparent attempt to create a stronger relationship between the CF Card and the
WD HDD.
3. An unknown person accessed the CF card on 9/19/18, thereby altering file system dates, while
it was in the custody of FBI Special Agent Michael Lever.
4. Dates of photos on the hard drive were altered through manual intervention. The alterations
seem to be an attempt to account for Daylight Saving Time.
5. The metadata of a modified photo, whose numbered filename appears between the alleged
contraband ranges, was manually altered to create the appearance that it had not been
modified.
6. The folders containing the alleged contraband and others that supported the dating of the
photos to 2005 appear automatically named after exact dates and times in 2005. However, at
least some of these timestamped folder names were manually altered.
7. The photos in this case, including the alleged contraband photos, appear to be on the hard
drive from an automated computer backup in 2009. But in fact, they were placed there
manually with manipulated file creation dates.
Finding 1: Some digital photo files found on the CF card had the same filenames and
date/time stamps as their supposed backups on the WD HDD, yet they depicted two different
people. Moreover, these same CF card files contained thumbnail pictures from another
existing set of photos, thus proving manual alteration of the CF Card contents.
● As further explained in Finding #2, photos named IMG_0093.JPG, IMG_0094.JPG,

IMG_0096.JPG and IMG_0097.JPG (hereinafter IMG_0093-97) were among those that
appeared on the FBI’s WD HDD forensic report, but they did not initially appear on the CF
Card forensic report generated on 04/11/2019. Subsequently, however, on 06/11/2019 the FBI
created another version of the CF Card forensic report wherein these and other photo files
were included. It is important to note that neither the IMG_0093-97 files, nor any other of the
newly-added files, were viewable as photo images in the 06/11/2019 forensic report of the CF
Card.
● The government’s narrative requires that the IMG_0093-97 files on the second CF Card report
be identical to the IMG_0093-97 files found in the WD HDD report, because photos created
2
003
on the CF Card were supposedly backed up to the WD HDD unaltered. Indeed, they have
identical file names, identical Modified dates, and (presumably) identical EXIF data, including
the date taken, camera model, and serial number1. However, they cannot be identical photo
files because their MD5 hashes (“digital fingerprints”) do not match (See Appendix A, Figure
3).
● Moreover, a content review of the files reveals the subjects of the photographs found on the
two devices are actually two different people. Although the IMG_0093-97 files were not
viewable as photos in the 06/11/2019 CF Card report, their forensically recovered carved
thumbnail photos were viewable, and they depicted a blonde woman. By contrast, the
IMG_0093-97 files on the WD HDD report were viewable photographs and they depicted a
brunette woman. Again, the two sets of IMG_0093-97 files share the same file names and the
same last Modified dates and times – to the second. This would mean the same camera, with
the same serial number, took two different photographs of two different subjects at precisely
the same time and assigned them the same file name. This is impossible, of course, so the
presence of these files indicates the manipulation of the content and metadata for these photos.
● In fact, a detailed analysis of the carved file listings for each device revealed that IMG_0093,
IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097 found on the CF Card are not only different from their
namesakes on the WD HDD, but they also contain the same thumbnail images as those of
IMG_0180, IMG_0181, IMG_0182, and IMG_183, respectively. This surprising observation
points to someone creating copies of IMG_0180–183 and then making changes to them on the
CF card, including changing their file names to IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and
IMG_0097. These intentional alterations likely resulted in the files being unviewable on the
06/11/2019 forensic report, but it did not destroy the thumbnail images left over from the
IMG_0180–0183 photos. It is likely the custodians of the CF Card who added these files, the
case agents or their associates, repurposed the IMG_0180–183 files because at that time they
did not have physical control of the WD HDD or its files. The FBI’s Case Agent Investigative
Review (CAIR) system enabled the case agents to review the WD HDD evidence and
bookmark items, but it prevented them from exporting any information from the evidence.
Please refer to Appendix C for an in-depth analysis of the carved files found in the WD HDD
and CF Card forensic (FTK) reports.
● The intentional modification of the IMG_0093-97 files on the CF Card report cannot be
explained by normal use of the camera or CF Card. In the context of this case, the alterations
are best explained by the intentions of an unknown actor attempting to create a stronger
relationship between the CF Card photo files and the WD HDD that supposedly contained
their backups. These actions will be further explained in Finding 2.
1
As noted in my Process Findings, neither the two forensic images of the CF card, nor the EXIF data from
files in the associated FTK reports, were produced during discovery. However, I was able to determine that
photographic data from IMG_0180 to IMG_0183, were actually found in the newly-added photos on the CF
report with file names IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097 (See Appendix C). If I had full
access to the CF card data, it is reasonable to assume I would find the same EXIF data in those files as
well.
3
004
Finding 2: Additional files appeared on the FBI’s forensic report of the CF Card, between
4/11/19 and 6/11/19, in an apparent attempt to create a stronger relationship between the CF
Card and the WD HDD.
● On 4/11/19, FBI forensic examiner Stephen Flatley created a forensic copy of the CF card,
processed the data, and generated a forensic report using AccessData Forensic Toolkit (FTK),
also known as AD LAB. The report listed active files present on the CF card, as well as those
that had been deleted.
● On 6/11/19, five weeks into the trial and one day before he took the stand, FBI Examiner Brian
Booth created another forensic copy and another FTK report of the same CF card. In the FBI,
this is considered a reexamination and is prohibited by policy (see my Process Findings
report). However, in this second report there were new files present in the file listing that were
not on the previous report: Namely, IMG_0042, IMG_0081–IMG_0100, IMG_0172–
IMG_0179, and IMG_0193–IMG_200.
● In the FBI, CART examiners generate FTK reports, which contain file listings, graphics, and
exported files that were identified and bookmarked by the case agent or CART examiner. At
times, new reports are generated from existing forensic copies of the same device, when the
facts of the investigation change or when a new forensic tool becomes available. In this case,
however, the difference between the two FTK reports cannot be attributed to the use of a
different tool, because both examiners used the same tool and version number: AccessData
Forensic Toolkit, Version 6.3.1.26.
● The appearance of new files on a subsequent forensic report does not, by itself, necessarily
mean that files were added to the original device. However, I have generated hundreds of FTK
reports for the FBI, and I can think of no legitimate reason for new files to appear on a
subsequent FTK report generated by the same software and version number, working under
the same set of facts, on the same piece of evidence, which is supposed to be preserved and
immutable from the time of collection.
● In fact, there are several reasons to suspect that the new files appearing on the 06/11/2019 CF
Card report did not legitimately originate on the CF Card itself:
○ None of the new files are viewable in the 06/11/2019 report, while all the files
previously appearing on the 04/11/2019 report are viewable.
○ None of the new files are viewable on the CF Card report, so they cannot be
visually compared with their namesakes on the WD HDD, which are viewable.
○ None of the MD5 hashes for the new files on the CF Card report match their
namesakes on the WD HDD report. Mismatched MD5 hashes means they are not
the same files.
○ Unlike the first 04/11 CF card report, the second 06/11 CF Card report omitted the
file sizes for the photos, thereby preventing even a file size comparison of the new
files with their namesakes on the WD HDD.
○ Aside from the manipulated IMG_0093-97 files discussed in Finding #1, the FBI’s
4
005
forensic tool (FTK) was unable to carve a single viewable photo from any of the
new files appearing on the 06/11 CF Card report. In that same report, by contrast,
FTK was able to carve out several dozen viewable photos from the CF Card’s
previous photos as well as from unallocated space (with no links to specific files).
○ To summarize, there is nothing besides easily-modifiable file names and file
system dates and times that connect the new files in the 06/11 CF Card report with
their namesake photos on the WD HDD report.
● Moreover, the way the new files appear on the 06/11/2019 CF Card report is indicative of
someone creating large swaths of “new files” on the CF Card based on file names, rather than
on content. For example, as detailed in Appendix D, the appearance of 20 files (IMG_0081-
100) on the second CF Card report implies that the user had taken several pictures of three
different subjects, saved them to the CF Card and eventually backed them up to the WD HDD.
However, it also requires the user to return to the CF Card, delete only first two photos (by
filename) of the first subject, delete no photos of the second subject, and then delete all BUT
the first two photos of the third subject. Even more incredibly, the user would have had to
delete them in such a way as to prevent the FBI’s forensic tool (FTK) from recovering them
(e.g. by writing over the sectors). As mentioned earlier, FTK had no problem recovering other
deleted files, carving photos from those deleted files, or even recovering viewable photos from
the CF Card’s unallocated space.
● With the possible exception of IMG_0093-97 files discussed in Finding #1, the new files
appearing on the FBI’s CF Card forensic report between the 04/11 and 06/11 versions may not
even be real digital photos, since there is no data – no file sizes, no viewable images, no
carved photos, no carved thumbnails – to indicate that they are. Nevertheless, these newly
added CF card files and metadata match the filenames, dates, and times of files on the WD
HDD, indicating that the likely reason for adding these files was to make it appear as though
the corresponding files on the WD HDD at one time had originated on the CF card with the
dates indicated, consistent with the government’s narrative. This is especially significant
because other than easily-modifiable EXIF data, there is no forensic evidence linking the hard
drive’s alleged contraband to the CF card. Again, for a detailed analysis of the new files
appearing on the 06/11/2019 CF Card report, please see Appendix D.
Finding 3: An unknown person accessed the CF card on 9/19/18, thereby altering file system
dates, while it was in the custody of FBI Special Agent Michael Lever.
● According to the CF card file listing (see Appendix A, Figure 1), the Accessed dates for all
the active files were changed to 09/19/2018 (The rest of the files are recoverable deleted files).
At a minimum, this finding demonstrates that file system dates on the CF card were altered on
at least one occasion, 09/19/2018, six months after it was collected by the FBI on 03/27/2018.
● The presence of updated accessed dates also demonstrates the FBI did not use a write blocker
to preserve the evidence, which is a “critical procedure” according to FBI CART SOP 4.3 (see
my Process Findings).
5
006
● According to the FBI Chain of Custody for the Camera and CF card, Case Agent Michael
Lever checked out these items from Evidence Control on 09/19/2018 and returned them on
09/26/2018 (see Appendix A, Figure 2). SA Lever recorded his purpose for accepting custody
as “Evidence Review.” Therefore, SA Lever is most likely the person who accessed the CF
card on 09/19/2018 without a write blocker. As I explain in my Process Findings report, this
unauthorized access not only changed the evidence but it also violated FBI digital evidence
handling policy.
Finding 4: Dates of photos on the hard drive were altered through manual intervention. The
alterations seem to be an attempt to account for Daylight Saving Time.
● According to the file listing information in Appendix B, Table 1, there is an inconsistent

relationship between two different dates presumably generated by the camera upon creation of
the photographs. The EXIF date, generated by the camera, is embedded into the JPG file itself
and does not change when the file is copied to another file system. However, the Modified date
is saved to the CF card file system, and it may be interpreted differently by another computer,
depending on that computer’s time zone settings (The Created date is overwritten completely
upon copy). I do not have access to the unknown computer into which the photographs were
copied, so I have no information about its time zone settings. However, it appears a deliberate
effort was made to alter Modified dates on the files so they might comport with the Daylight
Saving Time, which ended 10/30/2005.
● From IMG_0043 to IMG_0126 the Modified dates were one hour behind those of the EXIF
dates. On 10/30/2005 starting with IMG_0127 the Modified dates of photos were adjusted to
be two hours behind, and then on the same day starting with IMG_0138 they were adjusted to
be exactly the same as the EXIF dates. Notably, the photos IMG_0127-137 belong to a single
folder (Mnp102005\2005-10-29-2350-08) and were the only photos on the WD HDD with this
two-hour difference between the Modified dates and the EXIF dates. Nothing outside of
human intervention could account for these changes.
● In my experience, there is likewise no legitimate reason a normal user would be making these
changes.
Finding 5: The metadata of a modified photo, whose numbered filename appears between
the alleged contraband ranges, was manually altered to create the appearance that it had not
been modified.
● The Modified date of IMG_0175 on the hard drive matches the Modified date of IMG_0175
recovered on the CF card, which would normally indicate that IMG_0175 was downloaded
from the CF card onto an unknown computer and then copied to the hard drive without ever
being modified.
● However, the EXIF CreatorTool value of IMG_0175 is set to “Adobe Photoshop Elements
6
007
3.0,” which indicates that Adobe Photoshop was used to open and modify the file data. The
Adobe Photoshop value could not have been set by the camera, and it was not observed in the
EXIF data of any other photo. Since the EXIF data is part of the content portion of the file, its
modification must result in an updated Modified date. The fact that the file’s Modified dates
are exactly the same on both devices - in the face of obvious modification - indicates the dates
have been manually altered to be the same (See Appendix A, Figure 6).
● Modified dates are normally unaltered when copying to a new file system. Therefore, the act
of altering a Modified date when content modification occurred reveals an intent by the user to
conceal the file modification by coordinating the Modified dates between the CF card and the
hard drive.
● The uniqueness of the EXIF data in the IMG_0175 file is also reflected in the thumbnail photo
that was carved from it on the HDD. Every other carved thumbnail in this case is named
“Carved [9728].jpeg,” meaning it was carved at the end of the fixed length EXIF portion of the
file located at byte offset 9728 (See Appendix C for a more detailed explanation). However,
the thumbnail carved from IMG_0175 is named “Carved [9104].jpeg,” meaning the EXIF data
in this file is different from all the others.
● The fact that only one file, IMG_0175, still contains the EXIF CreatorTool value set at
“Photoshop Adobe Elements 3.0” is likely due to an oversight on the part of the person
altering the EXIF data. Like the other files in the WD HDD, it contains the EXIF model and
serial number of the camera, but none of the other files contains a reference to Photoshop.
Finding 6: The folders containing the alleged contraband and others that supported the
dating of the photos to 2005 appear automatically named after exact dates and times in 2005.
However, at least some of these timestamped folder names were manually altered.
● At trial the government acknowledged that the upper level folders, such as Df101905, were
created by a human when FE Booth testified, “Yes, it looks like someone put the date and time
associated with two letters” (p. 4984).
● However, during court proceedings the government repeatedly asked FE Booth to confirm
both the upper level and lower level folder names (such as 2005-11-02-0422-20) “roughly”
correspond to the original date and time contained in the EXIF data of files in those folders
(e.g., pp. 4852-56). The clear implication was that these folder names could be relied upon to
corroborate the values in the EXIF data. In fact, during closing arguments the government
stated, “Brian Booth testified that the most reliable metadata that the FBI could obtain from
the images on the Western digital hard drive, said that they were taken exactly when the
folders stated they were taken” (p. 5371).
● The folders could not have been generated by the Canon camera, since that camera creates
folders named “CANON100” to store the first 100 photos, “CANON200” for the second 100
photos, and so on. This folder naming convention appears in the file paths of both of the
7
008
government’s FTK reports of the CF card, dated 04/11/2019 and 06/11/2019.

● Testing has demonstrated that Adobe Photoshop Elements can indeed create folder names with
the YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-SS nomenclature, but the date and time is based upon the current
system clock at the time the photos were imported into Adobe Photoshop, not on the created
times of the photos themselves. This fact reveals how the folder names were subsequently
manipulated.
● According to the date/time nomenclature, for example, the folders “2005-10-19-0727-57” and
“2005-10-19-0727-59” would have had to have been created two seconds apart (7:27:57 AM
and 7:27:59 AM, respectively). These folders reside under separate and uniquely named parent
folders, “Df101905” and “Msk101905,” respectively (See Appendix A, Figure 5). The latter
portion of these folder names could not possibly correspond to realistic folder creation times
because two seconds is not enough time to manually select nine files, IMG_0090-98, copy
them into the Df101905 folder, and then manually select another eleven files, IMG_0079-89,
and manually navigate to the Msk101905 folder and save them there.
● In addition, I discovered a Thumbs.db file in each of the folders “2005-10-19-0727-57” and
“2005-10-19-0727-59.” In earlier versions of Windows, a Thumbs.db was automatically
generated in a folder to contain previews of each file in the folder. However, I discovered that
the Thumbs.db file in each of the “2005-10-19-0727-57” and “2005-10-19-0727-59” folders
contain previews of the full range of photos IMG_0079-98. This means that all of those
photos used to reside in a single folder in the past, and some time later they were divided and
placed into their current locations, which are: IMG_0090-98 into the / Df101905/2005-10-19-
0727-57/ folder and IMG_0079-89 into the /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/ folder. The fact
that all photo previews were contained in both Thumbs.db files likely indicates that an earlier
folder, containing all IMG_0079-98 photos, was duplicated, the resulting folders were
renamed and placed into the Df101905 and Msk101905 folders, and then unwanted photos
from each folder were removed. No special skills are required to move files and rename
folders in the way I just described, and people often do so to organize photos according to
subject matter.
● It is certain that some of the timestamped folder names were manually manipulated, such as
the ones described above. Given the ease with which one can alter folder names, it is possible
the names of the folders containing alleged contraband (2005-11-02-0422-20 and 2005-11-24-
0814-46) were manually set in a way that aligns with the prosecution’s narrative that the
photos were taken in November 2005, and therefore the subject would have been fifteen years
old, according to the trial record. At the very least, the dates and times indicated in these
folder names cannot be relied upon to determine or corroborate the creation dates of the photos
contained in them.
8
009
Finding 7: The photos in this case, including the alleged contraband photos, appear to be on
the hard drive from an automated computer backup in 2009. But in fact, they were placed
there manually with manipulated file creation dates.
● According to the file listing of a forensically imaged Western Digital hard drive (WD HDD),
on 03/30/2009 a backup was made of a Dell Inspiron 700M and given the folder name
“BKP.DellInspiron700M-20090330.” Also on 03/30/2009 a PowerMac was backed up to the
folder “BKP.PowerMac8.2-2009-0330.” Unsurprisingly, all the Created dates in these folders
were 03/30/2009 (or very early 03/31/2009), the backup date identified in the folder name (see
Appendix A, Figure 4). By contrast, all the files in the unknown computer (“Dell Dimension”)
backup folder (“BKP.DellDimension8300-20090330”) have a Created date of 07/26/2003, and
the backup folder has a last Accessed date of 07/28/2003, despite the folder name indicating
the same backup date as the others (03/30/2009).
● When files are copied from one file system to another, their Created dates are changed to the
current clock time of the machine hosting the receiving file system. If all clocks are accurate,
then the created time of these copied files will necessarily be AFTER the modified times.
● In this case, however, all the files in the unknown computer backup
(“BKP.DellDimension8300-20090330”) have a Created date of 07/26/2003, while most of
their Modified dates are from October 2005 and later. This observation indicates the system
clock was rolled back to 2003 before copying these files manually onto the hard drive.
● Sometimes the computer’s CMOS battery – which enables the computer to retain information
after shutdown such as system time – goes bad, resulting in the system clock being reset to a
default date, such as 01/01/20032. However, the computer will continue to reset the system
clock to that date every time the computer powers up. Therefore, a bad CMOS battery cannot
explain the system clock set to 07/26/2003 for the creation date of the files in the folder whose
name, as mentioned previously, indicates a 03/30/2009 backup. It also fails to explain the
creation dates of several hundred (mostly music) files copied to the WD HDD between
08/08/2003 and 08/18/2003 that were NOT located in the “BACKUPS” folder.
● The rolling back of the system clock is more likely the result of someone who was trying to
backdate the folder content and make this folder appear to be a legitimate backup folder but
may not have considered how and when file system dates are normally updated.
There are other significant anomalies in this backup folder that showcase the failed effort to create
the appearance of an automated backup:
● The Dell Inspiron backup contains more than 15,000 files, while Dell Dimension backup was
backed up in two separate copy operations, in total less than 500 files.
● The Dell Inspiron backup included several directories, such as Desktop, Favorites, and My
2 Although the “factory default” date could theoretically be any date, I have never seen one that is NOT on the
first day of the month, either in January or December of the year of manufacture.
9
010
Documents, while the Dell Dimension backup initially only included the Studies folder,
containing the images in question. It is uncommon for a user to choose to primarily back up a
particular folder (in this case, the “Studies” folder) from an entire desktop system, while
ignoring more common file storage locations such as My Documents. To accept the
legitimacy of this backup one would need to believe a highly improbable scenario where the
user made a concerted effort to back up a folder containing his contraband, and specifically
this folder, from an entire desktop system. In a likely attempt to create the appearance of a
legitimate backup – more than an hour after the “Studies” files were copied – a Symantec
folder with one file, and about 150 songs were added to the backup folder.
Conclusion
In summary, the forensic evidence shows that folder names and dates (key facts upon which the
prosecution’s argument relied) were manually altered, and the entire backup folder to which the
alleged contraband belonged was manipulated. While it is impossible to determine exactly when
the information on the WD HDD was altered, it is a scientific certainty that data on the CF card
were added and/or modified while the device was in FBI custody.
Respectfully Submitted,

10
011
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. CF card file listing showing 9/19/2018 access dates3.
Figure 2. Excerpt from DX 945, Chain of Custody for Camera and CF Card, showing SA Lever
checking out evidence on 09/19/2018 and returning it on 09/26/2018.
3
Note: The HDD listing referenced in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 5 was generated by the defense using a computer set to
Pacific Time while the government reports were generated by a computer set to Eastern Time.
11
012
Figure 3. Comparison of photograph metadata for files found on both the CF card and WD HDD.
Figure 4. Records from the WD HDD File listing showing disparity in Created dates.
Figure 5. The WD HDD file listing showing the disparity of parent folders and date/time stamps.
12
013
Figure 6. A comparison of Modified Dates for IMG_0175.JPG, which was modified.
Figure 6a. IMG_0175 file system metadata from the recovered deleted file on the CF Card (GX
521 Replacement). This copy could NOT have contained an EXIF CreatorTool value set to
“Photoshop Adobe Elements 3.0”.
Figure 6b. IMG_0175 file system metadata from the HDD (GX 505A). This copy contained
EXIF data with a CreatorTool value set to “Photoshop Adobe Elements 3.0”.
Figure 6c. File system metadata was altered to conceal EXIF data modification and support the
government’s narrative.
13
014
Appendix B: File Listing Tables
Table 1: Pictures on hard drive under “Studies” on the hard drive (GX 503)
Time Shift Between

FAT Modified and
EXIF
DateTimeOriginal
WD HDD FAT WD HDD EXIF (within a few
File Name Modified Date DateTimeOriginal seconds)
IMG_0043.JPG 10/16/05 11:30:04 PM 10/17/05 12:30:04 AM 1
IMG_0044.JPG 10/17/05 3:53:24 PM 10/17/05 4:53:22 PM 1
IMG_0045.JPG 10/17/05 3:53:40 PM 10/17/05 4:53:40 PM 1
IMG_0046.JPG 10/17/05 3:54:08 PM 10/17/05 4:54:09 PM 1
IMG_0047.JPG 10/17/05 3:54:24 PM 10/17/05 4:54:24 PM 1
IMG_0048.JPG 10/17/05 3:54:38 PM 10/17/05 4:54:38 PM 1
IMG_0049.JPG 10/17/05 3:54:54 PM 10/17/05 4:54:54 PM 1
IMG_0050.JPG 10/17/05 3:55:04 PM 10/17/05 4:55:05 PM 1
IMG_0051.JPG 10/17/05 3:55:28 PM 10/17/05 4:55:28 PM 1
IMG_0052.JPG 10/17/05 3:55:42 PM 10/17/05 4:55:41 PM 1
IMG_0053.JPG 10/17/05 3:55:54 PM 10/17/05 4:55:52 PM 1
IMG_0054.JPG 10/17/05 3:55:58 PM 10/17/05 4:55:59 PM 1
IMG_0055.JPG 10/17/05 3:56:24 PM 10/17/05 4:56:25 PM 1
IMG_0056.JPG 10/17/05 3:56:36 PM 10/17/05 4:56:36 PM 1
IMG_0057.JPG 10/17/05 3:56:48 PM 10/17/05 4:56:48 PM 1
IMG_0058.JPG 10/17/05 3:56:58 PM 10/17/05 4:56:58 PM 1
IMG_0059-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:00:58 PM 10/17/05 10:00:57 PM 1
IMG_0060-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:01:06 PM 10/17/05 10:01:07 PM 1
IMG_0061-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:01:12 PM 10/17/05 10:01:13 PM 1
IMG_0062-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:01:24 PM 10/17/05 10:01:24 PM 1
IMG_0063-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:01:32 PM 10/17/05 10:01:32 PM 1
IMG_0064-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:02:00 PM 10/17/05 10:02:00 PM 1
14
015
IMG_0065-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:02:08 PM 10/17/05 10:02:07 PM 1
IMG_0066-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:02:14 PM 10/17/05 10:02:13 PM 1
IMG_0067-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:02:34 PM 10/17/05 10:02:34 PM 1
IMG_0068-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:03:02 PM 10/17/05 10:03:01 PM 1
IMG_0069-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:03:10 PM 10/17/05 10:03:10 PM 1
IMG_0070-1.JPG 10/17/05 9:03:24 PM 10/17/05 10:03:24 PM 1
IMG_0071.JPG 10/18/05 7:32:06 PM 10/18/05 8:32:06 PM 1
IMG_0072.JPG 10/18/05 7:32:26 PM 10/18/05 8:32:26 PM 1
IMG_0073.JPG 10/18/05 7:32:36 PM 10/18/05 8:32:36 PM 1
IMG_0074.JPG 10/18/05 7:32:44 PM 10/18/05 8:32:44 PM 1
IMG_0075.JPG 10/18/05 7:33:08 PM 10/18/05 8:33:09 PM 1
IMG_0076.JPG 10/18/05 7:33:14 PM 10/18/05 8:33:15 PM 1
IMG_0077.JPG 10/18/05 7:33:22 PM 10/18/05 8:33:22 PM 1
IMG_0078.JPG 10/18/05 7:33:30 PM 10/18/05 8:33:30 PM 1
IMG_0079.JPG 10/19/05 5:54:08 PM 10/19/05 6:54:09 PM 1
IMG_0080.JPG 10/19/05 5:54:22 PM 10/19/05 6:54:23 PM 1
IMG_0081.JPG 10/19/05 5:54:32 PM 10/19/05 6:54:33 PM 1
IMG_0082.JPG 10/19/05 5:54:56 PM 10/19/05 6:54:57 PM 1
IMG_0083.JPG 10/19/05 5:55:10 PM 10/19/05 6:55:10 PM 1
IMG_0084.JPG 10/19/05 5:55:36 PM 10/19/05 6:55:37 PM 1
IMG_0085.JPG 10/19/05 5:55:48 PM 10/19/05 6:55:49 PM 1
IMG_0086.JPG 10/19/05 5:55:56 PM 10/19/05 6:55:57 PM 1
IMG_0087.JPG 10/19/05 5:56:08 PM 10/19/05 6:56:09 PM 1
IMG_0088.JPG 10/19/05 5:56:24 PM 10/19/05 6:56:24 PM 1
IMG_0089.JPG 10/19/05 5:56:34 PM 10/19/05 6:56:34 PM 1
IMG_0090.JPG 10/19/05 6:32:52 PM 10/19/05 7:32:51 PM 1
IMG_0091.JPG 10/19/05 6:32:58 PM 10/19/05 7:32:57 PM 1
15
016
IMG_0092.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:08 PM 10/19/05 7:33:09 PM 1
IMG_0093.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:18 PM 10/19/05 7:33:18 PM 1
IMG_0094.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:26 PM 10/19/05 7:33:25 PM 1
IMG_0095.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:30 PM 10/19/05 7:33:29 PM 1
IMG_0096.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:52 PM 10/19/05 7:33:51 PM 1
IMG_0097.JPG 10/19/05 6:33:58 PM 10/19/05 7:33:57 PM 1
IMG_0098.JPG 10/19/05 6:34:08 PM 10/19/05 7:34:08 PM 1
IMG_0099.JPG 10/20/05 3:20:12 PM 10/20/05 4:20:13 PM 1
IMG_0100.JPG 10/20/05 3:20:30 PM 10/20/05 4:20:31 PM 1
IMG_0101.JPG 10/20/05 3:20:44 PM 10/20/05 4:20:44 PM 1
IMG_0102.JPG 10/20/05 3:21:02 PM 10/20/05 4:21:02 PM 1
IMG_0103.JPG 10/20/05 3:21:28 PM 10/20/05 4:21:28 PM 1
IMG_0104.JPG 10/20/05 3:25:14 PM 10/20/05 4:25:14 PM 1
IMG_0105.JPG 10/20/05 3:26:56 PM 10/20/05 4:26:56 PM 1
IMG_0106.JPG 10/20/05 3:27:04 PM 10/20/05 4:27:03 PM 1
IMG_0107.JPG 10/20/05 3:49:24 PM 10/20/05 4:49:23 PM 1
IMG_0108.JPG 10/20/05 3:49:26 PM 10/20/05 4:49:26 PM 1
IMG_0109.JPG 10/20/05 3:49:30 PM 10/20/05 4:49:29 PM 1
IMG_0110.JPG 10/29/05 4:11:16 AM 10/29/05 5:11:16 AM 1
IMG_0111.JPG 10/29/05 4:11:42 AM 10/29/05 5:11:43 AM 1
IMG_0112.JPG 10/29/05 4:43:36 AM 10/29/05 5:43:36 AM 1
IMG_0113.JPG 10/29/05 4:43:54 AM 10/29/05 5:43:54 AM 1
IMG_0115.JPG 10/29/05 4:44:52 AM 10/29/05 5:44:52 AM 1
IMG_0116.JPG 10/29/05 4:44:56 AM 10/29/05 5:44:55 AM 1
IMG_0117.JPG 10/29/05 4:45:06 AM 10/29/05 5:45:06 AM 1
IMG_0118.JPG 10/29/05 4:45:20 AM 10/29/05 5:45:20 AM 1
IMG_0119.JPG 10/29/05 4:45:26 AM 10/29/05 5:45:25 AM 1
16
017
IMG_0120.JPG 10/29/05 4:45:40 AM 10/29/05 5:45:40 AM 1
IMG_0121.JPG 10/29/05 4:45:50 AM 10/29/05 5:45:50 AM 1
IMG_0122.JPG 10/29/05 4:46:00 AM 10/29/05 5:46:00 AM 1
IMG_0123.JPG 10/29/05 4:47:00 AM 10/29/05 5:46:59 AM 1
IMG_0124.JPG 10/29/05 4:47:06 AM 10/29/05 5:47:05 AM 1
IMG_0125.JPG 10/29/05 4:47:10 AM 10/29/05 5:47:11 AM 1
IMG_0126.JPG 10/29/05 4:47:24 AM 10/29/05 5:47:24 AM 1
IMG_0127.JPG 10/30/05 2:34:20 AM 10/30/05 4:34:20 AM 2
IMG_0128.JPG 10/30/05 2:35:14 AM 10/30/05 4:35:14 AM 2
IMG_0129.JPG 10/30/05 2:36:06 AM 10/30/05 4:36:05 AM 2
IMG_0130.JPG 10/30/05 2:36:42 AM 10/30/05 4:36:42 AM 2
IMG_0131.JPG 10/30/05 2:36:54 AM 10/30/05 4:36:55 AM 2
IMG_0132.JPG 10/30/05 2:37:12 AM 10/30/05 4:37:12 AM 2
IMG_0133.JPG 10/30/05 2:37:44 AM 10/30/05 4:37:45 AM 2
IMG_0134.JPG 10/30/05 2:37:58 AM 10/30/05 4:37:58 AM 2
IMG_0135.JPG 10/30/05 2:38:00 AM 10/30/05 4:38:00 AM 2
IMG_0136.JPG 10/30/05 3:39:00 AM 10/30/05 5:39:00 AM 2
IMG_0137.JPG 10/30/05 3:39:06 AM 10/30/05 5:39:06 AM 2
IMG_0138.JPG 10/30/05 4:55:42 PM 10/30/05 4:55:41 PM 0
IMG_0139.JPG 10/30/05 4:55:52 PM 10/30/05 4:55:51 PM 0
IMG_0140.JPG 10/30/05 4:56:20 PM 10/30/05 4:56:21 PM 0
IMG_0141.JPG 10/30/05 4:56:46 PM 10/30/05 4:56:46 PM 0
IMG_0142.JPG 10/30/05 4:57:12 PM 10/30/05 4:57:12 PM 0
IMG_0143.JPG 10/30/05 6:01:08 PM 10/30/05 6:01:08 PM 0
IMG_0144.JPG 10/30/05 6:01:14 PM 10/30/05 6:01:14 PM 0
IMG_0145.JPG 10/30/05 6:01:20 PM 10/30/05 6:01:19 PM 0
IMG_0146.JPG 10/30/05 6:01:28 PM 10/30/05 6:01:28 PM 0
17
018
IMG_0147.JPG 10/30/05 6:02:08 PM 10/30/05 6:02:08 PM 0
IMG_0148.JPG 10/30/05 6:02:14 PM 10/30/05 6:02:15 PM 0
IMG_0149.JPG 10/30/05 6:02:22 PM 10/30/05 6:02:22 PM 0
IMG_0150.JPG 11/2/05 5:59:16 PM 11/02/05 5:59:16 PM 0
IMG_0151.JPG 11/2/05 5:59:26 PM 11/02/05 5:59:25 PM 0
IMG_0152.JPG 11/2/05 5:59:30 PM 11/02/05 5:59:30 PM 0
IMG_0153.JPG 11/2/05 5:59:34 PM 11/02/05 5:59:34 PM 0
IMG_0154.JPG 11/2/05 5:59:48 PM 11/02/05 5:59:47 PM 0
IMG_0155.JPG 11/2/05 6:00:22 PM 11/02/05 6:00:22 PM 0
IMG_0156.JPG 11/2/05 6:00:30 PM 11/02/05 6:00:29 PM 0
IMG_0157.JPG 11/2/05 6:00:38 PM 11/02/05 6:00:38 PM 0
IMG_0158.JPG 11/2/05 6:00:48 PM 11/02/05 6:00:49 PM 0
IMG_0159.JPG 11/2/05 6:01:10 PM 11/02/05 6:01:10 PM 0
IMG_0160.JPG 11/2/05 6:01:18 PM 11/02/05 6:01:18 PM 0
IMG_0161.JPG 11/2/05 6:09:00 PM 11/02/05 6:08:59 PM 0
IMG_0162.JPG 11/2/05 6:09:02 PM 11/02/05 6:09:02 PM 0
IMG_0163.JPG 11/2/05 6:09:10 PM 11/02/05 6:09:11 PM 0
IMG_0164.JPG 11/10/05 8:22:18 PM 11/10/05 8:22:18 PM 0
IMG_0165.JPG 11/10/05 8:22:30 PM 11/10/05 8:22:30 PM 0
IMG_0168.JPG 11/10/05 8:23:12 PM 11/10/05 8:23:12 PM 0
IMG_0169.JPG 11/10/05 8:23:26 PM 11/10/05 8:23:26 PM 0
IMG_0172.JPG 11/10/05 8:24:20 PM 11/10/05 8:24:19 PM 0
IMG_0174.JPG 11/10/05 8:24:48 PM 11/10/05 8:24:47 PM 0
IMG_0175.JPG 11/10/05 8:25:04 PM 11/10/05 8:25:04 PM 0
IMG_0176.JPG 11/10/05 8:25:10 PM 11/10/05 8:25:11 PM 0
IMG_0177.JPG 11/10/05 8:25:36 PM 11/10/05 8:25:35 PM 0
IMG_0178.JPG 11/10/05 8:25:54 PM 11/10/05 8:25:54 PM 0
18
019
IMG_0179.JPG 11/10/05 8:26:04 PM 11/10/05 8:26:04 PM 0
IMG_0180.JPG 11/10/05 8:26:22 PM 11/10/05 8:26:22 PM 0
IMG_0181.JPG 11/10/05 8:26:26 PM 11/10/05 8:26:25 PM 0
IMG_0182.JPG 11/10/05 8:26:30 PM 11/10/05 8:26:29 PM 0
IMG_0183.JPG 11/10/05 8:27:34 PM 11/10/05 8:27:33 PM 0
IMG_0184.JPG 11/24/05 9:07:50 PM 11/24/05 9:07:50 PM 0
IMG_0185.JPG 11/24/05 9:07:56 PM 11/24/05 9:07:55 PM 0
IMG_0186.JPG 11/24/05 9:08:08 PM 11/24/05 9:08:07 PM 0
IMG_0187.JPG 11/24/05 9:09:52 PM 11/24/05 9:09:52 PM 0
IMG_0188.JPG 11/24/05 9:10:08 PM 11/24/05 9:10:08 PM 0
IMG_0189.JPG 11/24/05 9:10:22 PM 11/24/05 9:10:23 PM 0
IMG_0190.JPG 11/24/05 9:10:28 PM 11/24/05 9:10:28 PM 0
IMG_0191.JPG 11/24/05 9:10:38 PM 11/24/05 9:10:37 PM 0
IMG_0194.JPG 12/18/05 12:37:58 AM 12/18/05 12:37:58 AM 0
IMG_0197.JPG 12/18/05 12:38:20 AM 12/18/05 12:38:20 AM 0
IMG_0198.JPG 12/18/05 12:38:28 AM 12/18/05 12:38:28 AM 0
IMG_0199.JPG 12/18/05 12:38:56 AM 12/18/05 12:38:55 AM 0
IMG_0203.JPG 12/25/05 2:59:44 AM 12/25/05 2:59:44 AM 0
IMG_0204.JPG 12/25/05 2:59:50 AM 12/25/05 2:59:50 AM 0
IMG_0205.JPG 12/25/05 3:00:42 AM 12/25/05 3:00:42 AM 0
IMG_0206.JPG 12/25/05 3:00:50 AM 12/25/05 3:00:49 AM 0
IMG_0207.JPG 12/25/05 3:01:40 AM 12/25/05 3:01:40 AM 0
IMG_0208.JPG 12/25/05 3:01:46 AM 12/25/05 3:01:46 AM 0
IMG_0209.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:06 PM 12/30/05 5:56:05 PM 0
IMG_0210.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:12 PM 12/30/05 5:56:11 PM 0
IMG_0211.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:16 PM 12/30/05 5:56:15 PM 0
IMG_0212.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:20 PM 12/30/05 5:56:20 PM 0
19
020
IMG_0213.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:46 PM 12/30/05 5:56:46 PM 0
IMG_0214.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:54 PM 12/30/05 5:56:53 PM 0
IMG_0215.JPG 12/30/05 5:56:56 PM 12/30/05 5:56:56 PM 0
IMG_0216.JPG 12/30/05 5:57:00 PM 12/30/05 5:56:59 PM 0
IMG_0217.JPG 12/30/05 5:58:50 PM 12/30/05 5:58:50 PM 0
IMG_0218.JPG 12/30/05 5:59:00 PM 12/30/05 5:58:59 PM 0
IMG_0219.JPG 12/30/05 5:59:08 PM 12/30/05 5:59:07 PM 0
IMG_0220.JPG 12/30/05 5:59:18 PM 12/30/05 5:59:18 PM 0
IMG_0221.JPG 12/30/05 5:59:56 PM 12/30/05 5:59:56 PM 0
IMG_0222.JPG 12/30/05 6:00:08 PM 12/30/05 6:00:08 PM 0
IMG_0223.JPG 12/30/05 6:00:24 PM 12/30/05 6:00:24 PM 0
20
021
Appendix C: Analysis of Files Carved from HDD and CF Card
The content of four digital photos, IMG_0180 through IMG_0183, are the only ones that are
exactly the same across both the CF card (GX 521A) and the external hard drive (GX 503),
meaning they are the only photos whose file names and MD5 hashes match. Initially, this was
discovered by comparing the file hashes from two file listings, “CF card listing.csv” and “File
Listing of Backup Folder (BKP.DellDimension8300-20090330).csv,” derived from the FBI’s FTK
reports.
In addition, I inspected two additional file listings, “GX 521A Replacement (carved
files)_2019_06_11.csv” and “Full File Listing of Hard Drive Contents (GX 503).csv,” which
provided items carved from the CF card and external hard drive, respectively. In these listings I
discovered a suspicious relationship between photos IMG_0180 through IMG_0183 and four other
photos on the CF card, IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097, respectively.
Before I describe those relationships, however, it would be helpful for the reader to understand
how carved files are generated. Figure 1 represents a digital photograph named IMG_0180.JPG,
which has a file size of 2,539,833 bytes (about 2.5 MB). The logical portion of the file consists of
three primary components.
● EXIF data, which typically contains camera-generated metadata, is fixed length and
occupies the first portion of the file from byte offset 0 to offset 9728.
● The second portion of the file is the picture thumbnail, a variable-length component that
occupies the space between the end of the EXIF data (offset 9728) and the beginning of the
main picture (offset 16845). Subtracting these two numbers provides the file size of the
thumbnail, 7,117 bytes. When a forensic tool carves it from the parent file it is given the
file name “Carved [9728].jpeg,” indicating its starting location in the file.
● The third portion of the file is the main picture, occupying the largest portion of the file at
2,522,988 bytes. Since the main picture begins at byte offset 16845, the carving forensic
tool will give it a file name of “Carved [16845].jpeg.”
Figure 1. How a forensic tool creates and names files carved from digital photographs.
21
022
For brevity I will limit the discussion of the suspicious files (IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096,
and IMG_0097) to the relationship between IMG_0093 and IMG_0180. The corresponding
relationships between IMG_0094, IMG_0096, IMG_0097 and IMG_181, IMG_182, IMG_183,
respectively, are identical.
Table 1 below was excerpted from “Full File Listing of Hard Drive Contents (GX 503).csv” and
displays information about IMG_0093 and IMG_0180. As discussed elsewhere, the Created dates
do not make sense. That anomaly aside, however, the file size information is consistent. For
example, for each file the logical size (L-Size) added to the size of its corresponding FileSlack is
equal to the physical size (P-size), as it should. Also, each of these files have corresponding carved
files, including “Carved [9728].jpeg,” which is a thumbnail picture carved starting at byte offset
9728. With a single exception - as explained previously - the thumbnail files for each digital
photograph in this case can be identified by the name “Carved [9728].jpeg.” A second carved file,
“Carved [XXXXX].jpeg,” which is the main picture carved starting at byte offset XXXXX, will
vary with each photo because thumbnail sizes are different. The table below demonstrates that
subtracting the two starting byte offsets for the carved files (in red) predictably results in the
logical size for the thumbnail (in blue).
P-Size L-Size
Row Name Category Created Accessed Modified (bytes) (bytes) MD5
697cec1244dce
7/26/2003 10/19/2005 21ecc4f82cd3a7
1 IMG_0093.JPG JPEG EXIF 11:06 2/12/2010 15:33 2523136 2500404 64644
IMG_0093.JPG.File
2 Slack Slack Space n/a n/a n/a 22732 22732
ae6cbe511c9f3b
dec52917e3dca
3 Carved [14844].jpeg JPEG n/a n/a n/a n/a 2485560 05129
51202a6c4b8e6
084f153456561
4 Carved [9728].jpeg JPEG n/a n/a n/a n/a 5116 56481c
f6202d0b41e30
7/26/2003 11/10/2005 c7c21aeae32c38
5 IMG_0180.JPG JPEG EXIF 11:06 2/12/2010 17:26 2555904 2539833 baf9b
IMG_0180.JPG.File
6 Slack Slack Space n/a n/a n/a 16071 16071
b991eaa84b4d9
1dfa2d0eece1e9
7 Carved [16845].jpeg JPEG n/a n/a n/a n/a 2522988 02430
6babe3f7c2bd2c
6c73d15e3d2db
8 Carved [9728].jpeg JPEG n/a n/a n/a n/a 7117 42a95
Table 1. Excerpt from “Full File Listing of Hard Drive Contents (GX 503).csv.”
22
023
Next we turn our attention to an excerpt from “GX 521A Replacement (carved
files)_2019_06_11.csv,” which also displays information about IMG_0093 and IMG_0180 - but
on the CF card. There are several inconsistencies with this data (See Table 2).
● The file named “Carved [2129920].jpeg” indicates the file was carved from IMG_0093
starting at byte offset 2129920. This would mean the file would have been carved starting near
the end of the digital photo file, which has a logical size of 2500404 bytes according to the
previous table. There was no file size data present in this file listing (which is suspicious in
itself). However, subtracting 2129920 from 2500404 yields a maximum file size of 370484
bytes for this carved file, which is too large to be a thumbnail and too small to be the main
picture data for the photo.
● In row 2 a file named “Carved [16845].jpeg” indicates the file was carved from “Carved
[2129920].jpeg” (which was itself carved from IMG_0093) starting at byte offset 16845.
Surprisingly, this is precisely the same byte offset that began the main picture carving in
IMG_0180 as shown in this table (row 5) and verified in the previous table by a matching
MD5 hash (See Table 1, row 7).
● As discussed earlier, files in this case named “Carved [9728].jpeg” are thumbnails that are
carved from their parent photo files starting at byte offset 9728. However, the same
thumbnail (with matching hashes) was carved from two different files, IMG_0093 and
IMG_0180. (See Table 2, rows 3-4 and compare at Table 1, row 8).
Row Path Hash Name Deleted?
/DCIM/100CANON/! MG_0093.JPG»Carved 8514c14257901fca23dab82d ! MG_0093.JPG»Carved

1 [2129920].jpeg b71f6c0c [2129920].jpeg Y
! MG_0093.JPG»Carved
/DCIM/100CANON/! MG_0093.JPG»Carved d4831cccb7f5ac74632cc09a [2129920].jpeg»Carved
2 [2129920].jpeg»Carved [16845].jpeg 32d28515 [16845].jpeg Y
! MG_0093.JPG»Carved
/DCIM/100CANON/! MG_0093.JPG»Carved 6babe3f7c2bd2c6c73d15e3d [2129920].jpeg»Carved
3 [2129920].jpeg»Carved [9728].jpeg 2db42a95 [9728].jpeg Y
/DCIM/101CANON/! MG_0180.JPG»Carved 6babe3f7c2bd2c6c73d15e3d ! MG_0180.JPG»Carved

4 [9728].jpeg 2db42a95 [9728].jpeg Y
/DCIM/101CANON/! MG_0180.JPG»Carved b991eaa84b4d91dfa2d0eece ! MG_0180.JPG»Carved

5 [16845].jpeg 1e902430 [16845].jpeg Y
Table 2. Excerpt from “GX 521A Replacement (carved files)_2019_06_11.csv” (second

listing for the CF card, with no file sizes present).
23
024
As mentioned previously, the same pattern appears in the file listings for relationships between
IMG_0094 and IMG_0181, IMG_0096 and IMG_0182, and IMG_0097 and IMG_0183. Two
additional observations point to IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097 being
counterfeit files on the CF card:
● With the exception of unallocated space, the files IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and
IMG_0097 are the only files in the CF card file listing with apparent nested carving (carving
from carved files).
● Unlike the consistency of files IMG_0180 to IMG_0183, the byte offset data and MD5 hashes
of files IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097 are NOT consistent between
Tables 1 and 2 (i.e., between the hard drive and CF card).
Other anomalous behavior

Additional analyses of the CF card and WD HDD file listings reveal bizarre patterns that support
the finding that files were altered and transferred between devices:
● A group of files located on the WD HDD were given nonstandard file names, from
IMG_0059-1 to IMG_0070-1. Neither the 04/11/2019 nor the 06/11/2019 CF card file listings
contain any record of these photos existing on the CF card, despite their camera-related EXIF
data being identical to all the others. Notably, these names were not assigned automatically by
the camera, but were rather created by a user action, thus proving at least one aspect of
metadata editing.
● The CF card file listing shows large swaths of missing file name sequences, and sequences
with no content, punctuated by groups of 5-6 files with recoverable content (see Table 3). This
is not consistent with normal use of a camera, where the user might review and choose to
occasionally delete unwanted photographs as desired. Rarely would this deletion activity
follow such a distinctive pattern as what appears in the file listing. However, the pattern
would be consistent with someone copying photos between the CF card and an unknown
computer.
24
025
Table 3. Analysis showing conspicuous gaps in data appearing in the CF card file listing.
Summary
According to the file paths and hash values I observed, the carving byte offset data and thumbnails
are exactly the same in two sets of files purported to be different. To be clear, two different digital
photographs would never share exactly the same thumbnail picture. It is impossible without
manual intervention. Moreover, the photographs IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and
IMG_0097, produced multiple, duplicate carved files, which on flash media is indicative of file
modification. By contrast, all the other files on the CF card file listing contain exactly two carved
files: a thumbnail named “Carved [9728].jpeg” and a carved main picture named “Carved
[XXXXX].jpeg.”
Given the above facts, I believe the following actions describe the most plausible explanation for
what I observed with regard to the eight files in question.
These four files (IMG_0180 through IMG_0183) were either manually copied from an unknown
computer to the CF card or else were copied from the CF card to the unknown computer, where
they were “backed up” to the external hard drive. This action would explain the fact that these four
files (the only four of about 200) actually matched hashes between devices. Also, it is likely that
someone copied another version of these same four files to the CF card, altered their content, and
renamed them to IMG_0093, IMG_0094, IMG_0096, and IMG_0097. These actions would
25
026
explain 1) why these files bear no resemblance to those on the hard drive with the same file
names, 2) why they contain the identical thumbnail pictures and common starting byte offsets as
those contained in the IMG_0180 to IMG_0183 files, 3) why there are multiple, carved instances
of these files on the flash media, and 4) why none of these files appeared on the 04/11/2019 CF
card file listing while appearing on the subsequent 06/11/2019 file listing. There are no plausible
natural or automated causes to explain such phenomena.
In summary, the forensic evidence demonstrates that alterations were intentionally made to files
on the CF card, and the differences between the 04/11/2019 and 06/11/2019 file listings suggest
those alterations took place while the CF card was in the custody of the FBI, as the devices were
collected on March 27, 2018.
26
027
Appendix D: Description of New Files Appearing on the FBI’s Forensic Report

Between 04/11/2019 and 06/11/2019
By J. Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
Introduction:
In the present case, U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE, the FBI completed two forensic examinations and generated two
different reports on the same piece of evidence: A compact flash (CF) card found in a digital camera case. The
Government claimed that digital photographs from this CF Card were eventually backed up to a Western Digital hard
disk drive (WD HDD), which also contained alleged child pornography. The government’s narrative depended on
creating a strong connection between the CF Card, allegedly belonging to the defendant, and the WD HDD that
supposedly backed up photos from the CF Card. This brief analysis offers a plausible explanation for why a second
examination, and a second report of the CF Card, were generated by an FBI forensic examiner (FE)1.
Figure 1: Files Appearing on the First FBI Forensic Reports of the CF Card and WD HDD
04/11/2019 04/11/2019
CF Card Report WD HDD Report
IMG_0021-41
IMG_0043-79
IMG_0081-100
IMG_0101-149
Photo range of alleged
IMG_0150-163 contraband – not included
in WD HDD report.
IMG_0164,5,8,9
IMG_0172-79 sans 173
IMG_0180-183 IMG_0180-183
Photo range of alleged
IMG_0184-191 contraband – not included
in WD HDD report.
IMG_0194,7,8,9
IMG_0203-223
IMG_0224-0243, sans
0226, 0232, and 0240
Observations:
• Both forensic reports were generated on the same day, April 11, 2019.
• The CF Card report was created by FE Stephen Flatley, who kept the CF Card until 06/07/2022.
• The WD HDD report was created by FE Brian Booth, using a forensic copy made by his trainee.
• Only four photos, named IMG_0180-183, are common to both forensic reports (highlighted yellow).
• At this time no other files on the CF Card report could be shown to be “backed up” to the WD HDD.
1
For more information about the background of the case and the Government’s narrative presented at trial, please see my full
reports detailing Technical and Process Findings.
028
Figure 2: Generating the Second FBI Forensic Report on the CF Card (June 11, 2019)
04/11/2019 06/11/2019 04/11/2019

CF Card Report CF Card Report WD HDD Report
IMG_0021-41 IMG_0021-41
IMG_0042
IMG_0043-80
IMG_0081-100 IMG_0081-100
IMG_0101-149
IMG_0150-163
IMG_0164,5,8,9
IMG_0172-179 IMG_0172-79 sans 173
IMG_0180-183 IMG_0180-183 IMG_0180-183
IMG_0184-191
IMG_0193-200 IMG_0194,7,8,9
IMG_0203-223
IMG_0224-0243, sans IMG_0224-0243, sans

0226, 0232, and 0240 0226, 0232, and 0240
Observations:
• As documented in the Chain of Custody, SA Mills delivered the CF Card, in an unsealed bag, to FE Booth on
06/10/2019, during the last week of trial and more than 14 months after the search team had collected it.
• SA Lever requested that FE Booth complete a new examination and a new “replacement” report (dated
06/11/2019 in the above figure).
• None of the new files appearing on the 06/11/2019 report (shaded green) was viewable in the report.
• No explanation was provided for the appearance of the new files or why they were unviewable.
• All the previous CF Card files (in white) are viewable in both CF Card reports.
• It is extremely unlikely that eight of the new files on the 6/11 CF Card report (IMG_0172-179) just happen to
occupy the filename space before the small group of “common” photos (IMG_0180-183) and then another
eight new files (IMG_0193-200) just happen to appear right after the alleged contraband photo range
(IMG_0184-191), which themselves just happen to appear immediately after the common photos.
• The alleged contraband photos, IMG_0150-163 and IMG_0184-191, appear in neither of the CF Card reports.
If the government’s narrative was correct, then one would reasonably expect some remnants of these photos
to have been included on the FBI’s reports.
• IMG_0042 appears only on the 6/11 CF Card report – so it seems to fill a filename “gap.”
o IMG_0021-0041 appear on the 4/11 CF Card report but not on the WD HDD report.
o IMG_0043-0179 appear on the WD HDD report but not on the 4/11 CF Card report.
• The new file ranges on the 6/11 report are uninterrupted. Unlike the WD HDD report, there are no missing
file names or gaps within each group of new files.
029
Figure 3: Evidence Supporting the Addition of New Files to the CF Card
IMG_0079.JPG 10/19/05 2:54 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0079.JPG

Why were
IMG_0082.JPG 10/19/05 2:54 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0082.JPG only the last
IMG_0083.JPG 10/19/05 2:55 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0083.JPG nine photos
IMG_0084.JPG 10/19/05 2:55 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0084.JPG (not the first
two) from
Msk101905
IMG_0086.JPG 10/19/05 2:55 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0086.JPG added to the
IMG_0087.JPG 10/19/05 2:56 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0087.JPG new 6/11 CF
IMG_0088.JPG 10/19/05 2:56 PM /Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59/IMG_0088.JPG Card Report?
IMG_0090.JPG 10/19/05 3:32 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0090.JPG Photo files
IMG_0091.JPG 10/19/05 3:32 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0091.JPG shaded in
IMG_0092.JPG 10/19/05 3:33 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0092.JPG green were
IMG_0093.JPG 10/19/05 3:33 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0093.JPG added to the
IMG_0094.JPG 10/19/05 3:33 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0094.JPG 06/11 CF Card
IMG_0095.JPG 10/19/05 3:33 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0095.JPG report and did
not appear on
IMG_0096.JPG 10/19/05 3:33 PM /Df101905/2005-10-19-0727-57/IMG_0096.JPG
the 4/11
report.
IMG_0099.JPG 10/20/05 12:20 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0099.JPG
IMG_0100.JPG 10/20/05 12:20 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0100.JPG Why were
IMG_0101.JPG 10/20/05 12:20 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0101.JPG only the first
two photos
(not the last
IMG_0103.JPG 10/20/05 12:21 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0103.JPG eight) from
IMG_0104.JPG 10/20/05 12:25 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0104.JPG Mnp102005
IMG_0105.JPG 10/20/05 12:26 PM /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31/IMG_0105.JPG added to the
new 6/11 CF
Card Report?
Observations:
• The above file listing was adapted from the WD HDD report, so all these files appear in the “backup” drive.
• None of these files appear on the 4/11 CF Card report.
• Files shaded in green appear on the 6/11 CF Card report, but none of them are viewable on that report.
• Files with a red boundary were located in the WD HDD’s Msk101905 folder.
• Files with a blue boundary were located in the WD HDD’s Mnp102005 folder.
• It is extremely unlikely that photos would have been saved to and deleted from the CF Card in this manner
as a result of normal user behavior (See Implications discussion below).
030
Implications
As explained elsewhere, the Government claimed that digital photos, including alleged contraband, had been
created with a Canon camera, saved to the camera’s CF card, transferred to an unknown computer, and then backed
up to the WD HDD. Figure 1 illustrates the initially weak relationship between files on the CF card and the alleged
“backup” of those files contained in the WD HDD. In fact, according to the FBI’s report on 04/11/2019, only four
photographs were reported as being common to both devices.
In Figure 2, however, the introduction of new files to the FBI’s 06/11/2019 “replacement” forensic report creates an
obviously stronger relationship between the devices. In all, 37 photos with filenames matching those on the WD
HDD were added to the 06/11/2019 report in small, contiguous groups of files. Unfortunately – or perhaps,
conveniently – none of the new files were viewable as photographs in the second report. As a result, none of the
new files could be verified visually or forensically against their namesakes on the WD HDD report.2 The FBI never
provided an explanation for the appearance of new photos on the 06/11/2019 report or why they were the only
photos on the CF card that were not viewable in the report.
Figure 3 requires a more robust explanation. In the case of the new files IMG_0081-100 (highlighted in green), it
seems that someone decided to add the appearance of those 20 files using round start and end file numbers – but
without regard for the three separate folders into which their namesakes would eventually be discovered on the WD
HDD “backup.” To accept the integrity and completeness of the 6/11 CF Card report, one must believe that the user:
• Took photos IMG_0079-89 on the CF Card,

• Saved the eleven photos to the Msk101905/2005-10-19-0727-59 folder on the unknown computer,
• Returned to the CF Card and securely deleted3 the only the first two photos in that series (IMG_0079-80),
• Took photos IMG_0099-108 on the CF Card,
• Saved the ten photos to the /Mnp102005/2005-10-20-0640-31 folder on the unknown computer, and
• Returned to the CF Card and securely deleted all BUT the first two photos in the series (IMG_0099-100).
Such a creating, saving and deleting behavior is extremely unlikely (securely deleting from the camera only the first
two photos in one series and all BUT the first two photos in a subsequent series). That the user would just happen to
selectively curate and delete photos with consecutive filenames like this – based on content – is not a reasonably
credible scenario.
A more plausible explanation is that someone with physical control of the CF Card:
• Recognized the weak relationship between the photos reported on the 04/11/2019 CF Card report and those
reported as “backup” files on the WD HDD, including alleged contraband,
• Examined the file listing of the WD HDD and chose a convenient range based on filenames (IMG_0081-100)
rather than their saved folders,
• Created the appearance (through file and metadata manipulation) that those files had been discovered on
the CF Card as reported on the 06/11/2019 report, and
• Botched the file creation and deletion of the new files, rendering them unviewable in the 06/11/2019 report.
2
The Modified date/time stamps between the new files in the 06/11/2019 report and their namesakes on the WD HDD did
match. However, as explained in my report of Technical Findings, such metadata is easily changed and in this case it was
obviously manipulated, enhancing the CF Card – WD HDD relationship required by the Government’s narrative.
3
By securely deleted I refer to the process of selectively overwriting physical sectors on the media so that the files cannot be
recovered by forensic tools. Selectively eradicating photos in this way is not something a normal user would be able to
accomplish. If the deleted photos were recoverable, then the FBI would have included them in the second CF card report.
031
Conclusion:
The defense team was provided the FBI’s forensic report of the CF Card generated on 04/11/2019 and then the
second “replacement” report, which was generated on 06/11/2019 and contained 37 additional files.
Along with the appearance of new files on a second CF Card forensic report, it is also undisputed that the contents of
the CF card were modified on 09/19/2018, while in FBI custody, and that the CF card was delivered to FE Brian Booth
in an unsealed cellophane bag just two days before FE Booth took the stand.4 Therefore, in my expert opinion all
indications of means, motive, and opportunity point to FBI employees creating the appearance of additional files on
the CF Card in order to substantiate a relationship between the CF Card and the WD HDD containing the alleged
contraband.
4
These two facts were verified by FE Brian Booth in his sworn testimony.
032
April 25, 2022
Summary of Process Findings

agent, a supervisor, a unit chief, a forensic examiner, a trainer of forensic examiners, and a
trainer of other trainers of forensic examiners. I have an in-depth knowledge of FBI evidence
handling procedures, and of digital evidence examination procedures and policies.
Review of Evidence
My review of evidence includes court testimony, a hard drive copy of logical files, and
examination reports generated by members of the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team
(CART). Based on my review, I have observed several technical, administrative, and evidence
handling irregularities that raise serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence.
Specifically, in this paper I describe violations of processes and procedures which occurred in
this case and that likely affected the outcome at trial.
Key Findings
Finding 1: Receiving unsealed evidence created a broken Chain of Custody.
• Neither the camera (Court transcript, p. 4886) nor the CF card (p.4889) was sealed when
delivered to CART Forensic Examiner (FE) Brian Booth on 06/10/2019, two days before
he took the stand. The FBI Chain of Custody for the CF card (DX 945) indicates that at
least three FBI employees – FE Stephen Flatley, SA Elliot McGinnis, and SA
Christopher Mills – had physical control of the evidence from the date a reexamination
was requested (06/07/2019) to the date it was delivered to FE Booth in an unsealed
package (06/10/2019).
• FE Booth’s exam notes (DX 961) make no mention of the chain of custody, or of the fact
that he received the evidence in unsealed packaging, although in court he admitted it was
unsealed when he received it (p.4886 and p.4905). As I will discuss later, FBI policy
requires the securing and sealing of evidence, and employees may be disciplined if they
fail to do so. In my experience with the FBI, I never received unsealed evidence other
than in exigent (emergency) situations.
033
Finding 2: FBI employees engaged in unusual evidence handling procedures.

• What normal looks like: Large FBI offices like the New York Division, where the
evidence was processed, have a centralized evidence control and storage facility
sometimes referred to as the Evidence Control Unit (ECU). Normally, evidence is
collected at a search site by the case agent or a designated seizing agent, and a description
of the collected items is entered into Sentinel, the FBI’s case management system. Then
the agent has up to ten days to physically turn over the evidence to Evidence Control with
the chains of custody. After the case agent submits a written request to have the evidence
examined, the assigned CART examiner would check out the relevant evidence items
from Evidence Control and sign the chains of custody. In her notes (DX 961), Forensic
Examiner Trainee (FET) Virginia Donnelly recorded multiple instances where she
created derivative evidence items (forensic copies, extractions, and backups of the
originals) and turned them into Evidence Control. This is also normal.
• Abnormalities in this case: The digital evidence seized on 03/27/2018 seemed to be in
and out of the physical control of the case agents, rather than primarily managed through
the ECU as described above. Although the evidence was first turned into ECU by the ten-
day deadline, it was subsequently checked out by individuals who were not authorized to
review digital evidence. The chain of custody for the Camera and CF Card, for example,
indicate that the evidence was checked out by SA Maegan Rees on 07/10/2018 for 17
days and by SA Michael Lever 09/19/2018 for seven days – before it was first examined
by a CART examiner on 02/22/2019. Both SA Rees and SA Lever indicated “Review” as
the reason they were checking the evidence out of the ECU, but neither of these
individuals were authorized to review the contents of unexamined digital evidence1.
• Based on my own experience, a case agent would leave digital evidence in the ECU until
a CART examiner is requested to check out and examine the evidence. For digital
evidence, there is no good reason to check it out of Evidence Control, because the case
agent cannot possibly gain any investigative benefit from retaining evidence that he or
she cannot examine.
• According to the Chain of Custody for the WD HDD (DX 960), the last person to accept
custody of the device was SA Michael Lever, who checked it out from ECU on
02/22/2019. The reason SA Lever provided was “SW,” presumably meaning “search
warrant,” but it is unknown what actions SA Lever took on the WD HDD, or who took
custody of the device when he was finished with it. Although the WD HDD had been
forensically imaged (copied) by FET Donnelly on 09/19/2018 and processed on
09/24/2018, FE Booth did not generate a report of its contents until 04/11/2019.
1 In their report regarding the Lawrence Nassar case, the DOJ/OIG made public certain information
regarding the FBI’s evidence handling procedures: “According to the FBI’s Field Evidence Management
Policy Guide, evidence must be documented into the FBI Central Recordkeeping System no later than 10
calendar days after receipt. Similarly, the Digital Evidence Policy Guide states that, ‘Undocumented, “off
the record” searches or reviews of [digital evidence] are not permitted’” (p. 13).
(https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-093.pdf)
034
• Finally, FE Booth’s examination notes (DX 961) end abruptly after he created a forensic
copy of the CF card. Strangely absent from his notes are the options he chose while
processing the data with AD Lab, the generation of the “replacement FTK report”
presented at trial or the final disposition of the original or derivative evidence. Such
details would complete a normal CART forensic report.
Finding 3: The CF Card was accessed by an unauthorized FBI employee.

• According to the FTK reports, the last Accessed dates for active files on the CF card was
09/19/2018 – six months after the CF was collected by investigators and five months
before it was first delivered to an authorized CART examiner.
• According to FBI Chain of Custody for the Camera and CF Card (DX 945), the FBI
employee who had physical control over the CF card between 09/19/2018 and
09/26/2018 was SA Michael Lever, who recorded “Evidence Review” as his reason for
accepting custody (see my Technical Findings report). SA Lever was the primary case
agent and not a CART examiner, meaning he was not authorized to review the
unexamined digital evidence.
• The FBI’s Digital Evidence Policy Guide expressly prohibits any “Undocumented, ‘off
the record’ searches or reviews of digital evidence” and permits investigators to review
digital evidence only after it has been processed by an authorized method.2
• According to the same Chain of Custody, SA Maegan Rees had previously checked out
the Camera and CF card for “Review” on 07/10/2018 and kept them for 17 days. She is
also not a CART examiner and also would be prohibited from reviewing unexamined
digital evidence. However, if she did access the CF card without a write blocker, then the
last Accessed dates would have been overwritten two months later by the actions of SA
Lever, who did access the CF card without a write blocker.
• Therefore, there is no doubt the CF card was accessed by at least one unauthorized FBI
employee using an unauthorized process.
Finding 4: The CF Card was altered at least once, and likely twice, while in FBI Custody.
• On 9/19/2018: File system dates were overwritten on the CF card on at least one
occasion, on 09/19/2018, while in FBI custody. This means, at a minimum, that the CF
card was accessed without the use of a write blocking device. Failing to preserve digital
evidence against alteration is an automatic fail in many of the FBI forensics classes I
have taught because write blocking is a critical procedure that, if skipped, becomes an
admissibility issue in court.
• Between 4/11/2019 and 6/11/2019: According to an FTK forensic report of the CF card
completed on 4/11/2019 by “srflatley” (FE Stephen Flatley) and another report completed
2Ibid, p.13. See also p. 83: “according to the FBI’s Removable Electronic Storage Policy Directive,
employees may not connect non-FBI removable electronic storage, such as a thumb drive, to FBI
equipment without authorization.”
035
on 6/11/2019 by “bsbooth” (FE Brian Booth), several files appeared on the second report
that were not included on the first report. For reasons I described in my Technical
Findings report (see Technical Findings #1 and #2), there is a high likelihood the new
files were added to the CF card and altered between these dates. In Appendix D of my
Technical Findings report, I explained why adding new files to the CF card could have
been used to support the government’s narrative regarding the origin of photos on the
WD HDD device.3
• The difference between the FTK reports cannot be attributed to the use of a different tool,
because both examiners used the same tool and version number: AccessData Forensic
Toolkit, Version 6.3.1.26.
Finding 5: The FBI Expert Witness knowingly gave false testimony.
• FE Booth testified that receiving unsealed evidence is not extraordinary (p. 4887).
This characterization by Booth is false, as all CART examiners are trained to receive
evidence that has been sealed and initialed.4 According to FBI evidence handling
protocols, anytime a seal is broken on evidence, it must be resealed with a date and
initials before relinquishing it to the next person in the chain of custody.5
• FE Booth testified he did not know who had the evidence prior to his examination –
two days prior to his testimony. When he was asked, “And who was it that had access
to the camera or the box prior to the time of your examination of it?” FE Booth answered,
“I don't have that evidence sheet in front of me to be able to refer” (p. 4889). As
mentioned previously, according to FE Booth’s examination notes (DX 961), it was the
“Case Agent” (but in fact SA Mills) who gave Booth the unsealed camera and CF card on
06/10/2019. It is not credible that FE Booth after two days could have forgotten the
person who gave him the one piece of evidence he processed alone during the case.
• FE Booth repeatedly testified to the reliability of EXIF data, and that it is “very hard
to remove,” (p. 4819) and “it’s not easily modifiable” (p. 4830). In fact, there are several
readily available tools that can easily modify EXIF data. This is a fact that would be well-
known to any forensic examiner (see Appendix A for a white paper I wrote
demonstrating – with screen shots – how easy it is to modify EXIF data). Also,
prosecutor Mark Lesko used Booth’s false testimony about EXIF data as the basis for his
argument that the alleged contraband photos were taken in 2005: “[EXIF] data is
3 I base this finding on 1) the fact that CF card files were altered, 2) the motive for adding new files (to
support the relationship between the CF card and WD HDD), and 3) the opportunity for alteration (the CF
card was outside of Evidence Control for several months). This finding could be significantly strengthened
(or disputed) if I were to be given access to both forensic copies of the CF card created on 04/11/2019
and 06/11/2019.
4 The aforementioned DOJ/OIG report (https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-093.pdf), p.13
states digital evidence “must be stored and secured and/or sealed to prevent data or evidentiary loss,
cross-transfer contamination, or other deleterious change.”
5 Ibid, p.83 “Moreover, the FBI Offense Code subjects FBI employees to discipline if they fail to “properly
seize, identify, package, inventory, verify, record, document, control, store, secure, or safeguard
documents or property under the care, custody, or control of the government.”
036
extremely reliable. It’s embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the [EXIF] data
shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance, this particular instance,
the 150 jpeg on November 2, 2005 which is consistent with the title of the folder.” (p.
5571).
• FE Booth minimized his knowledge about the previous CF card examination. On
page 4987 of the court transcript FE Booth acknowledged that the government had asked
him to create “another report,” meaning in addition to the one created by FE Steven
Flatley. Therefore FE Booth knew, at a minimum, that FE Flatley had conducted an
inventory of the camera and CF card, created a forensic copy the CF card, examined it
with FTK (AD LAB), and then used FTK to create a report. However, when asked about
his knowledge of what FE Flatley had done with the camera and CF card, FE Booth
responded, “All I know is that he received it on that date. I have no idea exactly what he's
done on the camera” (p. 4988).
• FE Booth failed to disclose that his actions constituted a prohibited re-examination
of digital evidence. According to FE Booth’s notes (DX 961), on 06/07/2019 SA Lever
requested that FE Booth “process” item 1B15 (the Camera and the CF card) because FE
Flatley “would be overseas during trial.”
o However, according to the Chain of Custody (DX 945) FE Flatley
relinquished custody of the CF card to SA McGinnis on this same day
(06/07/2019), so he was not yet “overseas.”
o FE Flatley was available to testify to his examination of the CF card, to
include the forensic report he generated on 04/11/2019, at any time during
the preceding four weeks of trial, which began on 05/07/2019. There was
no legitimate need to re-examine the CF card and create a second report.
o If FE Flatley was available to relinquish custody of the physical CF card
on 06/07/2019, then he was also available to provide FE Booth with the
forensic copy of the CF card he created (and named NYC024299.001). FE
Booth should have used the existing forensic copy to generate a new
report, if needed, rather than creating his own forensic copy.
o By creating a new forensic copy of the CF card (named
NYC024299_1B15a.E01), FE conducted a “re-examination” – a
duplication of all the technical steps that FE Flatley had already
completed. CART policy strictly prohibits such re-examinations, unless
approved by the executive management of the FBI Operational
Technology Division.6 I could not find a record of such an approval.
6
The FBI Digital Evidence Policy Guide, Section 3.3.11.2 states, “Unless approved by the AD, OTD as
outlined below, examinations are not conducted on any evidence that has been previously subjected to
the same type of technical examination (hereinafter referred to as a ‘re-examination.’)” One of the
reasons for this policy is to “[e]nsure that the integrity of the evidence is maintained” (p. 37). A publicly
released version of this document, which includes many other requirements for a re-examination, may be
found at https://vault.fbi.gov/digital-evidence-policy-guide/digital-evidence-policy-guide-part-01-of-01/view.
037
o Instead, according to his notes FE Booth only obtained approval from his
acting supervisor Trenton Schmatz to proceed with the re-examination.
Given the above facts, therefore, it is not credible that FE Booth had no
knowledge of the fact that FE Flatley had already inventoried the camera
and CF card, imaged and processed the CF card, and created an FTK
report (GX 521A), especially when the government asked FE Booth to
create “another report” (GX 521A “replacement”). Also it is not credible
that FE Booth did not know his actions violated FBI policy on re-
examinations.
• FE Booth’s testimony is especially troubling considering his status as a Senior
Forensic Examiner. In the FBI CART Program, an examiner may apply to be a senior
examiner, which requires additional training, additional testing, a research project, and a
special moot court exercise. As a Senior Forensic Examiner, Brian Booth should have
known his actions were inconsistent with FBI CART policy and his testimony was false
and misleading.
Finding 6: The timeline of examination is suspicious.
• 11 months passed between the seizure of the CF card (03/27/2018) and the date it was
first delivered to a CART examiner (2/22/2019). As stated previously, several FBI
employees – who were not authorized to view unexamined digital evidence – gained
physical control of the CF card during that time. FE Flatley was the first CART examiner
to receive the CF card and he imaged, then created an FTK report and file listing of the
CF card on 04/11/2019. FE Booth first examined the CF card, from which the alleged
contraband purportedly came, the day before he took the stand on 6/12/2019 - which was
already more than four weeks after the trial began on 5/7/2019.
• It is highly unusual that digital evidence in such a case would be examined for the first
time, by the testifying examiner, on the eve of his testimony. In my 20 years of FBI
experience I have never seen such a delay – followed by a last-minute examination – in a
case with no exigent (emergency) circumstances.
Finding 7: Critical evidence was withheld from the defense team.
• Examination photographs, including those documenting the initial condition of the
evidence, were initially withheld (p. 4894). These photographs would include those taken
of the evidence by FET Donnelly, FE Flatley, and FE Booth when they received them (on
08/08/2018, 02/22/2019, and 06/10/2019, respectively). In the examination notes of FET
Donnelly and FE Booth, the examiners only included photographs of the WD HDD
(1B16) and a Lacie HDD (1B28). Conspicuously missing were any photographs of the
Camera (1B15) and CF Card (1B15a), as such photographs would document whether or
not the evidence packaging was sealed when received by the examiner. Although FE
Booth omitted the sealed status of the evidence in his notes, he admitted under oath that
038
the packaging for neither the camera nor the CF card was sealed when he received them
(p. 4886-9).
• When a discovery order is issued by a court, it usually includes documents such as
examination notes, reports, file listings, photographs, chains of custody, forensic images,
and imaging logs. I have not seen a record of the government providing the CF card
forensic image file (or forensic copy) created by FE Flatley (NYC024299.001), the CF
card forensic image file created by FE Booth (NYC024299_1B15a.E01), or any of the
logs and .CSV file listings that normally accompany the images. To my knowledge, no
one has represented that alleged contraband exists on these forensic images and
administrative documents, so there is no reason to withhold them from defense counsel.
In Appendix B I have listed several of these evidentiary and administrative items that
would be crucial to supporting my analysis but were not produced by the government
before trial.
Conclusion
Never in my 20 years with the FBI have I seen a case brought to trial with such careless evidence
handling, scant documentation, and obvious signs of evidence manipulation (see my Technical
Findings report). The points above combined with technical findings of evidence alterations
point strongly to the government, at a minimum, being aware that the evidence was unreliable
and had been altered.
The government not only withheld this information from the jury but attempted to convey the
opposite – that the evidence was reliable and authentic – by eliciting false testimony from FE
Booth and making false and misleading statements in their closing arguments.

039
Appendix A
A White Paper: EXIF Data and the Case “U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE”
By J. Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to expose the government’s mischaracterization of EXIF data used
as evidence against the defendant Keith Raniere.
Background
In this case, the prosecution claimed that Raniere used a Canon digital camera to take explicit
photographs of a female while she was still a minor, saved them to a compact flash (CF) camera
card, transferred them to an unknown computer, and then backed up those photographs to an
external hard drive (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: The Government’s narrative regarding alleged contraband found on a “backup” drive.
To demonstrate that the alleged user of the camera, Raniere, created the alleged contraband, the
prosecution needed to prove two things:
040
1. The alleged contraband photographs were taken in 2005, and

2. The alleged contraband photographs were taken with the camera allegedly used by
Raniere.
The prosecution relied upon information embedded inside the digital photographs, called
Exchangeable Image Format (EXIF) data, which records how the photo was taken, on what
date, and with which camera settings. Since EXIF data is saved into to the content portion of the
digital photograph file, it does not change when the photograph is transferred to another device.
The prosecution used the photo’s EXIF data, specifically their creation date, to argue the subject
was underage in the pictures. They also pointed to the fact that the EXIF data of the photos
showed the same make and model of the camera allegedly used by Raniere. At first glance, this
is a seemingly logical line of argumentation.
But one important question needs to be asked.
How reliable is EXIF data?
According to the FBI’s expert witness, Senior Forensic Examiner William Booth, the photo
EXIF data – the information that’s embedded into the photograph file itself – is extremely
reliable because it is “very hard” to change. Consider just a few of his statements from his court
testimony (emphasis added):
Question: Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more

difficult to alter?
Booth: They purposely designed it that way.
Question: Do you know --
Booth: It's mainly to be able to store information. And they
don't want data to be moved around and changed, especially time
and date information. Those things are very hard for the
consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting
software that's just developed to do that (p.4820).
Booth: Well, the best reference is the EXIF data because that
gets put into the JPEG file and it's not easily modifiable and
it moves with the file the same way from device to device, no
matter where you place it. It has nothing to do with the bearing
of a file system at all or the dates and times associated with
it. So it's on its own, but are created at the same time that
you take the picture (p.4830).
041
Booth: …But when it comes to photos, they still keep you from
changing dates and times. It's not easy to change those. You
have to go through special processes to change those things.
(p.4977)
These are just a few of Booth’s statements about the reliability of EXIF data and how hard it is to
modify. Prosecutor Mark Lesko emphasized Booth’s testimony in his closing argument to the
jury:
LESKO: …I'm no expert, don't get me wrong, but I heard Examiner

Booth, just like you did. Exif data is extremely reliable . It's
embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the exif data
shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance,
this particular instance, the 150 jpeg on November 2, 2005…
(p.5572).
So both the FBI’s expert witness and the DOJ prosecutor told the jury they could rely on the
photo EXIF data to determine that Raniere had created the alleged contraband with the Canon
camera in 2005 because the EXIF data is “extremely reliable” and “very hard” to modify.
However, is it true that digital photograph EXIF data is “very hard” to change? A simple
demonstration will help answer this question.
Modifying Photograph EXIF Data
A quick Google search will enable anyone to find many of the freely-available, simple-to-use
tools for editing EXIF data. One of my favorites is called ExifTool, which was recently featured
in an online article titled, “7 Free Tools to Change Photo’s Exif Data, Remove Metadata and
Hide Dates” (https://www.geckoandfly.com/7987/how-to-change-exif-data-date-and-camera-
properties-with-free-editor/). However – as I will demonstrate in a moment – a person doesn’t
even need to download a free tool to modify EXIF data.
For purposes of the following demonstration, I will use a real digital photograph from the U.S. vs
KEITH RANIERE case. Although the photograph with the file name “IMG_0043.JPG” is simply
a picture of a tree, it was found on the evidence “backup” hard drive along with the alleged
contraband and it was allegedly taken with the same camera at around the same time. In Figure
2 below, the Microsoft Windows details pane (invoked by selecting the “View” tab of any
Windows folder) is interpreting some of the EXIF data of IMG_0043.JPG.
042
Figure 2. Windows display of EXIF data for IMG_0043.JPG.
According to the Windows display of EXIF data, this photo was taken on 10/17/2005 with a
Canon EOS 20D digital camera. I verified this information by using the industry standard
ExifTool I mentioned earlier. Here is how ExifTool interprets the EXIF data:
Figure 3. ExifTool display of EXIF data for IMG_0043.JPG.
How hard is it to change the camera model? In the Windows folder with the Details Pane
enabled, I simply click the “Camera model” field and type whatever I want. Here I changed the
camera model to an iPhone XR.
043
Figure 4. Changing the “Camera model” field in the EXIF data of a photo.
In the same way, I changed the Camera maker to Apple, and then I clicked on the “Date taken”
field and set it to the United States Independence Day.
Figure 5. Changing the “Date taken” field in the EXIF data of a photo.
044
Therefore, a person viewing the file in Windows would now see a photo that was taken by an
Apple iPhone XR, in the year 1776.
Figure 6. Windows display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG.
Despite the government’s contention in court, the EXIF data was very easy to change.
At this point a person might be thinking, “That’s fine for the Windows interpretation, but was the
EXIF data really modified?” To verify that the changes I made in the Windows folder in fact
changed the EXIF data in the file, I opened the file again in ExifTool:
Figure 7. ExifTool display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG.
The next question one might ask is: “What about a forensic tool? Would a digital forensic tool
verify these changes in the EXIF portion of the file?”
One could argue that ExifTool is indeed a forensic tool, although it is in the public domain. But
to put to rest any doubts about what happened, I viewed the photo in one of the most common
(and FBI-approved) digital forensic tools available: AccessData’s FTK Imager. In Figure 8
045
below, I imported IMG_0043.JPG and used the Hex viewer to read the raw EXIF data. All the
EXIF changes I made were readily visible, and there were no traces to indicate that I or anyone
else had ever made those changes.
Figure 8. FTK Imager display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG.
Conclusion
What does all this mean? It means the government misled the jury about the nature of EXIF data
used to convict Keith Raniere.
I could have used one of the many freely available tools to modify the EXIF data that the
government claimed was “extremely reliable” and “very hard” to modify. Instead, I simply used
the built-in features of Windows to modify the EXIF data of one of the actual digital
046
photographs produced by the government at trial, and then I verified those changes in three
different ways. In reality, anyone can reproduce what I just demonstrated in this article, using
any digital photograph. Modifying EXIF data requires none of the “software” or “special
processes” claimed by FBI examiner Booth, nor is it “very hard” to modify, as he claimed in
sworn testimony. It is not clear to me why a Senior Forensic Examiner of his caliber would have
made those false statements under oath.
Implications
Why would the FBI’s star witness, the digital forensic examiner, swear under oath that EXIF
data cannot be easily modified? And why would he make such statements multiple times during
his testimony? I just demonstrated how easy it is.
The prosecution needed the jury to believe that EXIF data could not be easily modified because
it was the only piece of digital information that supported the narrative that the photos on the
drive allegedly belonging to Raniere were of an underage subject. If the prosecution had told the
truth – that EXIF data can be easily modified with no special skills or tools – then the jury may
have reasonably doubted its reliability as evidence of a crime.
The bottom line: It is a miscarriage of justice for the prosecution (and the jury) to have relied
upon the authenticity of EXIF data to prove creation dates and the origin of digital photographs.
If the government could blatantly mislead a jury about something so easy to disprove, it leaves
me to ponder: What else were they lying about?
Respectfully submitted,
J. Richard Kiper, PhD

FBI Special Agent (Retired) and Forensic Examiner.
047
Appendix B
Items Requested for Discovery
The following list represents critical evidence and administrative documentation that was not
provided to me during my analysis of information pertaining to the case U.S. vs KEITH
RANIERE, et al. After serving 20 years as an FBI Special Agent and Digital Forensic Examiner,
I know these items should be readily available for the FBI to locate and produce in a timely
manner, because most of these items are retrievable from the FBI Sentinel case management
system or from the Evidence Control Unit (ECU), which is required to retain evidence for a
criminal case until all appeals are exhausted. These items are critical to supporting my analysis
of both the digital evidence and FBI procedures in this case, and to my knowledge none of these
items were produced by the government before trial.
1. The forensic image of the CF card (1B15a) created by FE Flatley (NYC024299.001),

together with its imaging log and file listing (.CSV) file. This is a bit-for-bit duplication
of the CF card, and I need to analyze it independently rather than rely on the FBI’s
submitted forensic reports. If the FBI did not delete it, this forensic image is located on
the FBI shared server at: \\nycart-fs\cases05\NY-
2233091_208206\Evidence\NYC024299\NYC024299.001. An archive copy should also
be stored in the ECU.
2. The forensic image of the CF card (1B15a) created by FE Booth
(NYC024299_1B15a.E01), together with its imaging log and file listing (.CSV) file.
Again, I need to analyze this data independently from the FBI’s forensic report, which
shows new files were added to the 06/11/2019 report that did not appear on the
04/11/2019 report. My analysis of these two forensic images would determine to a
scientific certainty which contents of the CF card were altered while in the custody of the
FBI. If the FBI did not delete it, this forensic image is located on the FBI shared server at:
\\nycart-fs\CASES02\NY-
2233091_196817\Evidence\NYC024299_1B15a\NYC024299_1B15a.E01. An archive
copy should also be stored in the ECU.
3. FE Steven Flatley's complete Examination Notes. These documents should include the
steps taken by FE Flatley during his inventory, imaging, and analysis of the CF card,
including software generated log files.
4. Photographs of the CF card, documenting its condition and packaging, when
received by FE Flatley on 02/22/2019 and by FE Booth on 06/10/2019. FE Booth
already testified he received the CF card in an unsealed plastic bag from the case agent.
We have no information regarding the condition of the CF card when FE Flatley accepted
custody of it.
048
5. The original file listing of the WD HDD (1B16) created by FET Donnelly
(NYC023721_1B16.E01.csv) and the imaging log for that item. I need to compare the
original file listing to that which was provided to me.
6. The FTK log (generated by AD LAB) of the processing, browsing, searching, and
bookmarking of digital evidence. I need the FTK logs for the examination of the WD
HDD (1B16) and both instances of processing for the CF card (1B15a). Among other
important data, the FTK log would capture the date and time SA Lever allegedly
“discovered” contraband on the WD HDD.
7. The CART Requests corresponding to SubID 196817 and SubID 208206. These
documents are normally part of an examiner’s “administrative notes,” and could help
explain the rationale for originally assigning the CF card to FE Flatley while assigning all
the digital evidence items (including a reexamination of the CF card) to FE Booth.
8. All EXIF data for ALL photographs listed on both of the CF card reports (GX
521A, dated 04/11/2019, and GX 521A Replacement, dated 06/11/2019). I need to
compare EXIF data contained in files contained in the forensic images of the CF card
with those contained in the WD HDD files. However, if I am provided both forensic
images of the CF card (Items 1 and 2) then I do not require this item.
9. A detailed description (Examination notes) of how GX 504B was generated,
including the tool, options selected, and steps taken. Detailed examination notes are
required to be able to replicate the results of the FBI’s examinations.
10. All communications, including but not limited to texts, e-mail messages, notes, and
voicemail messages, of FET Donnelly, FE Booth, FE Flatley, SA Lever, SA Jeffrey, SA
Mills, SA Rees, SA McGinnis, AUSA Hajjar, and AUSA Penza, regarding this case.
Among the above requested items, this is the only request for information that may not be
readily retrieved from the electronic case file or from ECU. However, the
communications between these DOJ employees would provide critical context to the
actions taken regarding the collection, transportation, storage, and analysis of the digital
evidence in this case.
049
April 25, 2022
Analysis of the Testimony of Special Agent Christopher Mills
trainer of other trainers of forensic examiners. I have personally sworn out affidavits for dozens
of search warrants and collected, preserved, and analyzed hundreds of pieces of digital evidence.
Therefore, I have an in-depth knowledge of FBI evidence handling procedures, and of digital
evidence examination procedures and policies.
Introduction
On March 27th, 2018, the FBI executed a federal search warrant at a two-story town home
located at 8 Hale Drive, Halfmoon, New York. To my knowledge, the residence had been used
as an executive library by Keith Raniere, defendant in the case U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE, et al.
As part of my analysis of the digital evidence in this case, as well as the actions taken by the FBI
to identify, collect, preserve, and analyze that evidence, I reviewed the testimony of FBI Special
Agent Christopher Mills as he answered questions from prosecutor Tanya Hajjar regarding the
search.
Among the many curiosities in this testimony, I was particularly struck by the fact that the first
two pieces of evidence collected at the residence happened to be the ONLY two pieces of digital
evidence used to convict Raniere of child exploitation. It was as if the FBI agents knew what
would eventually be “found” on those devices and used at trial.
Moreover, in my opinion the questions by prosecutor Hajjar and the answers by SA Mills
seemed specifically choreographed to give the jury the impression that the FBI followed robust
procedures during the search, thereby distracting from the subsequent and obvious mishandling
of the collected evidence.
050
Testimonial Analysis
What follows are referenced excerpts from SA Mills’ sworn testimony, followed by my analysis
regarding their significance to the case.
1. Disproportionate attention to detail regarding search procedures rather than

establishing an unbroken chain of custody.
Prosecutor Tanya Hajjar asked, “Agent Mills, can you just generally describe to the jury what
the process is for conducting the search of a residence?” (p. 4290).
What follows this quote was an unusually long and detailed description of FBI search
procedures, complete with a discussion of the “knock-and-announce,” forced entry, safety
sweep, furniture present, search sketch, assignment of letters to each area, movement of agents
through the residence, photograph procedures, etc. These 14 pages of detail stand in stark
contrast to the vague, one-paragraph description of the evidence collection and transportation
procedures recorded on page 4307 (discussed in #6, below). For example, the prosecutor
introduced the search sketch, the photo log, and all the photos into evidence, but never
introduced or even asked about the chains of custody or storage requirements for the evidence
that was collected. From a reading of the transcript, it seems the over-emphasis on FBI search
procedures was meant to distract from the under-emphasis on evidence handling procedures,
which Hajjar must have known was problematic.
2. A new agent, rather than the on-scene case agent, was the sole witness to testify about the
execution of the search warrant.
When asked about the search team, Mills answered: “There was a team, mostly comprised of
agents from the New York office, as well as the Albany office” (p. 4291).
Despite the involvement of a sizeable search team from two different field offices, SA Mills
(with only three years on the job) was the only witness asked to testify about how the evidence
was identified and collected that day. His role was to “assist with evidence collection and
documentation” and to take photographs. By contrast, SA Michael Lever, who was the lead FBI
investigator in the case (the “case agent”), the affiant on the search warrant, and was probably
responsible for the mishandling of the digital evidence for many months after the search1, did
NOT testify during the entire trial. A reasonable person may conclude that the prosecutor
intentionally limited the risk of exposing the FBI’s evidence mishandling by declining to put the
case agent on the stand.
1 See my Technical Findings and Process Findings reports.
051
3. The search team ignored several other areas of the residence before starting to search
the office.
Hajjir asked, “And where did you go from there, in terms of initiating the search?” (p. 4294).
During the unusually long description of the movements of the search team, Mills indicated they
moved past the kitchen, living room, bathroom, and open areas of the first floor. Then they took
a spiral staircase to the second floor, where they moved through several more areas, including a
bathroom, and a seating room area, before finally arriving at the “office space.” Although the
office was the last of many areas discovered in the residence, it became the first area to be
searched. In my experience, the case agent normally assigns groups of FBI personnel to search
different areas of the building simultaneously to save time. Working this way in multiple
simultaneous locations, search teams would be able to collect evidence, but no one would be able
to assign consecutive evidence numbers. In this case, however, someone decided the office
would be the first location to start finding AND numbering evidence.
4. The very first item to be identified in the entire residence was a camera with a camera
card, located under a desk, and which happened to be one of two key pieces of digital
evidence used to convict Raniere of child exploitation.
In describing one of the search photographs he took, SA Mills said, “So the there's a note there
with the number one. So number one represents evidence item number one. So, in this case, this
photo was taken underneath the desk or table and was assigned number one based on being the
first evidence item that was found” (p. 4304).
If SA Mills’ account is correct, then the FBI search team traversed several areas of the residence,
went upstairs and straight to the office area, and then crawled under a desk to find the first piece
of evidence – a camera bag containing a camera and camera card. At this point, the case agent,
SA Lever, had not yet “discovered” alleged child pornography taken with this camera, so it
seems more than a strange coincidence that it was the first evidence item identified.
Another anomaly is the fact that an item number was assigned to the camera immediately upon
discovery. All the items documented in the photo log (GX 502) and represented in the
photographs (GX 502A) have item numbers, written on sticky notes photographed next to the
items. Generally, FBI search personnel do not assign item numbers to evidence at the moment of
discovery/photography/collection, because there are multiple people working in different rooms
and it would be impossible to coordinate the numbering among them. If any items are assigned
item numbers, then it is done near the end of the search when the seizing agent collects all the
evidence together and fills out the FD-597 receipt for items seized. Therefore, in practice the
item numbers rarely correspond to the order in which they were collected.
052
5. The very next item to be identified in the entire residence was an external hard drive,
located away from the desk on a shelf, and which happened to be the second of two key
pieces of digital evidence used to convict Raniere of child exploitation.
When asked about another photograph he took, SA Mills answered, “So this is the still of the
same office space as seen before and item number two, which is on top of the bookshelf here, is a
gray or silver hard drive” (p. 4308).
Once again, it is extremely convenient that from all the potential evidence in the residence, it was
the Western Digital hard drive – where the alleged child pornography was stored – that was the
second piece of evidence identified by the FBI on scene. It is also important to note that the
camera card (Item #1) and the hard drive (Item #2), comprised the entirety of the child
exploitation digital evidence against Raniere – which supposedly was not “discovered” by the
FBI for nearly a year later.
6. Prosecutor Hajjar did not even attempt to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the
digital evidence used against Raniere.
Hajjar: What happens when you recover a piece of digital evidence like Government Exhibit 520
and 524?
Mills: So, when we receive -- when we recover digital evidence, we have a process in which we
bring the digital evidence back to our office and if we want the evidence to be reviewed, we
would submit a request to our CART team. And the CART is the Computer Analysis Response
Team and they have specialists who are computer evidence examiners who would review that
evidence for us or assisted us in reviewing the evidence with us.
Hajjar: And is that what happened in this case with Government Exhibit 520?
Mills: Yes. (p. 4307).
After spending several minutes eliciting the details of search activities, the prosecutor was
strangely disinterested in establishing an unbroken chain of custody for the two pieces of digital
evidence presented at trial. Conspicuously missing were the following questions, for example:
• Who decided which pieces of evidence were relevant and within the scope of the search
warrant?
• Why did you bypass documents and other potential evidence in other rooms in order to
start with items in the office?
053
• While in the office, why did you start identifying and collecting evidence beneath the
desk?
• The photo log shows that you went back and forth from room to room, photographing
various evidence items there. Why didn’t you stay in one room to photograph all the
evidence there, before moving on to the next room?
• Who decided the order in which the items were to be photographed and assigned item
numbers?
• After you photographed each piece of evidence, what specifically did you do with it?
• Who sealed the evidence?
• Who packaged the evidence?
• Who started the chains of custody for the evidence?
• Who transported the evidence back to your office?
• Who took custody of the evidence at the office, and how was it stored?
• You said you found the camera card (CF card) inside the camera (p. 4305). You must
have removed it on scene to identify it here in court. Who removed it permanently and
put it inside a cellophane bag?
• Why didn’t you photograph the CF card after you discovered it inside the camera?
• Why wasn’t the CF card noted on the photo log, chain of custody, electronic evidence
entry, or any other documentation related to the seizure of the camera?
• When was this evidence relinquished to case agent Michael Lever?
• How long did he have custody of the evidence?
• Did you realize that the camera and the CF card were in unsealed containers when you
regained custody and relinquished them to FE Booth on 06/10/2019?
• Who unsealed them and why were they not re-sealed?
In the above trial excerpt, it seems the prosecutor specifically crafted her sentence to avoid
discussing who in the FBI had taken actions on the digital evidence after it was identified at the
search site. As I detail in my Process Findings report, the chains of custody demonstrate that SA
Lever and other FBI individuals not authorized to review unexamined digital evidence gained
physical control over the digital evidence for several months before turning it over to CART
forensic examiners. In fact, the CF card was checked in and out of the Evidence Control Unit
(ECU) for eleven months before it was finally released to the first CART examiner, Stephen
Flatley, on 02/22/2019. During that time, as the government has acknowledged, an FBI
employee accessed that camera card on 09/19/2018. The Chain of Custody indicates that the case
agent, SA Michael Lever, had custody of the CF card from 09/19/2018 to 09/26/2018. In my
Technical Findings report, I describe several anomalies that demonstrate manual manipulation of
data on that card.
The Chain of Custody also shows that other FBI employees, SA Elliot McGinnis and SA
Christopher Mills, regained custody of the camera and CF card from the first CART examiner
054
before turning it over to a second CART examiner, Brian Booth, in unsealed packaging on
06/10/2019 – the very day Mills testified about collecting it. As explained in my Process
Findings report, a second examination of digital evidence is strictly prohibited by policy, and for
the second examiner to receive the original evidence from a case agent (rather than using the
work of the previous examiner) is very abnormal.
Regarding SA Lever’s handling of the digital evidence in this case, there are several questions
that must be answered, for example:
• Why did SA Lever and other FBI employees check out the evidence from the ECU
multiple times, when they were not authorized to even look at it?
• Why did SA Lever access the CF card without a write blocker on 09/19/2018?
• Why does the Chain of Custody for the WD HDD (DX 960) end with SA Lever checking
it out of Evidence Control on 02/22/2019?
• What did SA Lever do with the WD HDD after he checked it out?
It is very telling that the prosecutor completely avoided the topic of chain of custody with respect
to the digital evidence in this case.
7. Sometime after collecting the first and only two pieces of digital evidence eventually used
at trial, the searching agents returned to the space beneath the desk and collected another
external hard drive.
After being asked to describe another photograph he took, SA Mills said, “So this is, once again,
underneath the desk or the table in the office space. And you see item number 14, so that's
evidence item number 14, the gray or silver hard drive” (p. 4310).
SA Mills later identified this second external hard drive as a LaCie external hard drive (Item
#14). If (according to SA Mills) the item numbers correspond to the order in which they were
collected, then this item was discovered in the same place as the camera bag (Item #1) – yet it
was not discovered and collected until much later. In fact, according to the seized property
receipt2 and the search photos (GX 502A), the FBI collected a book, 30 cassettes, an Amazon
Kindle, two CD discs, a thumb drive, and miscellaneous documents before returning to the space
beneath the office desk to collect the LaCie hard drive and other computer equipment.
This strange behavior begs the following question: Why did the FBI agents first go straight to the
camera bag (Item #1), located under the desk, then search a shelf, where they retrieved an
external hard drive (Item #2), then collect dozens of other items (some found in other rooms)
before returning under the desk, where they found the LaCie external hard drive?
2 See FD-597, Receipt for Property Seized.
055
Conclusion
The prioritized collection of the only two pieces of digital evidence used to support the child
exploitation charges at trial (Items #1 and #2) strongly points to foreknowledge on the part of the
FBI agents. In fact, a reasonable person would suspect the evidence collection process itself was
influenced by someone with an interest in the FBI “finding” digital evidence against Raniere.
Moreover, the question-and-answer interactions between prosecutor Hajjar and SA Mills seemed
intent on convincing the jury of the reliability of the digital evidence through a robust discussion
of FBI search procedures, while deliberately obfuscating the FBI’s aberrant evidence handling
activities that occurred thereafter. In short, the testimonial evidence recorded in this court
transcript is consistent with the evidence manipulation opinions and conclusions expressed in my
Technical Findings and Process Findings reports.

056
April 25, 2022
Expert Opinion Regarding Time to Review Digital Evidence

trainer of other trainers of forensic examiners. I have personally sworn out affidavits for dozens
of search warrants and collected, preserved, and analyzed hundreds of pieces of digital evidence.
Therefore, I have an in-depth knowledge of FBI evidence handling procedures, and of digital
evidence examination procedures and policies.
Review of Events
In my experience serving in the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team (CART), forensic
examiners are typically given several months to examine digital evidence and prepare analyses
for legal proceedings. Similarly, a court’s discovery order usually requires that evidence against
the accused be provided to the defense team with enough time to prepare a reasonable defense.
In the case of U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE, neither of these norms were followed.
Two digital devices – a camera card (CF card) and an external hard drive (WD HDD) – were the
only pieces of digital evidence used to support the government’s charge of child exploitation in
this case. However, despite having possession of these items for a year, the FBI did not provide
defense counsel any access until 03/13/20191, a mere twenty-six days before jury selection was
scheduled. At that time, the FBI gave the defense access to the forensic image of the external
hard drive only, and due to the allegation of child pornography, the defense expert could not
remove any data from the premises beyond screen shots of file listings and handwritten notes.
Further impeding the ability of the defense to conduct a thorough review of the evidence with its
own forensic tools, the FBI did not provide a “clean” (non-forensic) copy of the contents of the
hard drive until 04/06/2019, less than a week prior to the scheduled jury selection.
1This was also the date of the government’s Second Superseding Indictment alleging sexual exploitation
of a child. According to the FBI examiner’s notes, 03/13/2019 was the date the hard drive image was
prepared for review. I do not know when the defense expert was provided access to review it.
057
Finally, the FBI significantly delayed the creation and delivery of the forensic reports used at
trial. According to the sworn declaration of defense counsel Marc Agnifilo filed on 04/22/2019,
“…when asked recently when we were going to get these reports, the prosecution stated that the
reports were not completed but that the government would make the reports available when the
FBI completed them.” In fact, the “not completed” forensic reports already had been completed
on 04/11/2011 but were still being withheld from the defense team two weeks prior to opening
statements.
The government’s delay of the second forensic report of the CF card was even more egregious.
The FBI first examined the CF card and created a forensic report on 04/11/2019. Then, more
than four weeks AFTER trial had begun – and against FBI digital evidence policy – the FBI
conducted a second examination of the CF card2 resulting in a second forensic image and
generated a “replacement” report of the CF card on 06/11/2019. The defense team literally had
no time to prepare a technical rebuttal before this report was introduced at trial.
Required Analysis
A defendant is entitled to the opportunity to review, analyze, and rebut the evidence used against
him. At a minimum, the analysis of digital evidence in this case should have included the
following tasks:
• A review of the legal authority to conduct the examination.
• A review of the evidence collection, packaging, transportation, and storage procedures.
• A review of the chain(s) of custody.
• A review of the examination notes and administrative paperwork.
• Verification of evidence integrity (e.g., via MD5 hashing).
• Reproduction of the forensic steps used to produce the alleged results.
• New analysis of evidence, including but not limited to:
o File system metadata,
o EXIF data,
o File content,
o Application artifacts,
o Operating system artifacts, and
o Timeline analysis
• Creation of new trial exhibits to rebut the government’s narrative.
In my expert opinion, it would be impossible for a defense expert to have completed the above
listed activities within a mere twenty-six days (in the case of the hard drive) much less
instantaneously (in the case of the CF card).
2 See my Technical Findings and Process Findings reports, where I describe this anomaly in detail.
058
Conclusion
The government placed the Raniere defense team at a significant and unjust disadvantage by
intentionally withholding key evidence they intended to use at trial. At best, the defense team
was given only twenty-six days to conduct a technical review of some of the digital evidence (a
non-forensic and partial copy of the hard drive contents) and at worst, it was given no
opportunity to review the second FTK forensic report related to the CF card.
It is my expert opinion that it was unreasonable to expect the defense team to have conducted a
forensic analysis of the digital evidence in this case within the given time frames.

059
EXHIBIT A1
7
CURRICULUM VITAE
James Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
Special Agent (Retired) Forensic Examiner, Trainer, and Expert Witness
2800 South Adams Street #6971, Tallahassee, FL 32314
Office: 954-595-0805 / Cell: 954-995-3811 / E-mail: info@kipertekusa.com
EDUCATION
Ph.D. 2013 Computing Technology in Education

Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, GPA: 3.88
Ed.S. 2009 Computing Technology in Education

M.S. 2007 Computing Technology in Education

M.S. 2020 Information Security Engineering

SANS Technology Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
B.S. 1992 Science Education/Physics

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida
Honors: Cum Laude
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2020-Present Raytheon Technologies

Troy, Michigan
Cyber Subject Matter Expert (SME): Develops a variety of cybersecurity training
products using best practices in instructional systems design.
2020-Present Nova Southeastern University

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Adjunct Professor: Develops and delivers engaging digital forensics instruction using
a combination of live demonstrations, online discussions, and hands-on labs.
2019-Present KiperteK, LLC

Tallahassee, Florida
Vice-President and Co-founder: Provides contracted services in the areas of
cybersecurity assessment, digital forensics, teacher training, and curriculum
development. Develops instructors and designs curriculum using KiperteK’s
exclusive Education is SalesmanshipTM approach to instructional systems design.
International conference speaker.
1999-2019 Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia
Unit Chief, Investigative Training Unit: Supervised curriculum and instructors for the
FBI New Agent Training Program and National Academy in the areas of Financial
Investigations, Investigative Processes, Cybercrime, Counterterrorism, and

Counterintelligence. Ensured all lesson plans, curriculum maps, and instructional
methods were in compliance with Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
(FLETA) requirements. Served as Leadership Coordinator for the FBI Academy and
advanced instructor in the FBI Instructor Development Program. Developed and
delivered Cybercrime Investigations training to law enforcement partners in Albania,
Bosnia, Singapore, Moldova, Georgia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Saudi
Arabia, and the Philippines on behalf of the FBI and the Department of Defense
International Counterproliferation Program. Spearheaded instructor training and
curriculum development assessments for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of
the Interior, King Fahd Security College and Prince Naif Academy, on behalf of the
FBI International Law Enforcement Training Program. Co-authored the FBI Training
Division Strategic Plan and led the job task analysis for the FBI Director’s Initiative
High Technology Environment Training (HiTET). Coordinated a team of 12 experts in
the development of software requirements to develop a knowledge management
system to coordinate FBI training programs with its business processes and policies.
Miami and Washington Field Offices

• Computer Forensic Examiner: Certified as an FBI Computer Analysis Response
Team (CART) forensic examiner and qualified multiple times as an expert
witness. Proficient in the collection, write-blocking, preservation, examination,
extraction, analysis, and presentation of digital evidence for court proceedings.
Mentor and Coach to four CART forensic examiner trainees (FETs). Consulted
with case agents and prosecutors on technical, legal, and investigative aspects
of criminal and national security investigations. Designed and delivered digital
forensics and cyber investigations training for the FBI Operational Technology
Division and Cyber Division. FBI Cyber Liaison to the Philippines, providing
customized trainings, consulting, and conference presentations. Contributing
author of the CSEC2017 Curriculum Guidelines for Post-Secondary Degree
Programs in Cybersecurity. Curriculum designer and instructor for the FBI Cyber
STEM Initiative in South Florida High Schools.
• Confidential Human Source (CHS) Coordinator: Coordinated the safe and legal
operation of more than 600 FBI informants in the Southern District of Florida.
Responsible for teaching and enforcing compliance with U.S. Attorney General
Guidelines and FBI CHS Policy. Created relational database to manage CHS
attributes, investigative/intelligence accomplishments, and compliance
documentation.
• Investigator: Served as primary case agent on investigations of white collar
crime, organized crime, and computer crime. Employed a variety of
investigative techniques, including grand jury subpoenas, pen register/trap and
trace orders, interviews, CHS development, physical surveillance, Title III
wiretaps, search warrants, and undercover operations. On a single case,
coordinated with more than a dozen federal, state, and local agencies to
complete 16 search warrants, 24 seizure warrants, and recorded more than 100
statistical accomplishments. Coordinated the largest telemarketing fraud victim
restitution in the history of the Department of Justice.
U.S. Embassy, San Salvador, El Salvador

Assistant Legal Attaché: Developed effective liaison relationships with law
enforcement partners in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Belize, to complete
investigative leads and information requests in all FBI investigative programs, and
especially transnational street gangs. Investigated six American citizen kidnappings,
while coordinating with FBI Crisis Negotiation personnel and Victim Witness
Specialists. Worked closely with the U.S. Country Team to coordinate and deconflict
investigative and diplomatic activities in Central America. Created a Gang Problem
Inventory to document how all U.S. Government agencies were applying resources
to address the gang problem in Central America. Provided FBI training to the
Salvadoran National Police, including tactical and investigative training.
Spearheaded the first-ever U.S.-led witness security training for El Salvador, which
culminated in a Witness Security Conference that was televised nationally.
FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC

Program Coordinator: Supervised a team of 15 FBI employees and contractors on
the FBI Virtual Case File Project (now Sentinel Program). Served as training lead and
developed a plan for workforce training, reporting, and document management.
Lobbied for a $1.1 million training budget, established clear criteria for contractor
success, and coordinated software requirements with the most senior executives of
the FBI, including Director Robert Mueller. Created briefings and presentations
delivered to congressional committees, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card,
and Vice President Dick Cheney.
1996-1999 KiperteK Internet Services, Melbourne, Florida

Owner and Consultant: Created and operated an Internet services consulting company,
specializing in web development, server maintenance, and inservice training. Created
domains and web sites for more than twenty organizations, including Trinity College,
Life Story Foundation, Spaceline, Inc., and Congressman Dave Weldon.
1992-1996 Satellite High School, Satellite Beach, Florida

Classroom instructor: Taught Physics Honors, AP Physics “C,” Astronomy (dual
enrollment), and Science Research. Head coach for varsity cross country and track &
field. Sponsor and coordinator for science competitions including JETS, Clash of the
Titans, Physics Olympics, and Regional/State Science Fair. Served on the Brevard County
Science Advisory Council. Created the first web site in the Brevard County school
system. Subject matter expert, graphic designer, and editor for the Brevard County
Integrated Science Curriculum (the standards of which were later adopted as the
Sunshine State Standards for Science Education in Florida).
CERTIFICATIONS, AWARDS AND CLEARANCES
Project Management Professional (PMP) Global Credential

CompTIA A+ Certification
CompTIA Net+ Certification

Certified FBI Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) Forensic Examiner
Essential Forensic Techniques I, Blackbag Technologies (MacOS)
Certified Vehicle System Forensic Technician (VSFT) and Examiner (VSFE), Berla/iVE
GIAC Security Essentials (GSEC) Certification
GIAC Certified Incident Handler (GCIH) Certification
GIAC Certified Intrusion Analyst (GCIA) Certification
GIAC Certified Forensic Examiner (GCFE) Certification
GIAC Certified Forensic Analyst (GCFA) Certification
GIAC Certified Advanced Smartphone Forensics (GASF) Certification
GIAC Certified Project Manager (GCPM) Certification
GIAC Critical Controls (GCCC) Certification
Certified FBI Police Instructor
Certified FBI Advanced Instructor
FBI National Behavioral Science Research Certification
Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, U.S. Department of Justice
Assistant Director’s Award for Distinguished Service to the Law Enforcement Community
SANS Institute Lethal Forensicator Award (for both FOR408 and FOR508)
SANS Institute Capture-the-Flag Award for SEC504
Distinguished Service Award, Church of the Nazarene
FBI Quality Step Increase Award
Three FBI Foreign Language Awards
Four FBI Special Achievement Awards
Seven FBI Cash Awards
Four FBI Time Off Awards
Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) Clearance
ADDITIONAL TRAINING
SANS SEC401 – Security Essentials Bootcamp Style
SANS FOR408 – Windows Forensic Analysis
SANS FOR508 – Advanced Computer Forensic Analysis and Incident Response
SANS SEC503 – Intrusion Detection In-Depth
SANS SEC504 – Hacker Techniques, Exploits, and Incident Handling
SANS MGT514 – IT Security Strategic Planning, Policy, and Leadership
SANS MGT433 – How to Build, Maintain, and Measure a High-Impact Awareness Program
SANS FOR518 – Mac Forensic Analysis
SANS MGT525 – IT Project Management and Effective Communication
SANS FOR585 – Advanced Smartphone Forensics
SANS SEC566 – Implementing and Auditing the Critical Security Controls
Blackbag Technologies Essential Forensic Techniques I (MacOS)
FBI Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) – Forensic Toolkit Bootcamp
CART – Basic Tools
CART – Digital Extraction Technician (DExT) Practicals

CART – AccessData Internet Forensics
CART – AccessData Windows Forensics
CART – Moot Court
CART – Unix command line certification
CART – Cell phone certification
Kellogg Institute – Navigating Strategic Change (NSC)
FBI Leadership Development Program - Strategic Decision-Making in the FBI
FBI Leadership Development Program – Leadership Seminar for Senior Managers
FBI Quarterly Legal Training
FBI Quarterly Firearms Training
FBI Annual Information Security Awareness Training
SCHOLARSHIP AND SERVICE

(2014-Present). Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Paper
reviewer for Advances in Teaching and Learning Technologies mini-track.
(2020). Working from Home: Cybersecurity in the Age of Telework. Conference keynote speaker and
panelist. Contact Center Association of the Philippines (CCAP), Manila, Philippines, June 16 and 25, 2020.
(2020). Cybersecurity Education Program. Instructional Designer and Subject Matter Expert. Raytheon
Professional Services, Troy, Michigan, January-April 2020.
(2019). FBI Digital Forensics Examiner Curriculum Development Event. Instructional Designer and
Subject Matter Expert. FBI Operational Technology Division, Quantico, Virginia, May 20-24, 2019.
(2019). GIAC GCIA Standard Setting Workshop. Subject Matter Expert and contributor to GIAC Certified
Intrusion Analyst (GCIA) certification definition and cut score. May 14, 2019.
(2019). Cyber Crime Investigation & Electronic Evidence. Lead instructor and curriculum designer – 40
hour course. Naif College for National Security, Saudi Arabia, April 21-May 2, 2019.
(2019). Advanced Cybercrime Course. Lead instructor and curriculum designer – 40 hour course.
International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), Banja Luka, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, April 15-19, 2019.
(2019). Basic Cybercrime Course. Lead instructor and curriculum designer – 40 hour course.
International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), Mostar, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, April 8-12, 2019.
(2019). FBI Instructional Strategies Course for Cybersecurity Instructors. Primary instructor – 40 hour
course. FBI Cyber Division and Operational Technology Division. Quantico, Virginia, March 25-29, 2019.
(2018). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Tampa Division.
Tampa, Florida, November 5-9, 2018.
(2018). FBI Presentation Skills Course. Primary instructor – 24 hour course. FBI Miami Division. Miramar,
Florida, June 25-27, 2018.
(2018). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Miami Division.
Miramar, Florida, April 23 – 27, 2018.
(2018). Cyber Threatscape: Business E-mail Compromise. Chevron Holdings. Manila, Philippines, April 18,
2018. Also delivered to the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM), Clark, Philippines, April 19,
2018.
(2018). Cyber Investigation and Digital Forensics Orientation. Lead instructor and course designer – 16
hour course. Quezon City Police Department Anti-Cybercrime Team. Quezon City, Philippines, April 11-
12, 2018.
(2018). Patching the Human Vulnerability: An Introduction to Cybersecurity Awareness. Alorica Asia
Headquarters. Quezon City, Philippines, April 2, 2018. Also delivered to the Philippine Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Quezon City, Philippines, April 13, 2018.
(2018). Kiper, J.R. Pick a Tool, the Right Tool: Developing a Practical Typology for Selecting Digital
Forensics Tools. The SANS Institute Reading Room. March 16, 2018.
(2018). Joint Cybersecurity Working Group Intermediate Training. Lead instructor and course designer –
40 hour course. Philippine Judicial Academy. Tagaytay, Philippines, March 5-14, 2018.
(2018). Cybersecurity Investigative Techniques and Resources Course. Prince Naif Academy. Lead
instructor and curriculum designer – 40 hour course. Saudi Arabia Bilateral Law Enforcement (SABLE)
Project. Naif College for Security Studies, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, February 5-16, 2018.
(2017). Curriculum Guidelines for Post-Secondary Degree Programs in Cybersecurity. Contributing

author. Joint Task Force on Cybersecurity Education. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), IEEE
Computer Society (IEEE-CS), and the Association for Information Systems Special Interest Group on
Security (AIS SIGSEC).
(2017) Wilkerson, W. S., Levy, Y., Kiper, J. R., & Snyder, M. (2017). Towards a development of a Social
Engineering eXposure Index (SEXI) using publicly available personal information. KSU Proceedings on
Cybersecurity Education, Research and Practice. 5.
(2017). Kiper, J.R. The OPTIC Approach: Objectives, Policies, and Tasks for Instructional Content.
Government Learning Technology Symposium, Washington, DC, November 29-30, 2017.
(2017). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Training Division.
Quantico, Virginia, November 13 – 17, 2017.
(2017). FBI CART Tech and Digital Extraction Technician (DExT) Course. Primary instructor – 80 hour
course. FBI Operational Technology Division. Stafford, Virginia, August 14-25, 2017.
(2017). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Tampa Division.
Tampa, Florida, July 31 – August 4, 2017.
(2017). FBI Mobile Forensics Training Working Group. Instructional designer for FBI Computer Analysis
Response Team (CART) curriculum. FBI Operational Technologies Division. Quantico, Virginia, June 19-
23, 2017.
(2017). Kiper, J.R. “Forensication” Education: Towards a Digital Forensics Instructional Framework. The
Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education (CISSE). Las Vegas, Nevada. June 12-14, 2017.
(2017). Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Paper reviewer for
“Security, Privacy and Ethics of IS” track.
(2017). Digital Forensic Examiner Capstone Course. Instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Operational
Technologies Division. Quantico, Virginia, May 15-19, 2017.
(2017). Joint Cybersecurity Working Group Intermediate Training. Lead instructor and course designer –
40 hour course. Philippine Judicial Academy. Tagaytay, Philippines, May 8-12, 2017.
(2017). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Miami Division.
Miramar, Florida, April 24-28, 2017.
Florida, March 21-23, 2017.
(2017). Cyber Field Instructor Program Refresher Course. Lead instructor and curriculum author – 24
hour course. FBI Cyber Division. Linthicum, Maryland, February 28 – March 2, 2017.
(2017). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Operational
Technologies Division. Quantico, Virginia, February 13-17, 2017.
Florida, October 17-19, 2016.
(2016). Cyber Investigative Methods for Law Enforcement. Lead Instructor and course designer – 40
hour course. Dirección de Investigación Criminal e INTERPOL. Bogotá, Colombia, August 8-12, 2016.
Florida, June 7-9, 2016.
(2016). FBI CART Tech and Digital Extraction Technician (DExT) Course. Primary instructor – 80 hour
course. FBI Operational Technology Division. Quantico, Virginia, April 25 – May 6, 2016.
(2016). FBI Instructional Strategies Course. Primary instructor and co-author – 40 hour course. FBI
Operational Technology Division. Quantico, Virginia, February 29 – March 4, 2016.
(2016). Introduction to E-mail Header Analysis. Primary instructor and author – 3 hour course. Miami
Gardens Police Department. Miami Gardens, Florida, January 27, 2016.
(2016). Kiper, J.R. Needs to Know: Validating User Needs for a Proposed FBI Academy
Knowledge Management System. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), January
5-8, 2016.
Florida, November 4-6, 2015.
(2015). Train the Trainer for Cyber Instructors. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Cyber Division.
FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, September 14-18, 2015.
(2015). Whistleblower Retaliation at the FBI: Improving Protections and Oversight. Sworn Witness
Testimony. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, March 4, 2015.
(2015). WMD Cyber Crime Investigations. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. Defense Threat Reduction
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Sofia, Bulgaria, February 2-6, 2015.
(2015). Kiper, J.R. Eliciting User Needs for a Knowledge Management System to Align Training Programs
with Business Processes in Large Organizations. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS), January 5-9, 2015.
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Tbilisi, Georgia, September 15-19, 2014.
(2014). Education is Salesmanship. Primary speaker. Interactive Learning Technologies Conference.

Reston, Virginia, August 15, 2014.
(2013). Curriculum Review and Instructor Development Course Update, King Fahad Security College and
Prince Naif Academy. Workshop leader and Co-author of Specified Deliverables for the Project Specific
Agreement between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, November 7-22, 2013.
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Baku, Azerbaijan, September 16-20, 2013.
(2013). Theoretical framework for coordinating training programs with business processes and policies
in large organizations. Primary speaker. Interactive Learning Technologies Conference. Reston, Virginia,
August 16, 2013.
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Pristina, Moldova, November 12-16, 2012.
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Singapore, August 27-31, 2012.
(2012). Program Review for National Security Diploma for Higher Institute of Security Studies, King
Fahad Security College. Author and Task Analysis Facilitator. Summary of the FBI Visit to the King Fahad
Security College and Prince Naif Academy. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 19 – May 5, 2012.
(2012). Program Review for Cyber Crime and Computer IT Security, Prince Naif Academy. Author and
Workshop Facilitator. Summary of the FBI Visit to the King Fahad Security College and Prince Naif
Academy. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 19 – May 5, 2012.
(2012). ADDIE: Introduction to Instructional Systems Design. Speaker and Curriculum Assessor. FBI
Assessment of Police Training in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 19 – May 5,
2012.
Agency International Counterproliferation Program. Tirana, Albania, February 27 – March 2, 2012.
(2011). Click and Talk: Tips for PowerPoint Presentations. FBI Knowledge Week. FBI Headquarters,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2011.
(2011). Social Media: Introduction and Trends. Lead speaker. FBI National Academy Alumni Association
Conference. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, July 18, 2011.
(2011-2012). Instructional Systems Design for Overseas Instructors. Instructor and Panelist. FBI
Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC.
(2008-2015). Instructor Development Course. Primary instructor – 40 hour course. FBI Instructor
Development Program. Delivered a 40 hour course to FBI employees and local law enforcement officers
in Miami, Florida, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Wheeling, West Virginia,
Fredericksburg, Virginia, and Quantico, Virginia.
(2008). Kiper, J.R. Online strategies for teaching business processes in large organizations. Journal of
Instruction Delivery Systems, 22, 2. 14-18.
(2008). Adding value to e-learning with blogs, wikis and podcasts. Presenter and panel member with
Trudy Abramson, Avril Best, Jennifer Bigus, Sandra Lebron-Lozada, Marilyn Olander, Brenda Stutsky and
Yvette Dulohery. Interactive Technologies Conference. Arlington, Virginia, August 20, 2008.
(2007). Human intelligence (HUMINT) compliance matters. Presenter as Confidential Human Source
Coordinator. FBI HUMINT Conference. Dallas, Texas, November, 2007.
(2007). Teamwork in investigation: Prosecutor and police – the U.S. experience. Primary speaker and
panel member with Sam Nazzaro and Steve Salmieri. ABA CEELI Judicial Training Conference. Novi Sad,
Serbia, September 13, 2007.
(2007). The elements of a protection program: Witness protection, victim/witness assistance, and
witness security. Conference coordinator, primary speaker, and panelist. El Salvador Witness Security
Conference. San Salvador, El Salvador, July 14-20, 2007.
(2004). Preparing for the FBI’s New Case Management System. Training Team Lead, Conference Speaker,
and Workshop Facilitator. FBI VCF Transition Team Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana. March 13 –
April 15, 2004.
MEMBERSHIPS
Global Information Assurance Certification (GIAC) Advisory Board
FBI American Indian and Alaskan Native Advisory Committee (AIANAC)
Project Management Institute (PMI)
Upsilon Pi Epsilon (UPE) Honor Society
FBI Agents Association (FBIAA)
Federal Government Distance Learning Association (FGDLA)
United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA)
Society for Applied Learning Technologies (SALT)
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA)
Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI
Discovery Society Center for Science and Culture
Church of the Nazarene
LANGUAGES
English – Native language
Spanish – Speak fluently and read/write with high proficiency
Mandarin Chinese – Speak, read, and write with basic competency
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Business Process Management

Instructional Systems Design
Knowledge Management
Online Learning
Law Enforcement Training
Investigative Techniques
Cybercrime and technology-enabled deviancy
OTHER SKILLS
Business Process Modeling
Online Learning Environment design with Canvas
Proficiency with Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, and all Office Suite applications
Graphic art – Ink, pencil, pastel, and digital art
Music performance – keyboard, percussion, bass guitar
REFERENCES
Scott Janezic – FBI Supervisory Special Agent, Miami Field Office

754-703-2000, scott.janezic@gmail.com
Tariq A. Alsheddi, Ph.D. – Director of Naif Academy for National Security, Saudi Arabia
+966-1-2686308, t-alshedd@moisp.gov.sa
G. Clayton Grigg, PMP – FBI Chief Knowledge Officer

571-350-4217, gibtoo2003@gmail.com
Steven Krueger – FBI Section Chief, FBI Academy

337-233-2164, SKrueger314@gmail.com
Chris McCranie – FBI Special Agent, Washington Field Office

202-278-2000, cmccranie@hotmail.com
Micheal Neubauer, Ph.D. – Program Manager, FBI Laboratory

202-324-3000, mjneubauer@outlook.com
EXHIBIT B
8
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
EXHIBIT B1
9
APPENDIX A.
Steven M. Abrams, J.D., M.S.

Curriculum Vitae
Steven M. Abrams, J.D., M.S.

Attorney, Digital Forensics Examiner and Instructor
1154 Holly Bend Drive
Mount Pleasant, SC 29466
843-216-1100
Steve@AbramsForensics.com
Curriculum Vitae
My key practice areas are Computer Forensics, e-Discovery, and Computer Law.
Education
2016 -Techno Security 2016, Computer Forensics Training Seminar, Myrtle Beach, SC,
June 5-8, 2016
2014 -Georgia Bureau of Investigations, Internet Evidence Finder Forensics Training,

Decatur, Georgia, February 2014
June 2-5, 2013
June 3-6, 2012
2011 -November 9-12: EnCase 7 Training, Salt Lake City, UT

-November 6 – 9: Paraben Forensics Innovations Conference, Park City, UT
- South Carolina Assoc. of Legal Investigators (SCALI) Annual Training Seminar, May
2011
- April 7, 2011: SC Electronic Crime Task Force Quarterly Meeting and Training
2010 -Techno Security 2010, Computer Forensics Training Seminar, Myrtle Beach, SC, June
- SCALI Annual Training Seminar, May 2010
2009 - Cellebrite Mobile Device Forensics Certification (CCMDE), SEMAR, Mexico City,
Mexico
-SCALI Annual Training Seminar, May 2009
2008 - South Carolina Basic Constable Training, Tri-County Technical College / SC Criminal
Justice Academy, October – November 2008
- Commissioned as a South Carolina State Constable (LEO) on November 20, 2008.
- Techno Security 2008, Computer Forensics Training Seminar, Myrtle Beach, SC, June
2007 - Charleston School of Law, Charleston, SC, Juris Doctor (J.D. - Magna Cum Laude)
- GMU2007 Computer Forensics Symposium, Regional Computer Forensic Group

of the High Technology Crime Investigation Association, Fairfax VA, Aug. 2007 (40
CEU HTCIA)
ii
2006 - University of Aberdeen, School of Law, Kings College, Old Aberdeen, Scotland
in collaboration with the University of Baltimore Law School
Summer Law Program in Comparative Criminal Procedure and UK Business Entities &
Taxation
- SCALI Annual Training Seminar, May 2006
2005 - SCALI Annual Training Seminar, May 2005

- SCALI Fall Training Seminar, October 2005
2004 - Access Data Advanced Windows Forensics, June 23-25, 2004, New York City. (24
Credit Hours)
- SCALI Annual Training Seminar, May 2004 (10 CEU)
2003 - GMU2003 Computer Forensics Symposium, Regional Computer Forensic Group

of the High Technology Crime Investigation Association, George Mason University,
Fairfax, VA. Aug.2003, (40 CEU HTCIA)
- Techno Security 2003, Computer Forensics and Security Conference (24 CEU)
- SCALI Annual Training Seminar & PI Training Seminar (16 CEU SLED)
2002 - SCALI Annual & Fall Training Seminars (16 CEU SLED)
- GMU2002 Computer Forensics Symposium, Regional Computer Forensic Group
of the High Technology Crime Investigation Association, Fairfax VA, Aug. 2002,
(40 CEU HTCIA)
- Access Data Computer Forensic Boot Camp, North Carolina Justice Academy,
Edneyville, NC (24 CEU)
1992-1994 Microsoft Internet Developer Workshops NY, NY
1992-1993 Novell NetWare CNE Training, IBM Skills Discovery, Jericho NY
1984-1985 Microcomputer and Electronics Engineering, Hofstra University, Hempstead NY
1982-1983 Ph.D. Studies, Faculty Fellowship, Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts &
Sciences
1981-1982 Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Master of Science (M.S.)
1977-1981 Allegheny College, Meadville PA, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) (Psychology - Computer
Science)
Professional Licenses
Current
Licensed Attorney in South Carolina
Licensed Attorney in District of Columbia
Licensed Attorney and Counselor at Law in New York
Previous
Licensed as a Private Investigator in South Carolina and New York (2002-2008), South Carolina
State Constable (Sworn, 2008-2019).
iii
Experience (Selected)
2016 – Present, Senior Attorney, Abrams Cyber Law & Forensics, LLC. Mount Pleasant, SC
29466. Concentration on Electronic Privacy and Defamation Cases, Electronic Discovery, and
Digital Forensics.
2018 - Continuing Legal Education Instructor, Electronic Privacy Violations during Divorce:
Legal and Ethical Guidelines for Family Law Practitioners, SC Bar, Columbia SC (February
21, 2018).
2016 – Continuing Legal Education Instructor, Smartphones as evidence for Personal Injury
Cases, NBI, Charleston SC (December 8, 2016).
2011 – 2016 Sole Practitioner Abrams Law Firm, PC. Mount Pleasant, SC 29466
2011 - Digital Forensics Instructor / Investigator, H-11 Digital Forensics / United States
Embassy, Tirane, Albania.
2010 – Facilitator, Instructor, Annual In-Service Legals and CDV Training (SLED), Lowcountry
Constable Association.
2009 – Speaker, South Carolina Association for Justice, Hilton Head, SC (August 6, 2009) Topic:
Civil Discovery of E-mails after O’Grady
2009 – Digital Forensics Instructor/Investigator, H-11 Digital Forensics / United States Embassy,
Mexico City, Mexico.
2008 – Digital Forensics Instructor/Investigator, H-11 Digital Forensics / United States Embassy,
Mexico City, Mexico.
2008 – Faculty, SC Bar Convention – Family Law Section CLE
2008 – 2011 Shareholder, Abrams Millonzi Law Firm, P.C., Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
2007 - Presenter, “E-Discovery: Definition, FRCP Changes and Application CLE”,NBI,

Charlotte, NC, December 19, 2007
2007 - Digital Forensics Instructor/Investigator, H-11 Digital Forensics, United States Embassy,
Mexico City, Mexico
2007 - Presenter, “Civil to Criminal: Collaborative Computer Forensics Investigations between

PIs and Law Enforcement”,GMU2007, August 9th & 10th, 2007
2007 - Presenter – “A South Carolina Lawyer’s Roadmap to Navigating the New Federal E-
Discovery Rules,” The South Carolina Bar (CLE Division), April 13, 2007.
2006 - Presenter – “Typical Internet Sexual Activity and its Detection”, Family Law CLE, The
South Carolina Bar (CLE Division), November 2006.
iv
2006 - Instructor, “3-day Hands-on Computer Forensics Workshop”, Trident Technical College,
N. Charleston, SC, CLE accredited by The South Carolina Bar, January 2006.
2005 - Lecturer, “Computer Forensic Introduction”, Trident Technical College, CLE accredited
by South Carolina Bar and CEU / In-Service hours for PIs / LE by SLED.
2001 - Present Steve Abrams & Company, Ltd. (dba Abrams Computer Forensics)
Licensed Private Investigator, Computer Forensics Examiner
1998 - 2001 Steve Abrams & Company, Ltd. Mt. Pleasant, SC, President
1996 - Democratic National Committee, Instructor - Southeast and Northeast Regional Schools
for Congressional Campaign Managers.
1995 – 1999 Direct Marketers of Charleston Mt Pleasant, SC, Partner

Co-owner of Political Database Marketing Company and full service political print shop.
1994 - 1995 The Software Studio Mt Pleasant, SC, Owner

Owner of software development company that developed database applications for the
Newspaper publishing industry.
1992-1993 Town of North Hempstead, Manhasset, NY, Deputy Commissioner of Finance

.
1986 - 1992 Digitron Telecommunications, Inc., Huntington, NY, Director of R&D
1984 - 1986 Computer Associates International., Islandia, NY, Senior Systems Programmer
1983 Contel Information Systems Division. Great Neck NY, Software Engineer
(Developed the first Network Forensics Applications for the DoD
Recent Publications
Steven M. Abrams, Knowledge of Computer Forensics Is Becoming Essential for Attorneys in

the Information Age, 75 N.Y. St. B. Assn. J. 8, 15 (Feb. 2003).
Steven M. Abrams, Knowledge of Computer Forensics, Essential for 21st Century Private
Investigators, 16 PI Mag. 46, 59 (October 2003).
Professional Awards & Honors
2008 – Member, SLED Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Forensics
2007 – CALI Excellence for the Future Award, Aviation Law, Charleston School of Law,
Fall 2006
– CALI Excellence for the Future Award, Interviewing, Counseling & Negotiation,
Charleston School of Law, Fall 2006
– CALI Excellence for the Future Award, Insurance Law, Charleston School of Law,
Fall 2006
v
_ Dean’s List, Charleston School of Law, Fall 2006, Spring 2007.
2004 - “2004 SCALI Investigator of the Year”
2003 - Member, SLED Private Investigations Business Advisory Committee
Professional Associations
Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - IEEE

Member, Lowcountry Constables Association - LCA
Bar Association Memberships
Admitted to practice in South Carolina, District of Columbia, and New York.
Compensation
I receive $350 per hour, plus mileage, travel and lodging expenses, for all Computer
Forensics services and for depositions and trial testimony.
Previous Expert Testimony
I have completed over 1200 computer forensics investigations, the

overwhelming majority of cases were settled and did not require me to testify.
South Carolina cases in which I was qualified in court as an expert are:
Hillburn v. Hillburn, (2001-DR-08-2354);

Smith v. Smith, (2001-DR-22-212);
Natale v. Natale, (2003-DR-10-775)
Berda v. Berda, (2003-DR-10-1899);
Murphy v. Murphy (2004-DR-10-1510) and
Overstolz v. Fountain of Youth Wellness Centers LLC (2003-CP-10-000761).
Gitter v. Gitter (2008-DR-10-2865)
Ricigliano v. Ricigliano, (2009-DR-18-0102)
Edwards v Junevicus, (2010-DR-10-4736)
BTM Machinery Inc. v. Michael J. Finley (2013-CP-10-4366)
Cherry v Cherry (2014-DR-10-95)
Whitfield v. Schimpf and Sweetgrass Plastic Surgery,
LLC (Case No. 2017-CP-10-2758)
I was qualified as a testifying expert on digital forensics in federal court in
UHLIG, LLC, V JOHN ADAM SHIRLEY, (CIVIL ACTION NO.. 6:08-1208-HFF)
vi
I have also prepared expert’s reports under Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for the
following federal civil suits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina:
Lumpkin v. Bennani, (Civil Action No. 2:03-2904-23), and

Miller v. American LaFrance Corp. (Civil Action No. 2:04-1668-23)
Microsoft v. BWC Products Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-2023-CWH)
Quala Systems, Inc, et al., v. Bulkhaul USA, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 2:07-
CV-00673-PMD)
Mainfreight v. John Marco, et al., (Civil Action No. 9:cv00563 JFA)
I was appointed the Court’s Expert in US District Court, District of South

Carolina, Rock Hill Division:
The Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co. v. Pope, C/A No.: 0:10-cv-1688-
JFA
I was qualified as a computer forensics expert in North Carolina courts in:

Hollins v. Lightfoot.
In addition, I have been deposed in the following matters over the past ten years:
Thomas & Assoc. v. Christopher Humphreys (Case No. 2018-CP-10-0455)

Catherine Cope v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Century 21 Properties Plus, and
Jim Bailey, individually; (Case No.: 2018-CP-18-00112)
Rick Gray v. Church Mutual (2017)
Calandra v. Calandra (2004-DR-10-2675)
McLernon v. McLernon (2003-DR-10-3090)
White v. Cassidy (2004-DR-08-256)
Khoury v. Noce (2006-CP-10-001830)
Quala Systems, Inc, et al., v. Bulkhaul USA, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 2:07-
CV-00673-PMD)
Mainfreight v. John Marco, et al., (Civil Action No. 9:cv00563 JFA)
Beard v. Dunn & Dixon-Hughes et al, (Case No. 2010-CP-08-0776)
UHLIG, LLC, V JOHN ADAM SHIRLEY, (CIVIL ACTION NO.6:08-1208-HFF)
ALTMAN, ET AL. V. FIRST CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (2012-CP-34-
0124)
(Revised: Sept 11, 2019)
vii
EXHIBIT C
10
Wayne B. Norris, Chief Scientist, Norris Associates Technologies

Because Accuracy Matters
2534 Murrell Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-1859
VOICE PHONE: +1-805-962-7703 FAX +1-805-456-2169
EMAIL Wayne@Norris-Associates.com URL https://Norris-Associates.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wayne-norris-193b88
27 April 2022
USA VS RANIERE
THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF DR. JAMES RICHARD KIPER
FORENSIC COMPUTER ANALYSES
BY
WAYNE B. NORRIS
By:
Wayne B. Norris, REVIEWER
001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
My name is Wayne B. Norris. I have had a long career in information technology, soft-
ware development, computer forensics, nuclear research, and aerospace engineering,
with service in the legal, commercial, military, aerospace, and national security commu-
nities, and have been a software developer since 1959. I have served as an expert wit-
ness in more than 100 technology related cases in federal, state, and municipal courts
since 1986.
In my practice, I perform expert witness work in the areas of digital forensics, software
intellectual property, engineering, and physics, and I make use of multiple forensic tools
including FTK and FTK Imager from AccessData and Autopsy from The Sleuth Kit. I
have served in approximately five cases involving alleged digital evidence tampering by
civilians since 2003, all of them in civil. I have never been involved in, and indeed, have
never previously heard of, any credible allegations of evidence tampering by any law
enforcement agency under United States jurisdiction.
I was asked by individuals working for the Defense in the appeal of the case of USA vs
Keith Raniere, et al to perform two related reviews of data relating to that case.
• The first review is referred to in this document as the TECHNICAL REVIEW. It con-
sists of my review of the evidence analysis in the Raniere case that was prepared by
the principal expert witness for the Defense, Dr. James Richard Kiper, and to com-
ment on his analysis and his findings. Specifically, I was asked to state whether I
agreed or disagreed with his analysis and findings.
• The second review is referred to in this document as the MANAGEMENT REVIEW.

It consists of an estimate the scope of work required to produce the data alterations
initially discovered in the Government’s evidence by Dr. Kiper and listed in his re-
port, as mentioned above.
For both reviews, I relied on the following resources:
• Affidavit_with_Reports_04-25-2022.pdf [59 pages].

• DX 945.pdf
Norris Analysis of Kiper Page 2 of 15 USA v Raniere
002

• DX 960.pdf
• A forensic image in E01 format of files relevant to the case. This image did not
contain any images suspected to be contraband;
• Data tables from the document GX 521A.pdf [36 pages]. This is a report by the
Government dated 4/11/2019 that contains summaries of files from an evidence
file image in dd form with the DISPLAY NAME NYC024299.001; and
• Data tables from the document GX 521A-Replacement.pdf [231 pages]. This

is a report by the Government dated 6/11/2019 that contains summaries of files
from the LEXAR CF 2 GB CARD. The ID NUMBER of the data image file is
NYC024299_1B15a.E01.
NOTE 1: The E01 image and the documents beginning with the letters GX are subject
to nondisclosure of their contents. No part of those documents that was subject to non-
disclosure was disclosed by me to any party as a result of this work.
NOTE 2: I did NOT personally receive a copy of the CF card image. Those files are
analyzed in GX 521A-Replacement.pdf.
I was NOT asked to duplicate Dr. Kiper’s findings. Rather, I was asked to verify the un-
derlying data, review his findings, and comment on it.
DISCLAIMER: In his Affidavit_with_Reports_04-25-2022.pdf report, Dr. Kiper dis-

cussed what, in his opinion as a retired FBI digital forensic examiner, were significant
shortcomings in the internal handling of digital evidence from multiple storage media by
agents and technicians assigned to this case. While I have worked in digital forensics for
several decades and have always personally followed evolving industry best practices in
this regard, I have never served as a law enforcement officer, and thus, I am not qualified
to comment on Dr. Kiper’s observations in this matter concerning internal FBI practices.
003

TECHNICAL REVIEW
In his Affidavit_with_Reports_04-25-2022.pdf report, Dr. Kiper identified in his

“Summary of Technical Findings,” what he referred to as seven Key Findings. He con-
cluded that these findings were the result of evidence tampering, at least some of which
occurred while the media were in the custody of the FBI.
I compared the data he used in his report with the data I obtained independently from the
E01 image provided to me, after performing an FTK ingestion of those files. Where I had
data to compare, I agree that his description of this data matches the data I viewed.
This is difficult for me to discuss, since my own family proudly includes multiple law en-
forcement officers dating back approximately a century.
Below, I discuss Dr. Kiper’s findings and its relation to the data I obtained from FTK.
GENERAL NOTES:
• The files in question are all *.JPG files, where “*” represents “any text sequence” and
is referred to as a “wild card character” after that term’s use in card games. Files of
interest are restricted to those with names of the form “IMG_0XXX”, where “X” may
be a digit from 0 to 9.
• The mechanism of file recovery dictates that some files may bear names of the form
“!MG” rather than “IMG”, but this may be ignored.
• *.JPG files exist with names containing the term “carved”. These are file fragments
created and analyzed by FTK from the original *.JPG files and are not material to the
present analysis.
• Other file types exist, including *.EXIF.HTML files with the same principal name as the
*.JPG files, but which contain metadata for the JPG files, in human-readable form.
KIPER FINDING 1
• Dr. Kiper’s first and second of five bullet points in FINDING 1 are that four photos,
named IMG_0093.JPG, IMG_0094.JPG, IMG_0096.JPG, and IMG_0097.JPG were
004

listed in the FBI’s WD HDD forensic report, but NOT on the CF Card report gener-
ated on 4/11/2019, despite the HDD allegedly having been a backup of the CF card.
Surprisingly, those files were present in a second image of the CF card, made
6/11/2019, apparently having been added to the card in the interim.
• Dr. Kiper’s third of five bullet points in FINDING 1 is that the subjects of the photos
represent a different individual between the two versions of the CF card reports,
based on comparisons between the thumbnails and the photos [available only on the
6/11 version]. Since these were both images of the same Evidence Item, they
should hot have differed in any way.
• Dr. Kiper’s fourth of five bullet points discloses that the thumbnail images on the files
mentioned above are actually identical to four DIFFERENT files, IMG_0180.JPG
thru IMG_0183, respectively.
• Dr. Kiper’s fifth and final bullet point points out that these discrepancies cannot be
the result of any process other than intentional alteration, and that this alteration left
behind a mistake in the thumbnail files, which allowed the alteration itself to be de-
tected. I agree with him.
KIPER FINDING 2
• Dr. Kiper’s Finding 2 contains 7 bullet points.
• His bullet points 1 thru 4 describe that a pair of FTK examinations of the same data,
with the same version of FTK, would not report different file contents. I agree with
this statement. I’ve never seen it in my own experience.
• His bullet point 5 lists six discrepancies between the files on the two CF card reports
and those that should match, on the HDD, with the observation that those discrepan-
cies could only be the result of evidence tampering. I agree with those bullet points.
• Dr. Kiper’s bullet points 6 and 7 discuss the lack of consistency of the files on the
6/11/19 CF card image and the implications of that inconsistency. I examined his
005

logic in great detail and concur with his conclusions that there exists no innocent ex-
planation I can think of for the inconsistency.
KIPER FINDING 3
• This Finding contains three bullet points, all addressing the fact that the Accessed
Dates for all the active files were 9/19/2018, indicating the device was accessed
without a Write Blocker. I agree that this is what that finding indicates.
KIPER FINDING 4
• This Finding contains three bullet points, all inconsistencies in the EXIF file metadata
dates of the files. Dr. Kiper’s observation is that these inconsistencies cannot rea-
sonably accounted for by any process other than human intervention, and, moreo-
ver, that the apparent purpose of the intervention was to make the file dates conform
to Daylight Savings Time. However, that intervention contained a mistake that al-
lowed it to be detected. As with his FINDING 2 above, I examined his logic in great
detail and concur with his conclusions that there exists no plausible innocent expla-
nation for these inconsistencies other than mistakes made during deliberate altera-
tion of dates to support the government’s narrative.
KIPER FINDING 5
• This Finding contains five bullet points, all addressing inconsistencies in the EXIF file
metadata of the file IMG_0175.JPG along with its MODIFIED DATE and the name
assigned to its CARVED file counterpart. Specific mention is made of the EXIF Cre-
atorTool metadata entry, “Photoshop Adobe Elements 3.0.” Again, as with his FIND-
ING 2 and FINDING 4 above, I examined his logic in great detail and concur with his
conclusions that the data, frankly, was manipulated, and not in a casual or innocent
fashion, but in such a way as to coincide with the Government narrative regarding
the files in question.
006

KIPER FINDING 6
• This Finding contains seven Bullet Points, all addressing inconsistencies in the
names given to folders containing the files. The apparent intention was to create
folder names that appeared to be machine generated and thus lend credence to the
manipulated file dates mentioned earlier.
• In Bullet Points 1 and 2, the Government’s narrative was that the upper-level folders
were human-generated and approximate but implied the lower-level folders were
computer-generated and exact and corroborated the timestamps on the photos on
the WD HDD.
• In Bullet Points 3 and 4, Dr. Kiper points out that the names could not have been
created automatically, since the times are inconsistent with the way they were cre-
ated in experiments he performed.
• In Bullet Point 5, Dr. Kiper points out that the timing between supposed auto-gener-
ated time stamps could not possibly be correct, since a 2-second difference between
timestamps is impossibly small for this scenario.
• In Bullet Point 6, he discussed inconsistencies between the contents of Thumbs.db

files and the actual contents of directories, indicating tampering.
• In Bullet Point 7, Dr. Kiper summarizes the lack of ability to rely on metadata to de-
termine the creation dates of the photos in question.
I examined his logic in the above seven bullet points in great detail and concur com-
pletely with his conclusions in the case of these bullet points. Specifically, while the up-
per layer folder structure is credible, the anomalies relating to regarding the lower-level
name structures and time stamps do not match any natural or automated behavior I
have ever seen in my own experience. The anomalies noted in the Thumbs.db files are
also very clear indications of data tampering [not with contents of files themselves, but
with the file contents of folders]. And Dr. Kiper’s bullet point regarding the reliability of
007

metadata to determine creation dates of photos is also completely consistent with my
own experience.
KIPER FINDING 7
• This Finding also contains seven Bullet Points, all of them discussing the extreme
anomalies of the dates and contents of the subject files in the presence of an inter-
mediary computer, including improbable and contradictory file system dates and the
absence of common expected files during backups. As before, with his FINDING 2,
FINDING 4, FINDING 5, and FINDING 6 above, I examined his logic in great detail
and concur with his conclusions that the likelihood for an innocent explanation is nil.
CONCLUSIONS
I believe based on what I have reviewed that Dr. Kiper is correct in his assessments that
no plausible explanation exists for the anomalies in the Government’s exhibits other
than intentional tampering on the part of the Government.
I have served as an Expert Witness in more than 100 cases over 35 years, and I have
worked in positions of great trust, supporting both civilian and also military segments of
the United States Government. I have never personally witnessed tampering of digital
evidence by any law enforcement agency, and I am personally disturbed by what I have
learned in this case.
008

MANAGEMENT REVIEW
I was asked by Defendant’s counsel to estimate the scope of work required to produce
the data alterations initially discovered in the Government’s evidence by Dr. Kiper.
I divided this analysis into two parts, described as “PROJECTS” so as to use the termi-
nology of the Project Management community.
• In the first Project, I analyzed a possible scenario for the creation of altered data
on the CF Card [1B15a].
• In the second Project, I analyzed a possible scenario for the creation of altered
data on the WD HDD [1B16].
It should be noted that these two Projects actually occurred in the reverse time order of
my presentation here. Dr. Kiper used this time order in order to make the most logical
sense of the actual forensic results. I analyzed them in this same order so as to match
the order used by Dr. Kiper in his analysis.
As with any such report, this one is based on assumptions driven by:
• Examination of artifacts;
• Analysis of schedules;
• Analysis of testimony; and
• Considerations of technologies.
The assumptions upon which this analysis and estimate are based are classified by arti-
fact, as listed below.
MY ANALYSIS SHOWS A TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EFFORT OF 128

HOURS BY INDIVIDUALS WITH FOUR DIFFERENT SPECIALTIES.
PROJECT 1. Lexar CF [“Compact Flash”] Card 1B15a also cataloged as GX 524

[alternatively referred to in Dr. Kiper’s reports as an “SD” or “Se-
cure Digital” Card]
009

This is an evidence item, cataloged as 1B15a or GX 524, consisting of an SD card that
had been removed from a Canon camera, with abbreviated name SD Card. Below is a
brief timeline of events pertinent to this analysis:
On 3/27/18, the CF card was seized, along with the camera and other devices, including
the WD HDD.
From 7/10/18 to 7/27/18, Case Agent Rees had custody of the device, outside of Evi-
dence Control. From 9/19/18 to 9/26/18, Case Agent Lever had custody of the device,
during which time the CF card was altered (see Technical Finding #3 in Dr. Kiper’s
Technical Report). Thus, during 24 calendar days when the CF card was checked out of
Evidence Control, and in the custody of Case Agents, it was modified. This was several
months before the SD card was checked into CART, on 2/22/19, and imaged and ana-
lyzed by FE Flatley. (see Dr. Kiper’s Process Findings.)
From 2/22/19 to 6/7/19, Flatley held the CF card. For the subsequent three days up until
Booth received and then re-cloned the SD card, which arrived to him in an unsealed cel-
lophane bag (see Dr. Kiper’s Process Findings), three FBI personnel had custody of the
CF card: SA McGinnis, SA Mills, and FE Booth. Based on the technical findings, it is
likely that additional alterations took place by this time.
Question Posed to Me: I was asked to examine the hypothetical work needed to con-
vincingly yield the artifacts described above. I identified only a single subtask.
Assumptions:
I made working assumptions that anyone doing this work was trained on standard com-
puter subjects and on evidence handling, and that they had an expectation of “medium
level” scrutiny for the evidence, a level below that of a highly skilled forensic investiga-
tor.
I also made a working assumption that anyone doing this work would attempt to mini-
mize the amount of data alteration performed, since each alteration added risk of detec-
tion during an intensive search.
010

Based on the evidence, I further assumed that the Government had deleted the errors
made in the fabrication of the WD HDD, which occurred chronologically earlier, and
thereby a decision was made to manipulate data on the CF card so as to make the data
on the WD HDD appear more credible. Given that the purpose was to essentially “clean
up” what could be cleaned up on the HDD, and that the schedule available for it was
very limited, this work was likely undertaken under time pressure. I attribute the errors
made during the alteration that allowed Dr. Kiper to discover the alteration to time pres-
sure and lack of access to the HD.
Discussion
This process subsumes KEY FINDINGS 1, 2, and 3 by Dr. Kiper. His findings 4, 5, 6,
and 7 are the subject of the second analysis in this report, below.
PROJECT 1 ESTIMATED TOTAL HOURS:
32 HOURS by a SENIOR FORENSIC INVESTIGATOR
PROJECT 2. WD HDD 1B16 also cataloged as GX503 [ORIGINAL]
At the outset there existed an evidence item, cataloged as 1B16 and also as GX 503,
consisting of a Western Digital hard drive, with abbreviated name WD HDD.
Question Posed to Me: I was asked to examine the hypothetical work needed to con-
vincingly add CP files to a version of WDD HDD 1B16 / GX 503 during the 134 days be-
tween the date it was taken into custody until it was transferred to FET VD.
Assumptions:
I made the same working assumptions for this Project as for the one above, including
time pressure as a significant constraint.
As a consequence of these working assumptions, I analyzed a scenario in which:
011

A. The drive was first analyzed, as a precaution, to determine the presence of deleted
files, hidden files, file fragments, or other items whose content should be known prior
to alteration of evidence. This could be done with either FTK, the tool used by the
FBI itself, the freeware tool AUTOPSY, or other forensic tool such as ENCASE.
B. CP files were acquired, or non-CP files were altered to make them CP [for example,
by altering dates.]
C. The files mentioned above were added to the WD HDD 1B16 drive
TASK 1: ANALYZE THE DRIVE PRIOR TO ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE
This would consist of a study of the existing drive for feasibility and content.
ESTIMATED EFFORT:
• 16 Hours by a STAKEHOLDER
• 16 Hours by a TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR
TASK 2: ACQUIRE AND PREPARE THE CP FILE CANDIDATES
Selection of CP file candidates would include choosing ones of the appropriate size,
other metadata, and conformity with adjoining files.
ESTIMATED EFFORT:
• 24 HOURS by a DATA ENGINEER.
TASK 3: PERFORM THE ACTUAL CREATION OF THE ALTERED DRIVE
This task consists of actual alteration of their EXIF metadata as needed, deletion of the
files they would replace, copying them into the working drive, and then imaging the re-
sulting drive back to the original unit. File date alteration apparently included files out-
side the 22-file range of the added files, for the appearance of continuity.
012

ESTIMATED EFFORT:
• 40 HOURS BY A DATA ENGINEER
PROJECT 2 ESTIMATED TOTAL HOURS:
96 HOURS BY 3 DIFFERENT PARTIES
Discussion
This process subsumes KEY FINDINGS 4, 5, 6, and 7 by Dr. Kiper. His findings 1, 2,
and 3 were the subject of the first analysis in this report, above.
A. In KEY FINDING 4, Dr. Kiper reported irregularities of file dates that could not have
been the result of any innocent process
B. In KEY FINDING 5, Dr. Kiper reported that irregularities in the EXIF headers of
several files exist that could not be the result of any innocent process.
C. In KEY FINDING 6, Dr. Kiper reported that the names of folders were apparently
arbitrary, belying their state origins as computer-generated.
D. In KEY FINDING 7, Dr. Kiper reported that the alleged CP were possibly planted
and had dates altered to give the appearance they had been sourced from a 2009
backup.
The inclusion of detectable data manipulation errors that were detected by Dr. Kiper and
confirmed by myself and by Mr. Abrams raises an obvious question of how such errors
were not detected by the person or persons doing the data manipulation prior to their in-
troduction into the FBI’s system. Possibilities include lack of quality control, incorrect
assumptions that the evidence would never be inspected as thoroughly as it has been
by Dr. Kiper, myself, and Mr. Abrams, inadequate calendar time to complete the work
efficiently, lack of skill by the full team, or some combination of those items. It seems
likely that all four may have played a role.
013

NOTES ON ESTIMATION
As is well known in Project Management, creating overall estimates for project cost and
schedule is extremely challenging:
• Once a task has been identified, that task may be estimated by comparing it with
similar tasks from a Body of Knowledge of prior tasks, a process known as Para-
metric Estimation. Often, of course, the challenge is identifying the specific task.
• Further challenges arise because a task that is new to the individual performing it
may take longer than it would for someone who’s done it before.
• Still further challenges arise from task-to-task dependencies, the need to stop
and start during task completion, and the likelihood that tasks may arise that
were not foreseen at the start of the effort.
• The estimates I provided represent my best judgment based on my experience
and the information provided to me, subject to the factors described above.
COMMENTARY
It causes me great disappointment to be aware of this situation, as I have the highest

regard for law enforcement. I am well aware of the potential significance and ramifica-
tions of the analysis I present here, and for obvious reasons, do not make any such
statements without significant study. Regrettably, based on the information available to
me, and upon significant review, I cannot envision a plausible explanation for the dis-
crepancies noted by Dr. Kiper and reviewed by myself and Mr. Abrams, aside from in-
tentional alteration. This is not a conclusion I am pleased to make.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
I reserve the right to amend or augment my opinions and discussions in the above re-
port based on any new information that may come to light, including but not limited to
information brought by participants in this case, subsequent research of my own, or in-
formation from other reliable and legally proper sources. I further reserve the right to
modify the scope of this or other communications I may have in conjunction with this
matter, based on information then available.
014

DISCLAIMER
I am not familiar with the non-technical details of this case, other than having been mini-
mally aware that a case of this nature was in process at the time it was taking place. I
have no knowledge of or relationship to any of the participants.
I have provided my credentials in other documents in this case, and I incorporate them
into this document by reference.
I am not an attorney, and thus, I have not, and will not, offer opinions of law.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of California, that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Dated: April 27, 2022, at Santa Barbara, California.
__________________________
WAYNE B. NORRIS
015
EXHIBIT C1
11

2534 Murrell Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-1859
VOICE PHONE: +1-805-962-7703 FAX +1-805-456-2169
EMAIL Wayne@Norris-Associates.com URL https://Norris-Associates.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wayne-norris-193b88
16 April 2022
USA VS RANIERE
WAYNE B. NORRIS CURRICULUM VITAE


QUALIFICATIONS Per FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)
I have fifty-three years of professional experience in management, business, finance,

accounting, engineering, software development, and scientific research.
1. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Physics from the University of California, Santa
Barbara, and have taken graduate courses in advanced physics and CPA accounting.
2. I formerly served as the Vice President of an international software development firm
for 5½ years, as the President and Chief Financial Officer of an international soft-
ware development firm with 130 employees and 3 offices on 2 continents I took pub-
lic, for 2 years, as the Interim President and Chief Financial Officer of an Internet do-
main name registrar for 6 months, as the Chief Scientist of a military research and
development company for 5½ years, and as the CEO of an expert witness company
during the first half of 2017.
3. I have been awarded 6 patents in detection of conventional and nuclear explosives
using neutron and gamma ray sensing, one patent in smart small caliber ammunition
design, and have 6 provisional patents in securities options trading technology and
one provisional patent in mobile device geolocation technology.
4. Currently I am an independent management and technology consultant and an ex-
pert witness in fields in which I am qualified to serve.
5. I have served as an expert witness in technology matters, including the valuation of
technology, in more than 100 cases before federal, state, and local courts.
6. I served as the President and Chief Financial Officer of a publicly traded software
firm with 130 employees and 3 offices on 2 continents.
7. I began costing, valuing, and managing software projects in 1986, and in the subse-
quent years, have performed technical and financial management of more than 100
software development projects and programs for civilian, government, and military
customers.
8. I have been writing software for 62 years, with some breaks.
8.1. I wrote my first computer program in April of 1959, just one month after my 12 th
birthday, on a Librascope LGP-30 computer at Cerritos Junior College in Califor-
nia, courtesy of my friend’s older brother who was a student there. The com-
puter had no RAM and no disk, only a magnetic drum. I wrote a numerical solu-
tion for the equation of motion of a yo-yo.
8.2. I began writing software professionally in 1969 while working as a physicist at
Rockwell Science Center in Thousand Oaks, CA, in support of an analysis of
moon rocks returned by Apollos 11 and 12 and of microwave analysis of earth’s


ocean temperatures and the atmospheric composition of Jupiter and Saturn. I
wrote software in FORTRAN and assembly language on the CDC 6600 and
RECOMP III computers.
8.3. Over the years, I wrote software on approximately 35 different operating sys-
tems and hardware platforms in numerous languages, many now legacy, includ-
ing FORTRAN, ALGOL, COBOL, PL/1, APL, Pascal, LISP, PLM, c, c++, Visual
Basic, Access, SQL, JavaScript, HTML / CSS, Java, Macromind Lingo, and as-
sembly languages for the CDC 6600 / 6400 CPU and PPU units, CDC RECOMP
III, AN/UYK-6, IBM 7044, IBM 7094, IBM 360, SDS 910/920/930 series, the
SIGMA series, the Burroughs B-3500, the VAX 11/70 series under VMS, the
PDP-11 series under RSX-11m, the Intel 8080, 8088, and 8086 chipsets, the
Motorola 6502 chipset, Xerox printer chipsets, and early versions of the Intel
BIOS. In addition to machine-specific operating systems, I’ve worked under
Linux, SCO Unix, most versions of Windows, and earlier “numbered” Macintosh
operating systems.
8.4. I have written approximately 150,000 lines of code personally, on media includ-
ing 8-bit ASCII punched paper tape, 7-bit Baudot partially punched paper tape,
plugboards, IBM cards, ½” magnetic reels, multiple formats of floppy disks, mod-
ern hard drives, PROM chips, and optical media. I have written software in the
areas of accounting, nuclear weapons simulations, stress analysis, bookkeep-
ing, finance, video games, animations, 3D modeling, accounting, device drivers,
robotic applications, vibration engineering, computerized test vector generation,
oil spill simulation, compilers, parsers, inertial navigation systems, armored vehi-
cle simulations, air quality simulations, Monte Carlo codes, electromagnetic scat-
tering, finite element codes, cryptographic codes, and intelligence community
applications.
8.5. I began managing software projects in 1986, and in the subsequent years, have
managed more than 100 software development projects and programs for civil-
ian, government, and military customers. I hold the designations of Microsoft
Certified Professional [MCP], Project Management Professional [PMP], and Cer-
tified Scrum Master [CSM].
9. I have held the office of CEO, President, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Scientist, and Board Member for multiple firms.


16 April 2022
Career Highlights
• Expert Witness in more than 100 cases in the areas of digital forensics, software
code review for compliance with best practices, GPS, software copyright infringe-
ment and valuation, technology and technology business valuation, aircraft crash in-
vestigation, and related cases.
o Lead software development expert witness for the Internal Revenue Service in
the $1.7 billion Microsoft et al v Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
• Manager of more than 100 projects and programs since 1978, with budgets to $7.5
million and headcounts to 38. PMP and CSM certified. Projects included software
development, cybersecurity, manufacturing, research and development, environ-
mental planning, and civil aviation. Environments included commercial, military, aer-
ospace, and national security communities. Instructor in Project Management for
the US Navy. Santa Barbara Chapter President, Project Management Institute.
• Project Manager, US Navy, Port Hueneme, Cybersecurity, DEVOPS, and Support.
• CEO, Precision Simulations, Incorporated [Grass Valley, CA] – Expert witness firm
specializing in video and audio evidence analysis and forensic animation.
• Independent consultant:
o 3d Flash LiDAR / super resolution in mining and aerial surveys
o Secure military CANBUS encryption and hardening
o Mobile device geolocation technology; Co-Inventor of a Provisional Patent
o Sublethal handgun ammunition; Sole Inventor of a Pending Patent
o Development of short-term securities options trading instrument. Sole Inventor of

6 FINTECH Provisional Patents
• Chief Financial Officer of an Internet Domain Name Registrar firm
• Chief Scientist / Co-Founder, SEDS, LLC [Redwood City, CA / Troy, MI / Santa Bar-
bara, CA / Washington, DC / Oak Ridge, TN], a neutron physics counterterrorism re-
search laboratory focusing on remote detection of improvised conventional and nu-
clear explosive devices and medical applications of thermal neutron technologies.


Principal inventor of 6 Granted Patents. Chief engineer for millimeter microwave
weapons detection systems installation at Cheyenne Mountain Complex.
• President and Chief Financial Officer, Offshore Creations, Inc. [Colorado Springs,
CO / Santa Barbara, CA / Kiev, Ukraine / Simferopol, Crimea] – 160-person Interna-
tional software development firm. Took the company public before the SEC.
• Research and Development Manager, Biopac Systems, Inc. [Goleta, CA] Manufac-
turers of biomedical equipment
• Product Manager, 3DStockCharts.com, Inc. [Santa Barbara, CA] – a real-time stock

data reporting and software development firm
• Vice President, Emulation Systems, Inc. [Santa Maria, CA] – makers of FAA ap-
proved simulators for light aircraft, helicopters and the F-18 Hornet.
• Director of Government Services, ExperTelligence, Inc. [Goleta, CA] – an Artificial

Intelligence software firm supplying the US intelligence community,
• Chief Scientist, Morton Associates [Santa Barbara, CA] – An environment firm that
created federally mandated Oil Spill Contingency and Emergency Plans [OSCEPs]
and personnel training curricula for offshore and onshore oil drilling platforms, pipe-
lines, production facilities, and storage facilities. Developer of air pollution manage-
ment software for Unocal.
• Contract software developer, Anacapa Associates [Santa Barbara, CA] – Developer

of a Human Terrain Modeling system used for tracking domestic terrorist groups and
organized crime groups.
• Physicist, Member of Technical Staff, General Research Corporation [Santa Bar-

bara, CA / Washington, DC] – Researcher and software developer in electromag-
netic scattering, nuclear weapons effects, computerized polygraphy, military opera-
tions, and other classified topics. Project Manager for robotic software development.
• Contract Software Developer, multiple firms including Control Data Corporation,

Raytheon Electromagnetic Systems, Edwards AFB, McDonnell Douglas, Vanden-
berg AFB, and GM Delco Electronics. Subjects included the AN/SLQ-32 shipboard
fire control system, missile test autodestruct systems, AGM-86 / AGM-109 cruise
missile test flyoffs, M1-Abams tank simulations.
• President and Chief Pilot, Norris Airways [Santa Barbara, CA] – A charter airline un-
der FAR Part 135, fixed base operator flight school under FAR Part 61, and Cessna


dealership. 1,000 hours of flight instruction given. Personally graduated 35 pilots
from Private Pilot to Airline Transport. Personally hold FAA Airline Transport Pilot
[ATP], Senior Parachute Rigger, and Advanced / Instrument Ground Instructor certif-
icates; formerly Certificated Flight Instructor, Airplane Single and Multi-Engine, In-
struments [CFII/ASMEL].
• President and Founder, Gasohol, Inc., the first retail and wholesale automotive alco-
hol fuel firm west of the Mississippi River in modern times, with retail sales and bulk
sales to the US Navy.
• Staff Associate Physicist, Rockwell Science Center [Thousand Oaks, CA] – Re-
searcher / software developer for studies of moon rocks from Apollos 11 and 12 us-
ing Mössbauer Spectroscopy. Researcher in planetary atmospheres and liquid wa-
ter analysis of terrestrial clouds.
• Laboratory Technician, Rockwell Space Center [Downey, CA] – Worked building the
Apollo Command Module
• Laboratory Technician, Advanced Kinetics Corporation [Seal Beach, CA] –Labora-

tory simulation the earth’s solar winds and the Van Allen Radiation Belts soon after
they were discovered.
• Student software developer [La Mirada, CA] – Wrote simulation software for rota-
tional dynamics on a Librascope LGP-30 in April 1959.
• Have written approximately 100,000 lines of software in approximately 38 computer

languages.


APPENDIX A – WAYNE B. NORRIS CURRICULUM VITAE
Wayne B. Norris has acted as an expert witness in more than 100 cases in federal,
state, and local venues over the last several decades, including:
• Software Copyright infringement, Abstraction / Filtration / Comparison [code
analysis and damages / appraisal computations]
• Computer Security and Forensics / Industry Best Practices, Defects / Failure
Analysis
• Software Contract Performance, Paternity and Valuation
• Software Outsourcing, with emphasis on Russia and Ukraine
• Engineering Best Practices
• Management Best Practices
• Software Taxation Issues
• Software Industry Appropriate Compensation
• Patents, Patent validity, Patent Infringement
• Copyright issues
• Trade Secrets
• General Engineering and Physics
• General aviation aircraft operations and skydiving operations
• Fiduciary duties of corporate officers
• Hazardous materials, oil spills, and industrial safety, including radiological
safety
• Aviation safety, best practices, and pilot error
Mr. Norris personally holds 6 granted patents in nuclear instrumentation. He has 6

pending patents in online securities trading, 1 filed patent in cell phone geolocation,
1 pending patent covering novel ballistic projectiles, and has authored a 14th patent
in real estate escrow processes.
He has been the CEO of an expert witness firm, the Vice President of a Russian-
American software company and the President and Chief Financial Officer of a
Ukrainian-American software company he took public on US markets.
He has testified on approximately 27 occasions, spanning both court testimony and
depositions, and has authored approximately 80 expert reports.
Mr. Norris specializes in explaining extremely complex concepts to general audi-
ences in accessible and understandable ways. He has 49 years of professional ser-
vice and 59 years writing and managing the development of computer software, be-
ginning in 1959.


List of Testimonies, 2013 - 2022, per FRE 26
• Pilton v Novell, Los Angeles County Civil Court, Case in Progress – For Plain-
tiff’s Counsel – Email analysis
• People v Daniel Garcia, et al, Riverside County, California, Case in Progress
– For Defendant’s Counsel – Corruption of computer data
• Blogspiration v Mobile Computing, LLC, Los Angeles County Civil Court – For
Plaintiff’s Counsel – Software development contract performance
• Muzeit v Bytedance, US Trademark Court – For Defendant’s Counsel – Tech-
nology analysis of Trademark claims
• Christian Cardoso v ASAP Drain Guys and Plumbing, San Diego, California
County Superior Court – For Plaintiff’s Counsel – Validation of video surveil-
lance data
• People of the State of California vs Nikolov, Los Angeles County Superior
Court – For Defendant’s Counsel – Valuation of stolen credit card numbers
obtained by hacking
• Live Face on Web vs Integrity -- US Federal District Court, Denver, Colorado
-- For Defendant's Counsel – Valuation of allegedly misappropriate copy-
righted software code
• Doe vs Corona Norco Unified School District, Riverside County, CA Superior
Court – For Plaintiff’s Counsel – Adequacy of school district software security
• Live Face on Web vs Moreno -- US District Court, Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division -- For Defendant's Counsel – Valuation of allegedly mis-
appropriate copyrighted software code
• Felix v Ramirez -- Superior Court of Los Angeles County, CA -- for Defend-
ant's counsel -- defendant prevailed on all counts, won counter-suit – Valua-
tion of Internet URLs
• Paccione vs Albert -- Los Angeles County Superior Court – for Defendant's
Counsel -- Analysis of text message records in a criminal contempt of court
hearing as part of a divorce proceeding
• People of the State of California vs Keith Johnson -- Shasta County, CA Su-
perior Court – for Defendant's Counsel – Analysis of potentially available fo-
rensic records from multiple sensors in a child molestation case
• Marriage of Jensen – Los Angeles County Superior Court – Analysis of email
records for evidence of tempering.


• Naroditskiy vs Eon Reality – Orange County Superior Court – for Defendant’s
Counsel – Valuation of Russian-American software representation contracts
• People of the State of California vs Creech – Los Angeles County Superior
Court – For Defendant’s Counsel – Analysis of prosecution's use of anima-
tions in a high profile death penalty case


MOST RECENT CASES INCLUDE:
• Analysis of tampered digital evidence in a high profile murder case, involving leg-
acy mobile devices and storage appliances.
• Appraisals, valuations, and damages in very difficult cases that no other experts
will touch, based on multiple valuation approaches and consolidation of results,
including stolen credit card numbers offered for sale on the Dark Web
• “Should-Cost” valuations of software in piracy cases and engineering contract
performance
• Unjust enrichment in trade secret theft cases
• Forensic analysis of JavaScript code in a copyright infringement / copyright
validation case, including Abstraction / Filtration / Comparison [AFC] tests
• Forensic analysis of metadata in a case of alleged international fraud
• Forensic analysis of email trails in a case of alleged forgery
• Forensic analysis of text message records in a criminal case
• Investigation of damage mechanisms to a computer system
• Forensic analysis of alleged Dark Web disclosures of Personally Identifiable
Information [PII]
• Forensic analysis of alleged online slander
• Forensic analysis of cell phone photos in an alleged child pornography case
• Procedure analysis of sheriff ’s investigators in an alleged case of lewd pho-
tography of under aged minors
• Appropriate compensation in the software industry
• Valuation of software in a copyright infringement case
• Appropriate commission structure in a US-Russian software business
• Physics analysis in patent infringement cases
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY:
Chief Executive Officer of Precision Simulations Inc., the leading provider of forensic
/ scientific documentation, analysis, and visualization services, including 3D laser
scanning, animation, forensic video, photogrammetry, and testifying expert witness
services for legal proceedings.
President and Chief Financial Officer of Offshore Creations, Inc. [OFSC.PK], a 130-
person publicly traded international software company.
Chief Scientist of SEDS, LLC, a government contracting R&D firm working in coun-
terterrorism; holder of 6 patents in nuclear technology, gamma ray sensing, and con-
ventional and nuclear explosives detection using thermal neutron beams and pixi-
lated gamma ray spectrometers. Specialist in millimeter microwave based weapons
detection systems, profiling, ballistics, Munroe Effect penetrators, and explosives ef-
fects. Installed first millimeter microwave detection system at Cheyenne Mountain
Complex. Analysis of Human Terrain Modeling with focus on bomb making.


PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY (continued):
Principal, Norris Associates, Environmental Consultants, an environmental and engi-
neering consulting firm. Projects included residential developments, the MX missile
rail garrison plan, a proposed nuclear plant in Omaha, a sewage system in Los An-
geles, oil drilling offshore Orange County, CA, and fuzzy set simulation of govern-
mental decision making.
Consulting Physicist and Computer Systems Analyst, Jet Propulsion Laboratories,
Vandenberg AFB, Edwards AFB, Kirtland AFB, GM Delco Division, McDonnell
Douglas, Raytheon, Hughes Aircraft, AlliedSignal Corporation, ExperTelligence Cor-
poration: Technology development for aerospace, domestic police, organized crime
gang and terrorism human terrain modeling, national defense, intelligence commu-
nity, and commercial projects.
Chief Scientist, Morton Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, corporate author of federally
mandated Oil Spill Contingency and Emergency Plans [OSCEPs] for the Chevron
platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel, the KLMR pipeline from Bakersfield to Los
Medanos, the Estero Bay Marine Terminal, Estero Spur, Gosford Production Facil-
ity, Chevron Cavern Point Unit, and Phillips Marine Terminal. Lead author of the
Commercial Fisheries Handbook for Proposed Exploratory Drilling Operations, Cav-
ern Point Unit. Software developer, fugitive emissions reporting system, Unocal re-
fineries. Financial analyst and appraiser, Unocal Huntington Beach onshore oil drill-
ing, pipeline, and production facilities.
Founder, CEO, and Chief Pilot Norris Airways, Santa Barbara, CA Municipal Airport,
an aircraft fixed base operation (“FBO”), FAR 135 Air Taxi, and Cessna dealership
with 14 employees, including 9 pilots, 3 departments, and 11 aircraft.
Co-Founder and CEO, Gasohol, Incorporated, Santa Barbara, CA, the first modern
wholesale/retail gasohol company west of the Mississippi River. Wholesale custom-
ers included the U.S. Navy.
Physicist, General Research Corporation, investigator in electromagnetic scattering,
neutron transport, nuclear weapons effects, counterterrorism, computer assisted pol-
ygraphy / electrophysiology and facial gesture recognition, and the Strategic De-
fense Initiative.
Physicist, Rockwell Science Center, investigator on lunar samples from Apollos 11
and 12, planetary atmospheres, cosmic background temperature, and terrestrial at-
mospheric liquid water content for environmental analysis and environmental impact
statements and reports.
Financial Analyst / Business Plan Author, Consultant – Holder of 6 Provisional Pa-
tents in financial options trading.
Patent advisor, Consultant


Advisor to Multiple Initial Coin Offerings [ICOs]
Expert witness for issues in Technology, Intellectual Property, Valuation, and Con-
duct of Corporate Officers in Federal and State courts.
EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS:

• University of California, Santa Barbara: B.A. Physics
• University of California, Santa Barbara: Post-graduate work in Advanced
Mathematics and Physics, Human Factors, and Ergonomics, and CPA ac-
counting
• Microsoft Certified Professional + Internet [MCP+I] designation
• Project Management Professional [PMP] designation
• Certified SCRUM Master [CSM] [Agile project management] designation
• University of Texas, Austin: Professional Certificate, Oil Field HAZOPS and
Risk Management
• Security Management Certificate, Defense Industrial Security Clearance Of-
fice. Honolulu, HI
• Classified Warheads and Ballistics Seminars, US Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA
• Former California State General Building Contractor, B-1 licensee
• FAA Airline Transport Pilot, Senior Parachute Rigger, Former CFII/ASMEL,
Ground Instructor
AFFILIATIONS:
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE] – Life Member
• International Right of Way Association [IRWA]
• Association of Old Crows [AOC] [Electronic and cyber warfare professional
organization]
• Project Management Institute [PMI] – Santa Barbara Chapter Director
• SCRUM Alliance [Agile project management]
• Santa Barbara Science and Engineering Counsel
• Association of the United States Army [AUSA] Life Member
• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]


SELECTED COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE:
• President, Board Chair, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Santa Barbara: Created a
pioneer vehicle donation program and created 34 radio and TV commercials and
bilingual sober driving literature.
• Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff for Search & Rescue
• Member, Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, Sheriff’s/Seniors Committees
PUBLICATIONS:
“Time-Resolved Emission Spectroscopy in Acetylene/Oxygen Explosions”, Combustion
and Flame Journal, February 1970 (with R.J. Oldman and H.P. Broida)
“The Brightness Temperature of the Terrestrial Sky at 2.69 GHz”, Journal of the Atmos-
pheric Sciences, 29:1210 (with W.W. Ho, G.M. Hidy, M.J. Van Melle, W. Hall, H. Wang)
Chevron Fisheries Handbook for the Cavern Point Unit (with Prof. Milton, Love, Ph.D.)
PATENTS:
Mr. Norris currently hold 7 granted patents and 7 provisional patents, and has acted as
an expert in numerous patent cases, including against Microsoft, Logitech, Pelican Re-
search, and Analog Devices, Inc.
US 7,573,044 B2 Remote Detection Of Explosive Substances GRANTED 8/11/09 - Pri-
ority 7/18/06
US 8,080,808 Remote Detection Of Explosive Substances (CIP 7,573,044) GRANTED
12/20/2011
US 8,288,734 Remote Detection Of Explosive Substances CIP GRANTED 10/16/2012
US 8,357,910 Background Signal Reduction In Neutron Fluorescence Applications Us-
ing Agile Neutron Beam Flux GRANTED 1/22/2013
US 8,410,451 Neutron Fluorescence with Synchronized Gamma Detector GRANTED
4/2/2013
US 8,785,864 Low-Cost, Organic-Scintillator Compton Gamma Ray Telescope
GRANTED 6/22/2014 [with K.N. Ricci, B. Paden]
US 11,226,185 Multipurpose Projectile Having Preformed Pieces and a Variable Impact
Deployment System GRANTED 1/18/2022
US 62305645 Method and System for Trading Low Priced Short Term Securities Option
Contracts That Exhibit Specified Behaviors, PENDING 3/9/2016
US 62307986 Securities Trading Exchanges To Support the Sale and Exercise of Low
Priced Short Term Securities Option Contracts That Exhibit Specified Behaviors, PEND-
ING 3/14/2016


US 62307999 Method and Process To Support the Sale and Exercise of a Series of
Low Price Securities Option Contracts To Achieve Specified Premium Price Values,
PENDING 3/14/2016
US 62378833 Method and Process To Support the Interactive Sharing of Securities
Trading Activities, PENDING 8/24/2016
US 62378846 Method and Process To Support the Positioning of Advertisements in a
Securities Trading Platform, PENDING 8/24/2016
US 62378858 Method and Process for Combining Trades of Securities into a Lottery-
Like Environment, PENDING 8/24/2016
US 62/353,466 US Method for Verifying Player Location in Online Lottery System,
PENDING 9/22/2016.
EXPERT WITNESS EXPERIENCE DETAILED DISCUSSION:

Mr. Norris has testified on approximately 27 occasions, spanning both court testimony
and depositions, and has authored approximately 80 expert reports.
Mr. Norris specializes in explaining extremely complex concepts to general audiences in
accessible and understandable ways. He has 49 years of professional service and 60
years writing and managing the development of computer software, beginning in 1959.
Mr. Norris was the US Government’s expert witness for software development issues in
the multi-year case of Microsoft Corporation versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue
[US Tax Court Docket Number 16878-96], the largest tax case ever litigated by any ju-
risdiction in history. He authored four expert witness reports that were admitted into the
record, and testified for approximately 7 hours, including voire dire, direct, cross, redi-
rect, and recross.
Mr. Norris was the principal architect of the Government’s technical approach toward in-
terpretation of IRC 927(c) in the case of software. The Government won the case at
trial, and his arguments were incorporated into the Court’s opinion. He advised IRS at-
torneys on strategies for the examination of Microsoft expert witnesses.
Mr. Norris specializes in explaining very complex issues to the Court and Jury in acces-
sible language.
He has recently developed a knowledge area with the trademarked name the Internet of
Evidence™, [http://InternetOfEvidence.com/] a term he uses to refer to the vast and
ever growing array of sensors and data recorders that can be used by the legal commu-
nity to determine time lines, identities and intentions of actors, accuracy of alibis, exter-
nal and environmental conditions, and who knew what and when they knew it. He deliv-
ered a Webinar for CLE credit on this topic on April 24 of 2014 under the auspices of
Technical Advisory Services for Attorneys [TASA]. The webinar was attended by 132 at-
torneys nationwide.


The following year, 2015, Mr. Norris presented a similar webinar for CLE credits titled
The Internet of Things Thieves - What Data Security Lawsuits In the Very Near Future
Will Look Like!
Mr. Norris has worked as an expert witness in several modes, including depositions,
testimony in court, and preparation of expert witness reports and strategy documents.
Due to confidentiality rules and stipulations, many are not able to be shared. Sharable
information is shown below.
EXPERT WITNESS CASES

SOME CASES ARE LISTED UNDER MULTIPLE HEADINGS FOR EASE
OF ACCESS:
Animations and Simulations
• People of the State of California vs Creech, Los Angeles County Superior Court -
Analysis of prosecution's use of animations
Appraisals and Valuations
• People of the State of California vs Nikolov, Los Angeles County Superior Court
• Live Face on Web vs Integrity -- US District Court, Denver, Colorado -- For De-
fendant's Counsel
• Live Face On Web vs Moreno et al, ongoing - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Live Face on Web vs Integrity Systems, ongoing, for Defendant’s Counsel
• Live Face on Web vs Puerto del Sol Condominiums, for Defendant’s Counsel
• Naroditskiy vs Eon Reality, ongoing - for Defendant’s Counsel
• People of the State of California vs Georgi Nikolov, for Defendant’s Counsel
• Mitchell and Manhattan Software vs Jean Kasem, Little Miss Liberty, et al, - Su-
perior Court of Los Angeles County, CA – case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Felix v Ramirez – Superior Court of Los Angeles County, CA – defendant pre-
vailed on all counts, won counter-suit - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Clark-Martin vs Yahoo US District Court – negotiated settlement - for Defendant’s
Counsel
• Microsoft vs Richter, OptInRealBig, et al – US District Court, Seattle, damages –
defendant plead guilty to reduced charges - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Young vs GFOS, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, case settled - for Plaintiff’s
Counsel
• Feltman v Otalvaro, et al - for Plaintiff ’s counsel – case settled – US Bankruptcy
Court, Southern Florida
• Multiple others, cases sealed


Forensic Analyses of Electronic Media
• People vs Garcia, Riverside County, California, for in pro per homicide defendant
• People vs Frazier, Los Angeles County Court, for Defense Counsel
• Live Face On Web vs Five Boro Mold et al - Superior Court of the State of New
York - Case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Microsoft Corporation vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Victory by Defend-
ant [IRS], US Tax Court, Seattle, WA and Washington, DC. [Court testimony; 7
hours; direct, cross, redirect, recross] - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Weininger vs Weininger – online slander and reputation management - case settled
• Multiple cases in progress involving metadata, email authentication, spoofing,
and damage to electronic media
• Riffle vs Hyde & Hyde, Northern California – case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• People of the State of Wyoming vs Robinson – POS system tampering - guilty
verdict - for Defendant’s Counsel
• People of the State of California vs Threlkeld – Riverside County Superior Court
forensic recovery from cell phones and hard drives – Defendant convicted and
sentenced
• People of the State of California vs Keith Johnson – analysis of potentially availa-
ble forensic records from multiple sensors in a child molestation case – Not
Guilty Verdict – Shasta County, CA Superior Court [Court testimony; 2 hours; di-
rect, cross, redirect] - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Paccione vs Albert – Analysis of text message records in a criminal contempt of
court hearing as part of a divorce proceeding – charges dropped – Los Angeles
county Superior Court [Court testimony; 1 hour; direct, cross, redirect] - for De-
fendant’s Counsel
• Offshore Supply Systems, LLC vs CS Industries, Inc. - Superior Court of Orange
County, CA - case settled - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Marriage of Jensen – Los Angeles County Superior Court - analysis of email rec-
ords for evidence of tampering.
Software Intellectual Property
• Microsoft Corporation vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Victory by Defend-
ant [IRS], US Tax Court, Seattle, WA and Washington, DC. [Court testimony; 7
hours; direct, cross, redirect, recross] - for Defendant’s Counsel
Patentability of Software
• In re Mitchell, Los Angeles US District Court – advisory to Court


Technology Infringement
• Dolby Digital v General Satellite Research & Development, Ltd., San Francisco
Federal District Court, for Defendant’s Counsel
• Interlam vs Modular Arts, US District Court, Western District, Washington State,
Seattle, WA, case settled [Deposition] - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Young vs GFOS, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, settled - Plaintiff’s Counsel
Patent Infringement Cases
• Jordan Spencer Jacobs v. Microsoft Corporation, Logitech, Inc., Pelican Acces-
sories, and Analog Devices, Inc. - case settled, US District Court, Central Florida
[Deposition] - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Sequent Technologies vs Insight Video Net - US District Court, Los Angeles, CA
- case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• VOS Systems, Inc. vs Voice Signal Technology, Inc. – US District Court, San Di-
ego, CA – case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Microsoft vs Comptek Plus, US District Court, Los Angeles, CA – case settled –
for Defendant’s Counsel
• Other cases settled under seal
Software and Hardware Quality and Performance Cases
• Allen & Schack vs Worldwide Environmental Products - settled, Superior Court of
Ventura County, CA [Deposition] - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
Software Copyright Infringement Cases
• Mitchell and Manhattan Software vs Jean Kasem, Little Miss Liberty, et al, – Su-
perior Court of Los Angeles County, CA – case settled prior to trial - for Plaintiff’s
Counsel
• Other cases settled under seal, US District Court, Honolulu, Hawaii
• Live Face on Web, Inc. vs Moreno et al, ongoing, for Defendant’s Counsel
Software Piracy
• People vs Joan Huang, US District Court, Los Angeles, CA – defendant plead
guilty to a reduced charge - for Defendant’s Counsel
Software System Operational Integrity
• People vs Mraz, Superior Court of Sheridan, WY – defendant convicted - for De-
fendant’s Counsel
Software Licensing
• qad vs Ingersoll Rand – Los Angeles US District Court – case settled - for Plain-
tiff’s Counsel


Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
• Entertainment Printing Enterprises, Inc. vs CreativeMob, TicktBox, et al – Supe-
rior Court of Los Angeles County, CA – case settled prior to trial - for Plaintiff’s
Counsel
• Mitchell and Manhattan Software vs Jean Kasem, Little Miss Liberty, et al, – Su-
perior Court of Los Angeles County, CA – case settled prior to trial - for Plaintiff’s
Counsel
• Lynch Communications, Inc. v Irish Communications, Inc, David O’Keefe, et al. –
Superior Court of Riverside, CA - case dropped - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
Software Industry Appropriate Compensation
• Feltman vs Otalvaro, et al – case settled – US Bankruptcy Court, Southern Flor-
ida – for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Smith, Dodson, Steele, Port, et al vs Kaiser Permanente [class action], US Dis-
trict Court, Northern California, case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Tan vs CSAA [class action], US District Court, Northern California, case settled -
for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Langille vs EMC [class action], US District Court, Northern California, case set-
tled – for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Delmare vs Sungard [class action], US District Court, Northern California, case
settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Apple vs Walsh [class action], US District Court, Northern California, case settled
- for Plaintiff’s Counsel
• Williams et al vs Lockheed Martin, US District Court, Southern California, case
settled [Deposition] - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
Software Security Industry Best Practices
• Doe vs Corona Norco Unified School District, Riverside County, CA Superior
Court – For Plaintiff’s Counsel
Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Officers
Lynch Communications, Inc. v Irish Communications, Inc, David O’Keefe, et al. – Supe-
rior Court of Riverside, CA - case dropped - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
Other cases settled under seal
Illegal Use of Business Name in HTML Metatags for SEO
• Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. vs ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc. – Los Ange-
les County
• Superior Court - case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel


Software Contract Performance
• Alliance Manufacturing Software, Inc. vs Typhoon Software, Inc. – Santa Barbara
Superior Court – [Deposition] - Judgement for Plaintiff - for Defendant’s Counsel
• Wilmar Group vs Mastech Systems Corp. – Court of Common Pleas – Allegheny
County, PA – case settled - for Plaintiff’s Counsel
Genealogy of Software Source Code to Determine Branching
• Norton vs Norton, Los Angeles Family Court – case settled - for Defendant’s Counsel
Professional Conduct Among Scientists – Defamation
• Watts vs Synolakis – US District Court - Juneau, Alaska - case settled - for De-
fendant’s Counsel
Evaluation of Private Pilot Dangerous Conduct
• Lima vs Foster, Los Angeles Family Court – case settled
Airline Liability
• Case sealed
Building Lighting Liability
• Gordon vs Pacific Properties – Santa Barbara, CA – case settled - for Plaintiff’s
Counsel
Aerial Law Enforcement
• People of the State of California vs Stevenson, Santa Barbara County Superior
Court – reduced misdemeanor sentence [Court testimony; 1 hour; direct, cross] -
for Defendant’s Counsel
SUMMARY OF EXPERT WITNESS AREAS
• Computer software development issues, practices, responsibilities, financing, re-
sponsibility, defects, failure analysis, and valuation
• Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secret issues, including infringement and misap-
propriation, including audits of computer source code
• Outsourcing, including domestic and international
• General physics, dynamics, engineering, technology, and mechanics
• Software industry appropriate compensation
• Engineering and software industry standards and contract performance, including
industry best practices Management practices in engineering, science, research
& development, and technology
• General aviation aircraft operations [FAA rated Airline Transport Pilot, former
Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Parachute Rigger]


• Fiduciary duties of corporate officers
• Hazardous materials, oil spills, radiological and industrial safety
WAYNE B. NORRIS

EXHIBIT B
001
002
003
EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
----------------------------- x
UNITED STATES
DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION
Appellee, TO MOTION TO STAY
Docket Nos. 20-3520-cr(L);
v. 20-3789-cr(CON)
KEITH RANIERE,
Defendant-Appellant.
----------------------------- x
KEVIN TROWEL hereby declares the following under 28
U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern
District of New York. I submit this declaration in opposition to the
defendant Keith Raniere’s motion to stay. (“Mot.”).
2. As an initial matter, before Raniere filed his motion to
stay, the government made clear to Raniere’s counsel that it opposed his
proposed motion. Nevertheless, Raniere’s motion incorrectly states that
his motion is “unopposed.” For the avoidance of doubt, the government
strongly opposes his motion to stay his appeal.
001
3. Indeed, there is no legal or factual basis to stay the
appeal, much less to stay it just two business days before oral argument.
Raniere’s assertion of government “malfeasance” is frivolous, and the
government will address that assertion on the merits at such time as
Raniere makes the motion in the appropriate forum, and the government
is directed to respond to it. The crux of Raniere’s argument appears to
be that the Federal Bureau of Investigation manipulated “computer
images and photographs” of Raniere’s victim Camila “to make it appear
that these photographs were taken in 2005,” i.e., when Camila was a
minor. (Mot. ¶¶ 9-10). But, as noted in the government’s brief on appeal,
Camila appeared at Raniere’s sentencing and herself confirmed that “in
September 2005, ‘when she was still fifteen, [Raniere] took naked
pictures of [her].” (Br. 55 n.12).
4. In any event, during the pendency of this appeal, the
government respectfully submits that the appropriate forum for
Raniere’s motion is the district court, and the appropriate mechanism by
which Raniere may seek relief is Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.
If Raniere files his motion in the district court, Rule 37 provides that the
district court may defer the motion, deny the motion or “state either that
002
it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose
or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a).
Further, even if the district court were to issue an “indicative ruling”
under Rule 37, this Court “may” — not “must” — remand for further
proceedings while retaining jurisdiction. Fed. R. App. 12.1(b). The Court
should reject Raniere’s effort to bypass these procedural mechanisms and
thereby defer resolution of the issues that the parties are prepared to
argue before the Court on May 3, 2022.
5. The cases Raniere cites do not support his request for a
stay. (Mot. 4). In United States v. Madonna, 20-2479 (2d Cir.), no briefs
had been filed at the time of the motion to stay and the government
consented to the stay. And in United States v. Stillwell, this Court’s
remand was occasioned by a “rather extraordinary notice to this Court”
from the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the Department of
Justice (“NDDS”) that “the District Court had entered a sealed protective
order upon an ex parte motion by the NDDS, which barred prosecutors
in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and
defense counsel from reviewing certain documents.” 986 F.3d 196, 197–
98 (2d Cir. 2021). No comparable circumstances exist here, and there is
003
therefore no basis to delay resolution of the issues Raniere has raised on
appeal.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Raniere’s
motion to stay be denied.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
/s/
KEVIN TROWEL
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Executed on April 28, 2022

Brooklyn, New York
004
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 956-2 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:
16668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 18-cr-204 (NGG) (S-2)

- v. -
AFFIDAVIT OF
MICHELE HATCHETTE
KEITH RANIERE,
Defendant.
MICHELE HATCHETTE, duly swears and affirms as follows:
1. I am 33 years old. I grew up in Harlem, New York City; I graduated from Pitzer
College in 2009. I live in Brooklyn, New York. I am represented by counsel, specifically Justin
Greenblum, Esq, and I affirm that this affidavit is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.
2. I took my first 5-day introductory intensive in Executive Success Programs (ESP)
in June 2013 in New York City, New York. I completed the remaining 11 days of the
introductory intensive course in November 2013 in Albany, New York. Following the
completion of this first course, between 2013 and 2018, I took intensives/curriculum with The
Source, Jness, and Society of Protectors (SOP) and was a Multicultural Development Specialist
(MDS)/ teacher for Rainbow Cultural Garden which was an early childhood education program.
I became a coach in ESP in 2015 and in October 2015, I knowingly and enthusiastically accepted
Allison Mack’s invitation to join the sorority which is now known as DOS.
3. At its core, I experienced DOS to be an organization for women who wanted to
overcome their greatest fears to accomplish their goals. For me, it was a profound experience
001
16669
whereby I gained more confidence and trust in myself. There were several practices I took on
that helped me strengthen my character, expand my awareness of how my decisions impact
others, and I became more disciplined - all of which I’d been seeking to build within myself prior
to my invitation into the group because I knew growth in these areas would help me become a
more compassionate human and effective leader in several areas of my life.
4. I believe I would have been a critical defense witness at the trial in the matter of
United States v. Keith Raniere as I was in a unique position to speak of my experience in DOS as
another woman whom Ms. Mack invited into and mentored within the organization. However,
as will be explained in detail later, I was threatened by the prosecution and feared an unfounded
indictment if I did testify. Given that there was only one woman who testified that was mentored
by Ms. Mack in DOS who testified at Mr. Raniere’s trial (Nicole, one of the government’s key
witnesses related to the Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor charges), I believe my experiences of
Ms. Mack’s mentorship and my time within DOS would have offered an important perspective
in the jury’s understanding of the positive nature of the group which I received. Additionally,
my close proximity and consistent communication with Nicole throughout the approximate nine
months we were in DOS together made me privy to the practices Nicole experienced and an
eye-witness to how Nicole reacted and interacted with others in the group, which were markedly
different from Nicole’s trial testimony.
5. At Mr. Raniere’s trial, Nicole was asked by the prosecutor if there were things,
had she known prior to joining DOS, that would have affected her decision to join the group, to
which she replied, “Yea, I guess the first one would be that apparently I was giving up my free
will and that I couldn't make my own decisions. But that eventually there would have to be more
collateral added on and that I would have no say in whether or not I gave it, like it would be
002
16670
demanded. I mean there were so many things that were added on later once you were, like,
sealed into this situation.” (Tr. 3863)
6. Though Nicole’s statement about DOS supports the governments theory that
women were giving up their free will, I would have testified that my experience of the reality
was, in fact, the opposite. I experienced all of the practices within DOS as an opportunity to
build the character and discipline I needed to achieve my goals. For example, prior to DOS I
struggled at times to follow through on commitments I would make both professionally and
within personal relationships. After communicating this to Ms. Mack, she recommended I
journal for a few weeks on how my lack of follow through impacted those who were counting on
me to deliver on my promises which motivated me to figure out how I could be more reliable
such situations. As I worked towards this goal, I found more freedom and trust within myself
and that I had a greater capacity to manage the increasing complexity of my career and personal
responsibilities, which was exactly what I was hoping to gain from DOS.
7. On the subject of collateral, Nicole testified that the process of submitting and
offering collateral was problematic for her. In contrast, I would have testified that my
experience of gathering and submitting collateral was not problematic for me as it was explained
to me that the collateral was simply a way to demonstrate my commitment to keep the
confidentiality of the group private while also affirming my voluntary membership into the
group. Prior to my first conversation with Ms. Mack about DOS, I was already seeking
opportunities that could help me challenge my fears and limitations that I perceived as
roadblocks standing between me and my goals, so the arrangement of this mentorship was a
welcomed invitation that I considered with great care over the course of a few weeks. My final
decision to accept this invitation was ultimately driven by my desire to prioritize my personal
003
16671
growth and development and I knowingly joined DOS because I trusted that Ms. Mack would
do her best to guide and mentor me in the achievement of my goals, for life. Ms. Mack certainly
followed through on this promise and commitment to me and I benefited greatly from her care
and leadership during the entirety of my time in DOS. I can say with absolute certainty that I
was provided with all the necessary information I needed to make such an informed choice and
commitment and am grateful I did as I continue to see the positive impacts of the training and
mentorship I received during that time.
8. At the time Ms. Mack invited me to join DOS, she informed me that if I accepted
this invitation, I would be agreeing to have her as my master and I her slave. After asking Ms.
Mack what the nature of our relationship would be under titles, I understood that within this
context, as stated above, that Ms. Mack would be committing her life to help me achieve my
greatest goals and that someday I would mentor other women in the same way. Therefore, I felt
comfortable enough with that arrangement to move forward.
9. At Mr. Raniere’s trial, the prosecutor asked Nicole to explain what her
understanding of DOS was prior to joining, to which she replied, “A woman's mentorship where
Allison would mentor me in life and that was going to like push me into my fears...” (Tr. 3862)
She then added, “So, then I was told that, like, the way the mentorship was communicated, it was
a master-slave relationship.” (Tr. 3863) Nicole’s testimony that she was told of the master/slave
relationship within DOS only after joining is, I believe, false. I was enrolled into DOS before
Nicole and as just mentioned above, was informed prior to joining that the relationship would
have this “master/slave” dynamic. Additionally, Ms. Mack explained to me, Nicole and the two
other women she’d invited into DOS, in several group conversations when we discussed the
process of inviting women we knew into the group, that all women must be informed that they
004
16672
would be entering into a master/slave relationship, that there will be a brand, that they must wear
some type of jewelry as a symbol of their commitment to their growth, and that it would be a
lifetime vow sealed with collateral. My account of Ms. Mack’s leadership within our group
would have shown the unliklihood that Ms. Mack would have withheld the master/slave dynamic
from Nicole. My testimony regarding the enrollment process into DOS would have stood in
stark contrast to the government’s theory, supported by Nicole’s referenced statement, that
women were somehow misinformed and deceived into joining the group. Again, my experience
was that I was presented with all the necessary information to evaluate whether or not I wanted
to join DOS before making the decision and I made sure to communicate these same critical
points to women I later invited into the group so they too had this information. It was my desire
to share this testimony with the courts because I believed it would help clarify what I perceived
as the inaccurate theory purported by the government that women were deceived and forced into
joining DOS. However, after being threatened by the prosecutors on this case, which I will
explain in further detail below, I feared they would follow through on their stated threat to
punish me for my simple desire to share my experiences with the jury.
10. The invitation process into DOS is further supported by Lauren Salzman’s
testimony when she explained the enrollment protocol that all women were supposed to follow
when inviting others to learn about and potentially join the group. Ms. Salzman stated, “They
were given basically the pitch, you know, come to learn about lifetime vow of obedience
master/slave concepts, the collar and the brand. Then they had agreed to join after learning those
things and then they were fully collateralized. So they were not considered completely enrolled
until they were fully collateralized.” (Tr. 1621)
005
16673
11. It is also important to note that many women who were invited to DOS and chose
not to join. For example, I would have testified that there were several women I invited into
DOS, who voluntarily gave collateral to learn about it, yet once they learned about the
organization and what it entailed, they declined. They all remained friends with me and some
expressed gratitude for the invitation, even though they felt it was not for them.
12. When I accepted the invitation to join DOS, I was mostly focused on using the
process to achieve my goals. However, I also had an opportunity to build deep, meaningful
friendships with other women, especially the additional three (Nicole, India and Danielle) who
were also being mentored by Ms. Mack in DOS (note: the four of us referred to ourselves as a
“circle” and I will use this term moving forward in reference to this group). Within our circle,
we formed a unique bond with one another and over time, I considered these women to be both
dear friends and sisters. While Ms. Mack was still mentoring each of us individually, the four of
us built a trust and reliability with one another which at times inspired us to mentor each other
and even initiate the development of practices that were unique to our circle because we were
inspired by the process and training we were experiencing in DOS. For example, there was a
series of practices that Nicole, India and Ms. Mack created together that involved things like
walking meditation and watching or reading something inspirational each day. After doing the
practices for over a month, Nicole, India and Ms. Mack shared their experience with me and
Danielle. Nicole, in particular, expressed great enthusiasm for how meaningful and beneficial the
practices were.
13. At some point, Nicole, India, Danielle and myself, independent from Ms. Mack,
decided to create a special written commitment with one another in what we called our “creed.”
006
16674
In the process of carefully crafting this document over a period of weeks, Nicole sent an
unsolicited email to the group describing her thoughts, feelings, and ambitions (See Exhibit A).
14. This email flatly contradicts Nicole’s claim that she was motivated throughout her
time in DOS solely out of fear of her collateral being released. This was an unsolicited email
expressing her unfiltered thoughts about the nature and benefit of the “readiness” practice and
her choice to join DOS, “I chose to join the vow to push through my fears and live the life
experience that I want to. To live a full life. I chose to join the vow to understand and experience
that freedom and joy come from the inside, from the internal and not from the external.” Nicole
demonstrates her understanding of the purpose and intent of DOS and speaks very positively,
which is in stark contrast to her testimony where she paints a negative picture of the same
subjects.
15. It is important to note that this email was sent on January 3, 2017. On January 4,
2017, Nicole, Danielle and myself received an email from India (forwarded from Sylvie) asking
for help transcribing audios for Ms. Cafritz’s memorial (See Exhibit D). According to her
testimony, Nicole spent about five hours transcribing these audios and the government used this
to substantiate the Forced Labor charge against Mr. Raniere.
16. I would have also been able to provide the jury with a comprehensive account of
the relationship between the women in my circle and our relationship with Ms. Mack. The four
of us were in regular communication with each other via text and email, co-mentoring one
another in the pursuit of our personal goals. As well, India, Danielle and I all lived in the Albany
area and often spent time with one another socially to grab coffee, go for walks, attend events,
etc. Although Nicole lived in Brooklyn, she would meet with us and Ms. Mack each week via
007
16675
video chat for our weekly check-in. Nicole also visited Albany at times and we would make an
effort to all get together in person while she was in town.
17. Our weekly check-in was a time for us to share whatever was on our minds, our
struggles, our wins, and ask for guidance and help from everyone present. We shared openly and
vulnerably about anything we wished and began to hold each other accountable to the standards
each woman wanted for herself, all of this without the direction of Ms. Mack. These check-ins
built a foundation for the four of us to continue to take initiative in ways that had nothing to do
with Ms. Mack or Mr. Raniere, and we did so because we were inspired by how much we were
benefiting from our shared commitment to these practices.
18. At trial, Nicole testified that her relationship with India was used against her to
make Allison “happy” for the “benefit” of Mr. Raniere (p.3951: 18-25 & p.3952: 1-5). I would
have been able to offer a critical perspective on Nicole’s claim, as it was not my experience that
Ms. Mack “used” the women against each other as Nicole described. On the contrary, I
remember several times that Ms. Mack shared her excitement when someone achieved a goal
and that Ms. Mack was always contemplating how she could be of more support to us. My
experience of Ms. Mack is that she would do anything to help us achieve our goals and I cannot
recall a single moment in the three years I was in DOS that Ms. Mack did anything to
compromise the well-being of me, Nicole, Danielle, or India. Similarly, not once in three years
did Nicole, Danielle or India ever indicate to me that they felt used against one of the others. If
India, Danielle or Nicole had at any point expressed to me that they were feeling forced or
coerced in some way, I would have taken action immediately to cease its continuation.
19. Furthermore, had I not been threatened and intimidated by the prosecution, I
would have explained to the jury how and why DOS members would sometimes take on some
008
16676
act of discomfort, like a cold shower, when one of us would fail at a commitment we’d set for
ourselves. For example, I could have referenced a WhatsApp conversation I had with India
which demonstrates my offering to take on a consequence for India if she thought it would help
her move through a failure she was consistently struggling to overcome (See Exhibit B). It is
evident in this chat that India and I, on our own, initiated and created an action plan together and
Ms. Mack did not force this upon us because she was not involved.
20. Nicole’s testimony gave, in my opinion, a false and misrepresented perspective of
what DOS was like for all the women who were mentored by Ms. Mack because her description
of several events and the nature of DOS in general, do not match my experience. I believe this
was undoubtedly influenced by the government, which advanced a theory that the women who
Ms. Mack mentored, in particular, were there only to serve as “sex slaves” for Mr. Raniere. This
is absolutely false based on my experience. I would have been able to testify to an experience in
DOS that would have been the opposite of being sex trafficked. Me and the other women in my
circle, including Nicole, were adults with our own financial resources who lived independently,
and had all the liberties and privileges that any educated woman from a supportive family would
have. Most importantly membership into DOS was voluntary and any woman at any point in her
process of evaluating her decision to join, was free to decline the invitation. I was never asked or
“commanded” by Ms. Mack to have sex with Mr. Raniere or any person for that matter as a
requirement of my membership in DOS. Furthermore, I firmly attest that I never advised,
encouraged, nor required women I later mentored in DOS, to have sex with Mr. Raniere or
anyone else as a requirement of their membership in DOS. The government took Nicole’s
accounts of her experiences in DOS as though that was the universal experience of DOS. But
Nicole’s description of DOS could not be more opposite to my time spent in the group where I
009
16677
learned to become more grounded and confident which has helped me succeed in my career and
flourish in my personal relationships. My account of my time in DOS is shared among several
other women who were in DOS who still feel they benefited greatly from their experience.
21. It was a central tenet of the government’s theory that the collateral was an
ever-present factor that compelled women in DOS to do certain things they did not want to do.
This is absolutely false based on my experience. In the almost two years that I was in
communication with the other women in my circle in DOS, we failed several times (individually
and collectively) at different practices and our collateral was never released, threatened to be
released nor was this even a fear of mine, or a fear anyone in our circle, including Nicole, ever
expressed. Within DOS, my experience was that consequences were created and agreed-upon by
the women in the circle and were not imposed by Ms. Mack or Mr. Raniere. The only time I
ever felt coerced or threatened, as it related to my involvement in DOS, was by the government
when they were conducting their investigation and tried to persuade me to adopt their
understanding of the situation and their theories (more on this later).
22. Moreover, the exposure of collateral, as I recall, was never factored into our group
activities or practices. Although Nicole testified at trial that she was in constant fear of her
collateral being released and stated that, “[I]f we didn't obey, then the fist collateral would be
released,” (4017: 23-24) I witnessed on a several occasions Nicole freely “disobey” as she states
and opt out of activities or conversations which never resulted in the exposure of her collateral.
23. Furthermore, and in connection with the Forced Labor charges, 18 U.S. Code
§ 1589 defines one aspect of Forced Labor as “knowingly provides or obtains the labor or
services of a person (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to
believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person
10
010
16678
would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. One of the acts qualified as forced labor,
according to the government, as supported by Nicole’s testimony, was when she read and
reviewed a series of articles written by Mr. Raniere. I also read and reviewed these articles and
did not fear I would “suffer serious harm or physical restraint”. I would have been able to
provide testimony that Nicole expressed that she enjoyed reading the articles and wanted to
re-read some of the articles when she had more time (See Exhibit F). This information, I believe,
would have dismantled and rendered incredible Nicole’s claims on this point, ultimately serving
to drastically undermine the government’s presented evidence of forced labor.
24. The government also claimed that Nicole was a victim of Forced Labor when she
transcribed audios for Pamela Cafritz’s. However, I also transcribed some of the audios for the
service and attest that doing so was completely voluntary and driven by my desire to support
memorializing Ms. Cafritz. I would have provided testimony that the memorial service was
coordinated by a small group of people, including Sylvie and India, who reached out to several
other people within the community for help in the planning process. Nicole and I were asked by
India to transcribe these videos so it was not a directive from Mr. Raniere or Ms. Mack.
Contrary to the government’s claims, this effort was not part of DOS and if I or Nicole felt we
did not have enough time to complete the transcriptions of the audios (provided by Sylvie), there
were several people within the community we could have reached out to as replacements for the
task.
25. Additionally, I would have offered insight into the testimony of Sylvie, another
one of the government’s witnesses at the trial of Keith Raniere. Sylvie was my coach in ESP for
approximately three years. As my coach, she and I checked in weekly on the progress of my
goals and she would often reach out and check in with me outside of those standing meetings.
11
011
16679
Throughout the three years she coached me, we also became close friends and she was a positive
support in my life and helped me achieve many things I wanted to accomplish, most notably in
helping me train for my third half marathon where I finally broke my fastest time.
26. Given that much of Sylvie’s direct testimony focused on the alleged emotional
damages Sylvie claims she incurred as a result of her time in Jness, my relationship with Sylvie
would have been critical information for the jury to show that my experience of Sylvie was that
she was an enthusiastic leader within ESP and Jness who helped many men and women,
including myself.
27. In 2015, Sylvie invited me to join a social media/marketing company and our first
client was Jness. Through working together on a Jness marketing campaign, I was inspired by
Sylvie's leadership and her ability to communicate the humanitarian values and goals of the
company. Sylvie’s enthusiasm about Jness is further evidenced by an email Sylvie sent on
September 8, 2015 where she expresses her excitement about a proposal for a social media
campaign (See Exhibit E).
28. Additionally, a year later, on September 20, 2016, Sylvie wrote a description of
her skills and why they demonstrated that she was a good fit to lead social media and marketing
initiatives for Jness (See Exhibit C). As the project manager and leader of the rebranding strategy
for Jness, Sylvie demonstrated to me that she had a deep understanding of the concepts taught in
Jness and was thus entrusted to convey the values of the company publicly, through their online
presence. Sylvie, to me, embodied so much of the great aspects of Jness. My experience of
Sylvie's enthusiasm for Jness and being a leader in the social media company that helped
celebrate women, would have been important as a contrast to Sylvie's description of Jness as the
reason she began to feel negatively about herself and other women (p.291: 15-25 & 292: 1-3).
12
012
16680
29. When the prosecution asked Sylvie how the Jness curriculum impacted the way
she made decisions, Sylvie replied, “I just felt like I couldn’t trust myself in what I thought was
going on and what was right and wrong.” (Tr. 307-308) Had I not been intimidated and
threatened by the prosecution, I would have offered testimony that I believed Sylvie was a strong
coach and I trusted Sylvie’s ability to guide me in making decisions because I’d witnessed her
grow and become more seemingly confident in herself in the three years she coached me.
Moreover, she was compassionate, consistent, and confident in coaching me.
30. In sum, my trial testimony would have seriously undermined the testimony of
Nicole, and would have been wholly inconsistent with the government’s core premise of the
Forced Labor and the Sex Trafficking charges. My testimony would have been significant to this
case: I was identically situated to Nicole within DOS and would have provided critical
information to the jury about the nature of the events and many of the experiences to which
Nicole and Sylvie testified. Additionally, I would have provided critically important information
about the genuine nature and goals of DOS from as I understood them based on my perspective
lived experience. However, Mr. Raniere and the jury were denied this perspective through the
actions of the government who demonstrated to me that they were not open to my account of
what did and did not happen.
31. I was approached by the FBI on or about March of 2018, at which time I declined
to speak with the agents in the absence of an attorney. I hired an attorney named Justin
Greenblum, Esq., who at the time was a partner at Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP in New York
City. The prosecution explained to me, through my attorney, that I was a witness. The
government never identified me as a target or a subject, rather as merely a witness. As a result,
Mr. Greenblum and I decided to accept the government’s proposal for a proffer interview.
13
013
16681
The May 22, 2018 Proffer
32. On May 22, 2018, my attorney and I appeared for a proffer interview at the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, attended by, among others, AUSA Moira Kim Penza and FBI Special Agents
Michael Weniger and Michael Lever. Based on the actions and statements of the government
representatives, it was apparent to me that the prosecution was not interested in hearing or
accepting my account of the relevant events. Instead, the prosecution attempted to convince me
to agree with the government’s view of the events.
33. For instance, the prosecution told me that the only reason I engaged with
assignments in DOS was because I feared my collateral would be released. I disagreed with the
government’s assertion because I was fully aware from the moment I joined DOS that my
collateral was for the purpose of solidifying my commitment to myself to push into my fears as a
means to achieve my goals. The collateral I chose and offered willingly did not extend nor apply
in any situations where I may have failed to uphold a commitment or complete an assignments. I
had to reiterate this truth several times to the prosecutors and agents, but they were not open to
the truth. The government maintained that I felt pressured, threatened or coerced into completing
assignments and that collateral was “held over my head” throughout my time in DOS. The
government repeatedly told this to me, as if they knew something about my own life that I did
not know. I countered multiple times that based on my experience the collateral was not
intended to be used as force or coercion, that it was never used in this way, and that I was not
afraid, concerned or worried that it would be used this way. Had any woman shared with me that
she felt the collateral was being used in this way or had I felt that it was being used against me
personally, I would have addressed it with Ms. Mack because it would have been of great
concern to me.
14
014
16682
34. I had believed the government sought to speak to me so they could hear my
perspective, but instead it seemed their goal was to tell me my perspective. I explained
repeatedly that the purpose of the collateral was to strengthen my commitment to my growth
through my lifetime vow within DOS. I further explained that I had a very positive experience
when I gathered and submitted my first batch of collateral to learn about the existence of DOS as
a guarantee that I would keep the existence of the group confidential (whether I joined the group
after learning about it, or not). The collateral I gave to Ms. Mack during this time and in the
years following were all of my choosing. I expressed to the government that this first step,
which took almost two weeks to complete, was a fluid process which I embarked upon with the
consistent support of and communication with Ms. Mack. Once I learned about DOS from Ms.
Mack and expressed I wanted to join the group, Ms. Mack explained that additional collateral
would be required to make my voluntary membership official. Given my desire to prioritize my
growth under the guidance of Ms. Mack, and whom I trusted implicitly, I knowingly, willingly
and enthusiastically accepted her invitation into the sisterhood and solidified my commitment
and word to uphold my lifetime vow with further collateral. The prosecutor, however, continued
to display incredulity to what I was explaining. At one point, the prosecutor raised her voice in
disbelief of my ownership of my decisions, insisting instead that I only acted out of fear because
I felt threatened. The prosecutor even went to the extent of saying things to me that I felt were
accusatory, sexually graphic and out of line to try to further persuade me. It seemed clear to me
that the government was trying to manipulate me into saying that my decision to join DOS and
anything I did thereafter, including any contact I had with Mr. Raniere, was without my consent
and I was in constant fear that Ms. Mack would expose my collateral. What the government
continually refused to acknowledge or allow was that I actively and voluntarily accepted my
15
015
16683
invitation to DOS because it was in full alignment with my aspirations to grow and become the
best version of myself. As the prosecutor continued to push me to adopt her/the government’s
narrative that I felt coerced by Ms. Mack and Mr. Raniere, I felt this prosecutor, Moira Kim
Penza, was the one in fact trying to coerce me into adapting my experience for her/their benefit
and gain. I was unwilling to state anything outside of the truth as far as I understood it and that
did not seem to satisfy Ms. Penza.
35. When I refused to adopt the government’s view of my experience with Mr.
Raniere and my time in DOS, the government continued to press me to change my account of
events by showing me communications that Mr. Raniere appeared to have with another person.
The prosecutor said there was something they wanted me to see because they thought it might
“help” me and stated “this isn’t something we normally do.” The government then brought into
the interview room a number of pages of written communications purportedly between Mr.
Raniere and Camila.
36. In particular, the government asked me to read the passages where Mr. Raniere
makes reference to a “fuck toy.” As directed, I read the portions of these passages. It is worth
highlighting that these communications had nothing to do with me, and that the government had
no purpose in showing me these communications other than to, I believe, to compel me to
change my mind. I believe the only purpose the government had in showing these
communications to me was to cause me to view Mr. Raniere in an unfavorable light and my
interactions with him to have been crimes committed against me without my consent. After I
read the communications, the prosecutor asked what I thought of reading them and I responded
in substance that they were interesting. This prompted one of them to state, “that’s all you
thought after reading that?” Ms. Penza and the agents seemed surprised and disappointed that the
16
016
16684
effort to manipulate me into changing my account was unsuccessful. At one point, an agent
asked me, “aren’t you angry about this?”
37. It was apparent to me that the point of this proffer interview was not to investigate
nor seek the truth about the actual nature of DOS, NXIVM, and the events that occurred. Rather,
the prosecution’s point was clearly to recruit me to the side of the prosecution and to manipulate
my view of my relationship with Mr. Raniere as well as my view of DOS and my involvement in
it.
June 4, 2018 Meeting
38. On June 4, 2018, my attorney and I sat for another proffer at the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. The interview, which was attended by two prosecutors and several agents, was shorter
than the first meeting and focused on my relationship with my DOS “slave” Souki. At the end of
this second meeting, there was no indication that the government intended to call me as a
government witness, nor was there an interest expressed in continuing to meet with me, as it was
readily apparent that my truthful account of my experience was wholly inconsistent with the
government’s view, preconceived notions and limited understanding of NXIVM and DOS.
The government’s Demand for a Third Meeting
39. Shortly before the trial, the prosecutors contacted my lawyer, Justin Greenblum,
to attempt to interview me for a third time. Because almost ten months had passed since the
second interview and because it was apparent that I had refused to adopt the government’s
inaccurate views and the false narrative it had imposed upon me, I did not see a reason to spend
more time meeting with the government, as I believed I had already told them everything about
my experience. By this point, the government had shown that it was not interested in hearing my
authentic account.
17
017
16685
40. When my attorney told Ms. Penza it was unlikely that I would meet with them
again, Ms. Penza told Mr. Greenblum that they were interested in having me prep with them for
trial because they were planning to call me as one of their witnesses and were prepared to
subpoena me to testify if I declined their request. Ms. Penza advised Mr. Greenblum to
encourage me to meet with them prior to taking the stand or else they would be likely to charge
me with perjury. Given that I had met with the government twice and stated the truth as far as I
knew it, based on my experience, it didn’t make sense that they would pre-meditate such a
charge before I even took the stand. This threat of perjury only came after my attorney informed
them that I would most likely refuse to meet with them again or willing testify on their behalf.
Again, I was unwilling to adhere to the wants of the government and in response, they tried to
manipulate me into doing what they wanted for their own gain and agenda.
41. This was a clear threat, understood as such by both myself and my attorney, Mr.
Greenblum, that if I took the stand as a defense or government witness, without first coming into
the U.S. Attorney’s Office a third time and further proffering with the prosecution, the
government would charge me with perjury. The threat of such an unjust, unsubstantiated, and
retaliatory indictment was a great weight in my consideration of testifying for the defense or not.
Despite believing that testifying for the defense would be the right thing to do, I faced enormous
risks, based on Ms. Penza’s threat, to not only myself, but to my family as well. Therefore, by
the government threatening me with a perjury indictment, it was seeking to frighten me so that I
would not provide truthful testimony to the jury, testimony that was inconsistent with the
government’s errant views and, as noted above, inconsistent with at least one critical government
witness.
18
018
16686
42. Because of the government’s threat to me that if I testified without engaging in a
third proffer interview, my potential to be a witness for the defense carried the risk of a baseless
indictment which only served to try to manipulate and coerce me into heading to the demands of
the government. Had I testified, I would have provided material, relevant testimony about DOS
and the fact that the collateral was not meant to be used extortionately or coercively, but rather to
give weight to my vow, as the defense maintained in the opening and closing statements and as
was reflected in the cross examination of the government’s DOS witnesses. I would have
testified also to the means used the government used to try to get me to change my account.
43. However, the government’s threats were both powerful and effective. Although I
was available to testify as a defense witness, the risk of arrest and indictment was one I did not
want to take and therefore I decided I was unwilling to testify. As a result, the defendant, Mr.
Raniere, was deprived of my material, exculpatory witness testimony. Without my testimony, the
jury lacked a critical account different from that provided by Nicole. The jury was denied a
genuine perspective of DOS that was wholly inconsistent with that provided by the prosecution.
44. I truly believe that the government had two goals in mind. The first was to get me
to change my account. It pursued this goal by telling me that I had been coerced, that I was in
fact not acting of my free will and that a crime was committed against me. When those tactics
did not work, the government showed me the written communications between Mr. Raniere and
Camila, evidently hoping that they would cause me to see Mr. Raniere differently and that I
would agree to testify against him. But the government’s version of the “facts” were not
consistent with my experiences, and I was unwilling to give in to their pressure to change my
story just to match theirs.
19
019
16687
020
16688
EXHIBIT A
021
8/2/2020 Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 956-2
Gmail -Filed
Creed. 10/19/20 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:
16689
Michele Hatchette
Creed.
1 message
Ni Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:17 PM

To: Michele Hatchette India Oxenberg Danielle@exoeso.com
Notes from 3AM contemplation...
Readiness is important as a reminder that there are things more important to uphold than my own comfort. A reminder
that I want to value LOVE more than I value my own comfort.
Readiness represent the act of always being ready. Ready and connected to myself and connected to the vow, which for
me represents being and becoming the best version of myself.
Readiness is a piece of the puzzle in making us bad ass's. Women to be reckoned with. It helps build quickness,
efficiency and skill. All under pressure.
I chose to join the vow to push through my fears and live the life experience that I want to. To live a full life.
I chose to join the vow to understand and experience that freedom and joy come from the inside, from the internal and not
from the external.
I chose to join the vow to build awareness and to build love within myself so that I can share it with the world around me.
I chose the vow to stay connected to the woman I want to be. To be the woman I want to be.
I found this quote to really resonate with me and what we are doing...
"She is quick and curious and playful and strong." Kate Spade.
A simple quote but so full for me.

She is...
Quick- Readiness
Curious- Emotional exploration and daily exercise. Impressed state.
Playful- (thinking of something to fill this... practicing joy works though)
Strong- Morning cold shower and 12 hour fasting...
Gave some purpose and why to what we are doing... :)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=73a7258efb&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1555535900550031502&simpl=msg-f%3A15555359005… 1/1
022
16690
EXHIBIT B
023
16691
024
16692
025
16693
026
16694
EXHIBIT C
027
8/9/2020 Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 956-2
Gmail - Rough Filed
ideas on10/19/20
roles.. Page 28 of 37 PageID #:
16695
Michele Hatchette
Rough ideas on roles..

1 message
Sylvie Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:40 PM

To: Michele Hatchette
I think we also need:
Video media manager

Writers
Photographers
Strategists
People who can just post for minimal hourly rate.
Team - Roles & Responsibilities S docx

95K
028
16696
Writers
Name Sylvie’s description Current Role
Michele Creative and expressive with a sensitivity to human Scripting intros for Social Media
nature, Michele can create soulful written pieces, and
digital communications needed to deliver instructions or Internal/External official communications
internal/external comms.
Interviewing for Women of Jness
Blog posts
Marisa A real nurturer and mother; Marisa is diligent, committed, Take over the blog; specifically Women of Jness project
precise and caring. She will bring care and wisdom to the and be responsible for ensuring that all current blogs
writing team, and holds the capacity to make it safe for are re-worked and ready for site.
women to share their true selves vulnerably, then put
those experiences into words. I think she can also write more extended pieces for
external clients.
Chelsea As both a Data and Spin Expert in the Knife, Chelsea is a She tried doing a blog series about Women she was
digital thinker and able create precise, concise documents inspired by and that she thought represented Jness.
and as well as bringing a fun, young and playful energy to
the Social Media realm. She has a lot of empathy and is Brainstorming with Social Media teams.
sensitive. She is also pretty open to feedback. Writer,
Worked with Michele to try to help her take on Pam’s
creater, ideas machine.
profile, she wasn’t really there yet writing wise.
029
16697
Social Media
Rosa A hidden gem; Rosa has a vast resume in the Manages communications@jness.com
corporate realm which includes leadership roles in
sales and communications. She is diligent, reliable and Brainstormer for clients and campaigns
keen to bring fresh ideas, discipline and commitment
Manages and tracks Instagram for Nxivm and Jness
to the team. Head of strategy, data
collection/transforming data into strategy.
Chelsea Brainstorming with Social Media teams.
030
16698
Designers/Branders
Veronica An expert in the field of Illustration Illustration

and Design, beautiful visuals with a
Jness flair are provided by Veronica. Template creation
For example; logos, illustrations and
Brand design
templates for websites, Social Media
campaigns and PR Manuals. Website imagery
? I think we need more here..
031
16699
Leadership
Sylvie I have Knife Analyst skills in Logic, Spin as well as Oversight of team/Project Manager
project management experience, a rank of 3 Stripe
Coach in ESP and professional experience in Writing editing/quality control
corporate world. I have experience with project Client pitches/interface & relationship with client
management, quality control, leadership and follow
through. I have marketing experience, Approve strategies/ideas/facilitate brainstorms
communications experience, people management
experience and a willingness to take on responsibility
(and all that comes with it!). I am extremely loyal. My
heart is in this and with all of you.
032
16700
EXHIBIT D
033
6/20/2020Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document
Gmail -956-2 Filed
Fwd: Please 10/19/20
Transcribe ASAP Page 34 of 37 PageID #:
16701
Michele Hatchette
Fwd: Please Transcribe ASAP

2 messages
India Oxenberg Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:25 AM

To: Danielle Roberts <danielle@exoeso.com>, Michele Hatchette
<h
Here you go! Let's split it up on the chat.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sylvie
Date: January 4, 2017 at 11:19:04 AM EST
To: India Oxenberg
Subject: Please Transcribe ASAP
Hey you!
Please
To save time on the back end, please have you/your transcribers follow this formatting guide:
Testimonial Formatting
It should end up looking something like:

Testimonial - EDGAR
Let me know if you have any questions!
xo
India Oxenberg > Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:27 PM

To: Michele Hatchette
Cc: Danielle Roberts <danielle@exoeso.com>
India Oxenberg
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sylvie
Subject: Please Transcribe ASAP
Date: January 4, 2017 at 11:19:04 AM EST
To: India Oxenberg
[Quoted text hidden]
034
6/20/2020Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document
Gmail -956-2 Filed
Fwd: Please 10/19/20
Transcribe ASAP Page 35 of 37 PageID #:
16702
035
16703
EXHIBIT E
036
8/1/2020 Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document
Gmail 956-2 Filed 10/19/20
- Jness - Campaign Calendar Page 37 of 37 PageID #:
16704
Michele Hatchette
Jness - Campaign Calendar

1 message
Sylvie Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:11 PM

To: Marianna Pamela Cafritz
Bcc:
Pam & Marianna,
We had an awesome first meeting! Thank you so much for this opportunity.. I am very excited!
This is the campaign calendar we are proposing. We have come up with the abstract concept (at the top of each box) and
then the ideas that fall into that category (smaller text underneath.)
We are now meeting weekly on Tuesdays at 12pm.
Before our next meeting, would you be willing to give us feedback on this calendar? We would like to start working with
the first quarter, and define a clear next step, for our next meeting a week today!
Sylv xo
Jness Campaign Ideas Sept 9.docx

106K
037
Declaration of Danielle Roberts
1. My name is Danielle Roberts, DO, MS.

2. I currently reside in St. Francis, Wisconsin.
3. I graduated from Binghamton University Cum Laude in 2003 with a degree
in Psychobiology. I completed a dual degree as a Doctor of Osteopathic
Medicine with a Masters in Clinical Nutrition in 2008. I completed my
Family Practice Residency in 2011. Since, I have served our communities as a
hospitalist in 4 different hospitals from 2012-2017, as a Medical Director of
an Integrative Medical Practice from 2011-2013, and as an entrepreneur
creating and developing 4 different movement and wellness systems and
certifications for prevention from 2013-2018, one of which was implemented
in 3 countries.
4. I was a second-line member of DOS and was invited by Allison Mack.
5. I served as the primary branding artist for those who got a brand.
6. I have key information I could have offered to the defense counsel in Keith
Raniere’s case to dispel much of the testimony that was given at trial about
how DOS worked, its procedures and practices, the branding process, and my
experiences in DOS with Allison Mack, and India and Nicole who were in my
circle.
7. I could have given direct testimony that would have challenged Nicole’s
narrative in general, and specifically about her spending a few hours
transcribing videos with me, for Pamela Cafritz’s memorial service, which the
Government argued was “forced labor.”
8. As a second-line member of DOS, I directly experienced the processes and
protocols being developed and implemented by the first line.
9. My testimony would have attested to the rigorous and thoughtful enrollment
process each woman would have undergone who decided to join, and the
conditions surrounding the collateral.
10. This would have clearly illustrated that the collateral was used as a tool to
back our promises to ourselves, like surety, not as a tool of fear, force, or
blackmail as was alleged by the Government and by Nicole.
11. I believe much of my testimony would have helped to dispel, if not completely
dismantle, the Government’s theory of sex trafficking and forced labor. I was
similarly situated to Nicole, both of us being in the same circle of DOS.
12. In addition, I have been a close friend and business partner of Mr. Raniere.
13. I had known him for approximately six years at the time of the trial.
14. I had worked very closely with him for four years building our company
exo|eso, and I worked very closely with him and his closest chosen family in
caring for Ms. Pamela Cafritz in her two-year struggle with metastatic renal
cancer before she passed away in 2016.
15. I cared for Ms. Cafritz in their home and, at the end, around the clock.
038
16. As such a close friend, I could have offered essential and reliable testimony as
to the consistency of Mr. Raniere’s character and conduct.
17. I believe my testimony would have strongly contradicted the handful of
Government witnesses’ narrative of Mr. Raniere’s alleged sinister intent.
18. Instead of being afforded an uninfluenced right to testify under oath as to the
nature and purpose of DOS and my experience, I was threatened and
intimidated into silence by the actions of U.S. Governmental agencies,
including the EDNY, which I will describe below, and significant media
pressure.
19. In and around Oct. 2017, the time when Mr. Raniere and five others were
being indicted, the New York Times published an article that criticized NYS
Governor, Andrew Cuomo, for choosing not to investigate my medical license.
20. In the summer of 2017, the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC),
part of the NYS Health Department, had already issued a written decision, in
response to a complaint from Ms. Sarah Edmondson, stating that my actions
as a branding artist for DOS was NOT the practice of medicine.
21. Two days after the New York Times article, the OPMC, in contravention of
their prior decision, launched an investigation into my private and
professional life.
22. This decision (to act outside of their jurisdiction) cost me my contract as a
hospitalist at Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital (which I had served loyally for 5
years) and every other job I tried to pursue over the next 2 years in the
medical field. This was the beginning of dismantling my reputation,
credibility, and financial stability.
23. The OPMC threatened me with a salacious, highly exaggerated statement of
charges to subpoena information from me, and other women (not related to
the practice of medicine and quite possibly to try to collect further
information in relation to Mr. Raniere’s criminal case).
24. These initial allegations are very different from the allegations the Health
Dept. finally published against me about three years later. The Health Dept.
continually found ways to try to intimidate me to surrender my license,
including highlighting their right to use any information I may state as
testimony to defend my medical license and livelihood, as grounds for
criminal charges. Clearly discouraging me from testifying in any way in
relation to the federal case.
25. OPMC prosecutor, Jeffery Conklin indicated that any testimony I gave in
my medical hearing could be used to support a criminal indictment, thus
inextricably linking the federal case and my medical hearing. Therefore,
any evidence uncovered or testimony given by me (or others) in my hearing
could have been used in the federal case to challenge the prosecutors
narrative.
26. The women that were subpoenaed through my case, also pleaded the 5th
amendment for fear of prosecutorial retaliation, reputational damage, and
financial consequence.
039
27. Seeing I was not amendable to surrendering my license (and that I would
likely testify at my own hearing), my hearing was held in abeyance for
approximately 2 years, until September 2019, when the federal trial was
complete (June 2019) and convictions made.
28. It is precatory that the OPMC present a case to the state board no more
than 90 days after an initial interview is offered to a physician/defendant.
It was 2 years before the OPMC moved my hearing forward. In order to
justify their delay, and divergence from their standard, they offered
another “initial” interview so that the hearing would be within the “90 day
window”. This was a severe deviation from the standard, during which I
was unable to work, and timed exactly with the progression of the criminal
trial.
29. The consequences of these unjustified tactics and actions led to the loss of my
livelihood.
30. I had to sell my home and most of my possessions and eventually had to
change careers to support myself and pay legal fees.
31. In addition to the significant intimidation and financial duress I was placed
under, the Federal Government invaded and threatened our community,
followed us in our cars, sat outside our homes in their vehicles, and raided
Ms. Salzman’s home just a few blocks from my home.
32. As a gesture of cooperation, NXIVM had closed their offices and I was
sufficiently intimidated that I closed my company, exo|eso™ as well.
33. I sought legal representation and was represented by attorney Michael
Kelton, Esq. of Abrams Fensterman, LLP for my matters with the OPMC and
attorney Daniel Stein, Esq. of Mayer Brown, LLP for any matters pertaining
to possible criminal charges. In April 2018, the prosectutor’s in Mr. Raniere’s
case informed Mr. Stein that they wanted to speak with me.
34. Mr. Stein offered that I comply, if they offered me protection from
prosecution.
35. Then-Assistant US Attorney Moira Kim Penza, the lead prosecutor, granted
limited immunity. The limited protections of the proffer agreement stated
that the proffer agreement did not constitute a cooperation agreement.
Should there be any criminal exposure for me discovered in the course of the
interview, that my participation in the proffer and continued cooperation
would be helpful in resolving such issues.
36. However, Ms. Penza stated that she was not making any promises to resolve
any matter in any particular fashion.
37. It became clear to me that if I was of help to the prosecution, it would be
beneficial to me.
38. There were many moments over the course of the two, full eight-hour-long
proffer sessions that Ms. Penza seemed very fixed in her viewpoints about
NXIVM and DOS; especially pertaining to my experience and perspectives
regarding the collateral I voluntarily gave in exchange for mentorship
(however unconventional), and the incorporation of Mr. Raniere’s initials into
the meanings of the brand.
040
39. When I shared my viewpoints, based on my personal experiences, she often
seemed to get visibly upset and perseverated on those specific points and
others that offered a different motivation other than coercion.
40. I recall one instance in particular where, for around fifteen minutes, she
argued with me about my experience of collateral. I explained that collateral
was a tool I chose to use to build self-trust and self-reliance, to back my
promises and that it was not, nor was it intended to be, a tool of coercion or
extortion. My attorney eventually needed to step in to point out her behavior
and redirect her.
41. She displayed the same behavior when discussing the intent and meaning
behind what I was told the incorporation of Mr. Raniere’s initials meant in
the symbol that was created by the 1st line members. She again was insistent
the meaning was related to control, possession, and coercion, when that was
not my opinion at all.
42. By the end of the interview on May 11, 2018, it became clear to me that Ms.
Penza had solely two possible viewpoints: 1) I was a co-conspirator of a
massive criminal enterprise, or 2) I was a victim of the situation that had
been brainwashed and couldn’t think for myself.
43. It did not seem to me that she was open to the possibility, which I believe to
be the truth, that this group of people, including Keith Raniere, was innocent
and well-intended, even if some mistakes were made.
44. Consistent with my observation, at the end of the first interview she
offered me victim support services so that I could be properly treated for
the abuse that she decreed that I had undergone, even though I did not, and
do not feel, I was abused nor can I measure objectively any destruction of my
life or life’s work by the practices I engaged in in DOS. In fact, I experienced
quite the opposite and I conveyed that in my proffer interviews.
45. Ms. Penza’s comments to me at the end of the first interview indicated to me
that she had dismissed my testimony, my positive experience, and rendered
me incompetent in her mind in order to maintain her theory of the case and
the foundation she needed to “win.”
46. At the end of the second interview, she threatened to subpoena me to testify
in the trial against Mr. Raniere. I made it clear I was not interested in
helping her.
47. I also knew that if I were to testify in support of the defense, Mr. Raniere, she
may change her mind about me, if it served her, and I could then become a
co-conspirator in her assessment, open to indictment, even though I had done
nothing wrong or criminal.
48. Based on my initial direct experiences with Ms. Penza, she seemed
disinterested in the truth and unwilling to examine any contrary perspective
to one of abuse and coercion.
49. I was effectively intimidated from giving crucial testimony to the case.
50. Ms. Penza did not choose to call me to testify.
51. The actions of Ms. Penza were the straw that broke the camel’s back and
successfully intimidated me from testifying in the criminal proceedings.
041
52. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge,
except as to those matters stated upon information and belief. As to those
matters, I believe them to be true.
Executed on June 15, 2022 at St. Francis, Wisconsin.
_______________________
Danielle Roberts
State of Nevada
County of Clark
Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me
on 06/14/2022 by Danielle Roberts.
Notarized online using audio-video communication
042
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 956-3 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 16705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 18-cr-204 (NGG) (S-2)

- v. -
AFFIDAVIT OF
NICOLE CLYNE
KEITH RANIERE,
Defendant.
NICOLE CLYNE, duly swears and affirms as follows:
1. I am 37 years old. I grew up in Vancouver, Canada and I currently live in Kings
County, New York. As of April 2018, after Mr. Raniere’s arrest, I was represented by counsel,
specifically Edward Sapone, Esq., and I affirm that this affidavit is the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
2. I was introduced to Executive Success Programs (ESP) by Sarah (last name not
being included) and I took a five-day training in November of 2005 in Albany, NY. I completed a
16-day training in August of 2006, and went on to become a coach and participate in other
trainings. The curriculum and the community impressed me so much that I eventually decided to
move to Albany. During my time there, I developed close personal relationships with many people
in the community, including Keith Raniere.
3. I was present in Mexico during Mr. Raniere’s arrest and traveled back to the United
States after the complaint against Mr. Raniere was made public. The arrest came as a shock and I
was eager to cooperate with the investigation. When special agents Michael Lever and Michael
Weniger showed up to arrest Allison Mack (an arrest for which I was also present), I told them I
043
was interested in coming in and speaking with them because I believed I could offer exculpatory
information. I gave them the name of my lawyer with the intention of making myself available to
provide the Government with any and all information they might desire.
4. After Ms. Mack’s arrest, the prosecution reached out to my attorney, Mr. Sapone,
saying they wanted to speak with me. Mr. Sapone offered that I would speak with the prosecution
if they offered some sort of protection from prosecution, such as statutory or letter immunity or a
non-prosecution agreement. He also offered to first engage in an attorney proffer so that the
prosecutors could determine whether they wanted to bring me in for a proffer interview. Mr.
Sapone informed me that the prosecution’s response was that they were not interested in an
attorney proffer, and declined to offer any sort of protection. He also informed me that when he
asked the prosecutors to provide him with a summary of any evidence against me so we could
make an informed decision about how to proceed, the prosecutors declined. Under these
circumstances, Mr. Sapone and I chose to not speak with the Government. I intended to provide
my testimony, and everything I knew, to the defense, with the hope that my exculpatory testimony
could be heard at trial.
5. On April 7, 2019, after accompanying my lawyer to the Brooklyn Courthouse to
observe an unrelated case, I happened to pass Mr. Raniere’s prosecutors in the hallway. Although
we had never met, lead prosecutor Moira Kim Penza appeared to recognize me. Two days later,
and with less than a month until Mr. Raniere’s trial, I received a Grand Jury subpoena. Jury
selection had already begun, so my attorney and I reasonably assumed the investigation for his
trial had concluded. According to Mr. Sapone, when he called Ms. Penza regarding the subpoena
immediately after receiving it, she made the following chilling statement: “First, we are going to
cut the head of the snake off and then we’re coming for the body. This is not going away for her.”
044
At this point, although I desired to testify, due to what I perceived as a retaliatory threat, coupled
with their Grand Jury subpoena, my lawyer advised me not to testify and I complied.
6. It is my belief that the Government knew I would testify in a manner wholly
inconsistent with their core premise that DOS was created and existed for the purpose of sex
trafficking and forced labor. More specifically, I would have testified that women chose to
participate in DOS voluntarily and benefitted greatly from its practices. When I observed women
want to and inevitably leave DOS, I never witnessed any threats or negatives consequences enacted
upon them by Mr. Raniere or other women in DOS; and I am most certainly not aware of anyone’s
collateral being released. I would have testified that DOS had a notable and worthy purpose that
many sincere, law-abiding women, such as myself, were participating in. I would have testified
that I represented DOS accurately and consistently when I invited someone, most particularly
relating to Mr. Raniere’s involvement or lack of involvement. Additionally, I would have testified
that I was never asked by Mr. Raniere to commit criminal acts, nor did I witness any crimes such
as sex trafficking, forced labor, or others.
7. Had I given testimony, I would have provided the jury and the Court with an
entirely different perspective about NXIVM, DOS and Keith Raniere than what was presented by
the prosecution and its witnesses, namely Nicole, Jay, Sylvie, Lauren Salzman and Mark Vicente.
Having known, and had close friendships with, the latter three witnesses for over ten years, I would
have offered my own personal experience and thoughts on the matters discussed at trial. This
experience would have contradicted much of the testimony heard at trial and the subsequent
conclusions made about important events, people and practices. Also, having been involved in
DOS for longer than any of the witnesses, my testimony would have brought to light many
inconsistencies and inaccuracies presented at trial about the organization.
045
8. I was present for a number of the events described by Ms. Salzman at trial,
including a 2015 trip to Fiji, a 2016 trip to Woodstock, Ms. Salzman’s branding ceremony, Mr.
Raniere’s arrest and I would have provided my own personal experience of these events. Although
these events did not relate directly to Mr. Raniere’s charges, they did serve to support a specific
view of Mr. Raniere that my testimony would have countered.
9. I have deep sympathy for Ms. Salzman and the dilemma she faced before entering
into a cooperation agreement with the Government. Once she did, I imagine she felt tremendous
pressure to offer beneficial testimony that would secure the prosecution’s recommendation for
leniency in her sentence. I also imagine she learned a number of difficult, personal things from the
Government during the time leading up to the trial that left her distraught, and may have
contributed to the dramatic difference in her testimony to how I perceived her the last fifteen years.
10. In addition to offering an entirely different point of view to that of Ms. Salzman, I
would have countered testimony brought forth by the prosecution’s witness, Nicole, specifically
relating to her claims of being a victim of sex trafficking and forced labor. Just one example being
that when a woman failed to complete an assignment in DOS, her collateral was not released. I
certainly never threatened anyone nor attempted to coerce anyone in any way. I supported women
in the direction of their stated goals and have not received any direct statements to contradict this.
I am adamantly opposed to any organization that threatens women, or men, in any way.
11. In sum, if I had been able to testify, I would have shared my personal experience,
and offered additional supporting evidence in my testimony. I believe I would have given the Court
and the jury a vastly different perspective on DOS and the complex and nuanced relationships that
were the focus of Mr. Raniere’s trial. The salacious media attention surrounding the NXIVM
community, fueled by the Frank Report, created an environment conducive to an atmosphere of
046
false perception, and much of this was echoed by the Government's claims. These perceptions
wholly contradicted my own direct experience and the knowledge I have about Mr. Raniere,
NXVIM and DOS over the last decade. Had I not been frightened by the threat of retaliatory action
by the Government, I would have chosen to testify.
12. I have made this Affidavit knowingly, intentionally and of my own free will.
Dated: October 19, 2020 Respectfully,

NewYork, NY
?cc=~-
NICOLE°CLYNE
STATE OF Nav 1/ IJ/iL )

COUNTY OF l1Mi2 )
I, A{ I 1't I"•
() e,,,( l) bk:
:fs
ThX> Sv" , a Notary Public, do hereby certify
, 202Qpe sonally appeared before me f\) 1'wf e C{
that on this 6 day of
, known to
me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing in ~ n t , and swore and
acknowledged to me that she executed the same for the purpose and in the capacity therein
expressed and that the statements contained herein are true and correct
~ -- A LLISON THOM PSON

Notary Publ ic - State of New Yo rk
NOTARY PUBLIC No . 01TH6099607
Qual i fied in Kings Count~
?-J
My Commiss ion
Expires Sept, 29 , 20
047
Declaration of Samantha Le Baron
1. My name is Samantha Le Baron.

2. I currently reside in Sarasota, Florida and I am 33 years old.
3. I grew up in Le Baron, Chihuahua in Mexico, I have a BA degree in
Multidisciplinary Studies specializing in Language Acquisition, Language
Development, and Social Sciences. I am trilingual and have been dedicated
professionally to the fields of human potential, women’s studies, education,
and economic development, I am currently developing a new ceramic product
line.
4. I started in ESP in July 2014; I became Nancy Salzman’s assistant in
September that same year. I became a coach in ESP at the beginning of 2016
and joined DOS in September 2016.
5. In March 2018 FBI agents came to Clifton Park, NY, and served me with a
Grand Jury subpoena when I was at Nancy Salzman’s house.
6. I had never gotten a subpoena before. I did not even know what it was or how
to pronounce the word.
7. When the FBI agents were outside, I went to open the door and as I tried to
go outside it seemed that one of the agents got scared and wanted to grab
their gun, I stayed inside and through the cracked door they asked, “Are you
Samantha Le Baron?”
8. I identified myself and they gave me the document and left.
9. The subpoena identified me as a target of the investigation.
10. I never ended up attending a Grand Jury.
11. I went to talk to the Government with my attorney on May 4th, 2018
12. The interview was attended by me, my attorney’s partner, the lead
prosecutor, Moira Kim Penza, and at least four other individuals who I
believe were FBI agents.
13. I believe among those FBI agents were Lever and Weniger. I believe Lever
was present at the interview, I don’t remember him asking questions, only at
the end they asked him if he had any other questions for me.
14. I believe the interview lasted for at least four hours.
048
15. As soon as I arrived, I was told that I wasn’t a target and they thought I was
a victim. I was surprised because the subpoena had indicated I was a target.
16. I remember, shortly after arriving, that AUSA Moira Kim Penza, in a quiet
voice, asked the other agents, “Is she American? Does she have citizenship?”
17. The Government began asking me basic questions about my family and
where I’m from, and I remember feeling very scared and even shaking. They
assured me that they were there to help me and they said they “knew I was a
victim.”
18. I remember them asking me leading questions, to the effect of if I thought in
DOS, they used fear to motivate me and at one point, one of the interviewers
remarked something to the effect of, “But we want her to answer [that they
used fear].”
19. It seemed to me that the Government officials were confused, as they seemed
to assume DOS had bad intentions and I gave them my perspective that even
if I felt fearful at times when my “Master” was trying to motivate me it didn’t
mean that she had bad intentions or wasn’t acting for the sake of my benefit,
or my growth.
20. Another leading question that I recall being asked by Ms. Penza was, “At
V-Week [Vanguard Week], what was something that was going on that was
bad?” I remember thinking the question presupposed there was something
bad happening which I didn’t believe; I remember responding, “I don’t
understand the question,” and it seemed they were frustrated by my answer.
21. I remember sharing my opinion about Sarah Edmondson where I expressed
that I felt she was one of the people causing the trouble [disenrolling people
in NXIVM], and at this point, I noticed Ms. Penza get defensive, she started
raising her voice at me, she interrupted me and did not allow me to say what
I thought.
22. This gave me the further impression that the Government agents had made
their minds up and did not want to hear my honest perspective, as it did not
conform to their narrative.
23. I remember that the Government asked me, among other things, if I had a
relationship with Keith Raniere. They also asked me about Sylvie, Monica,
and if I owed money to ESP. They asked me why I thought Keith Raniere lied
049
on the website and when I answered Moira Penza told me that Keith Raniere
was a liar, and she repeated this statement at least twice during the
interview. She seemed to have a strong dislike for Keith.
24. I remember, when I was telling them about my future plans, they told me
that I was a “smart woman” and I “should go and do something else.”
25. During the interview, I remember the Government agent, which I identify as
Weniger, raising his voice and hitting the table at times; I felt scared, and I
did not feel comfortable at all. It also felt inconsistent with what he was
telling me, he kept saying “I’m trying to help you” but at the same time he
was being rough with me. It seemed he was not content with my answers and
that by yelling somehow, I would change my testimonial.
26. Whenever I qualified my answers with phrases like “in my opinion” or “in my
experience,” Ms. Penza raised her voice and said, in what I felt was a rude
tone, “We know it’s your experience!”
27. I remember the Government agents telling me and my attorney, “We know
you don’t think you are a victim, but we think you are a victim.”
28. They told me that in psychology, it sometimes takes time to realize you are a
victim. With this statement I assumed they meant I would later come to
realize that I was abused which was not my experience.
29. Before I left, I recall Ms. Penza telling me, “I am glad you are here in
Brooklyn so that we can call you whenever we need you.”
30. I was never called back for a second interview, nor was I called to testify.
31. I left the interview scared of the Government, for simply not agreeing with
their narrative. They did not seem to like that I would not agree to take on
their label of victim and that I had contrary viewpoints to theirs on ESP,
DOS, and some of the so-called victims, who were, at one time, my close
friends.
32. Regarding my relationship with Sylvie, she was a coach at the Albany Center,
this is how I met her; she was my mentor in Mobius [an advanced training], I
knew her but never interacted much. We were very different.
33. When she invited me to DOS she asked if I wanted to go for a walk, I said yes
because I wanted to make more friends. She asked me questions about what I
050
wanted in my life, what I was looking for and she said she thought she had
something that might help me.
34. In DOS I was never asked to diet or to count calories. I did do what was
called acts of care, like running errands for Sylvie or walking her dog, she
always told me I didn’t have to do them if I didn’t want to. There were many
times when Sylvie asked me to do things and I didn’t do them, at some point
she even told me she was tired of telling me what to do because I wouldn’t
follow through. The only consequence there was for me not doing as I was
told was a simple conversation exploring why I had failed.
35. Because of the way I was treated during my interview I would have been too
scared to testify on behalf of the defendants. Nevertheless, I was never asked
to testify.
Executed on June 14, 2022 at Sarasota, FL, United States of America.
Commonwealth of Virginia
_______________________
City of Alexandria
Samantha Le Baron
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn
before me on 06/14/2022 by Samantha Le Baron.
7898118
My commission expires: 03/31/2026
051
Declaration of Brian Elliot
1. My name is Brian Elliot and I am writing to document my experience interacting
with the U.S. Government in the case of the United States vs. Keith Raniere et. al.
2. I am an entrepreneur who has started or cofounded several businesses and nonprofit
initiatives, including a national network of summer camps for children whose
parents have/had cancer, a nationally recognized mentoring program for deaf
children, and an LGBT rights organization. I have a B.A in Public Policy from
Stanford University, an M.P.A. from the Harvard Kennedy School, and an M.B.A.
from Harvard Business School, where I was both a Zuckerman and George Fellow,
and named a Harvard Business School Social Entrepreneurship Fellow.
3. I was introduced to Executive Success Programs (ESP) while I was running the
LGBT advocacy organization that I founded in New York City shortly after I
finished graduate school. Our mission was to help win marriage equality in New
York State. I enrolled in my first ESP course because I was struggling to manage the
day-to-day stresses and demands involved in leading an organization.
4. My first ESP intensive was transformational; it had a positive and lasting impact on
both my personal and professional life. After taking the course, I noticed that my
stress levels had lowered significantly, my confidence and ability to fundraise had
dramatically increased, and I had become more compassionate with others with
whom I disagreed. I had gotten so much value and personal insight from the course
that I decided to take many more courses offered through NXIVM companies in the
years that followed. Their effects on my life were similarly profound and undeniable.
I found that the more courses I took, the more of a centered, goal oriented, self-
disciplined, and emotionally balanced leader I became. I found the level of education
of many NXIVM courses to be on par with, or even more advanced, than the classes
in my formal education, particularly in the areas of understanding ethics,
emotionality, leadership, and productivity.
5. After being a student of ESP for a couple of years, I decided to become an ESP coach,
and several years later, a trainer. I eventually opened an ESP Center in San
Francisco with the hopes of providing other entrepreneurs such an impactful
personal growth education. I deeply enjoyed helping people achieve results similar to
my own.
6. Throughout the approximately 7 years that I was a participant and a coach in the
organization, I did not witness any conduct that I believed was criminal.
7. On or about March 25, 2018, I was subpoenaed to testify in front of a federal Grand
Jury.
8. I was confused and troubled as to why I was subpoenaed. At the time, my
understanding was that the criminal investigation had to do with allegations
regarding a women’s group, DOS. I had no knowledge of DOS prior to its existence
becoming public in June 2017, and I was never involved with it.
9. I was also surprised that I was asked to meet in person with the Government twice
throughout the proceedings of the case, which I did.
10. During my interface with the Government, I recall a few interactions that were
problematic and very concerning to me.
11. The first interaction was communicated to me through my attorney, who relayed his
initial conversation between him and the lead prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney
Moira Kim Penza. He told me that he had called Ms. Penza prior to my Grand Jury
052
testimony to share with her a preview of the responses that my brothers and I would
be offering at that hearing. I remember my attorney summarizing his interaction
with Ms. Penza by stating that, unhappy with his position, she “literally screamed”
at him on their call. My attorney, who was once a former AUSA himself, said that he
had never experienced someone behave like that towards a fellow attorney and that
her lack of professionalism was astounding to him. Even before my attorney
debriefed me from his call, I was already bewildered as to why my brothers and I—
with no prior knowledge of DOS before it went public—were being subpoenaed in the
first place. But after hearing about this prosecutor’s conduct towards my attorney, I
became even more concerned about the tactics the Government might use with me, if
that’s how they treated my attorney. I had never been questioned before by a
prosecutor. Knowing that this prosecutor “screamed” at my attorney left me amply
fearful heading into my Grand Jury appointment.
12. Secondly, in my first in-person meeting with the Government in April of 2018, my
impression of that meeting was that the Government was looking for me to respond
in certain ways to their questions and was frustrated when my truthful responses
about my experiences in NXVIM did not conform to their narrative.
13. In one instance, I remember the prosecution asking me about the use of “collateral”
in NXIVM and why I did not view it as blackmail. I explained that my
understanding of collateral and its use within NXIVM was that it was a voluntary
tool used by consenting parties for personal growth. My understanding of collateral
was based not only on what I had learned from NXIVM courses, but also from
Behavioral Economics research from Yale University, which I had found on a public
website called Stikk.com (and to my knowledge has no relationship to NXIVM).
14. I illustrated my understanding and experience of using collateral by sharing an
example of how I had used it myself: A friend and fellow classmate of mine from
Harvard (who had also taken NXIVM courses), developed an accountability “buddy
system” that involved the use of money as collateral. I shared that we had designed
a weekly check-in system to help us improve our self-discipline and be more
successful in our respective entrepreneurial ventures. We each made weekly
commitments to ourselves (such as: “Make five fundraising calls,”) and reported to
each other to ensure we completed each weekly task. To give “teeth” to the
commitments I made and to incentivize myself to follow through with them, I gave
$500 to my accountability partner to hold “in escrow” for me. If I ever failed to do my
self-defined weekly task by the deadline I had set, I told my friend it was his job to
donate my $500 to an “anti-charity” (a charity whose mission goes against my
personal values—this idea I had gotten from Stikk.com). This $500 served as the
additional “weight” I needed to ensure I followed through on my commitment.
Because I put this additional weight behind my goal, I always followed through with
my commitment (thus, my friend never had to send in the $500). Over time, my self-
discipline dramatically improved—far more than it ever had prior to me using
collateral as a tool for personal growth.
15. I understood that this type of setup with collateral may have been hard for an
outsider to understand; and more, an outsider without context of the intricacies of
the whole set up might believe that my friend was holding my $500 as a tool to
manipulate my behavior. However, both of us knew this set up was, in fact, entirely
voluntary because I set up the commitment and the terms (if anything, I was using
him as a tool to help me). I chose an appropriate collateral and gave direction to my
friend on how to use it in such a way that would specifically motivate me to achieve
053
my own self-defined weekly goals. In order for the setup to work, I had to trust that
he would actually send in the $500 to an anti-charity that I specified if I ever failed
to do my weekly task.
16. In addition to sharing my understanding of collateral, I also shared with the
prosecution that before DOS had become public, the interactions I had with other
NXIVM community members about collateral were all in line with the
understanding that I had outlined—that individuals chose what collateral would be
helpful for them to uphold their own goals and that collateral was given to a trusted
friend in the same type of an “accountability buddy” setup. It was only after DOS
became public that I began to see some peoples’ perspectives about the voluntary
nature of collateral change.
17. After I shared this type of information with the prosecutors at my proffer session, I
recall them getting frustrated and being seemingly unsatisfied with what I was
sharing. I then recall them pushing me to agree with their narrative that collateral
was indeed blackmail, even though that narrative was wholly inconsistent with my
own experience of what it was. It was also wholly inconsistent with how I saw
NXIVM community members use collateral for years—as a voluntary, proactive
mechanism of self-motivation and accountability.
18. In the prosecution’s follow-up questions, they asked me how I felt about the way
some people used collateral and if that felt weird to me, separate from my rational
thoughts on the matter, which I had just explained to them in detail.
19. I found their questions about my feelings on the matter strange because I
understood justice to be based on thoughtful and objective evaluation, not the whims
of how people might feel about certain topics or about what is uncomfortable for
them. As a gay man who, until this last decade, was denied the freedom to marry
because it “felt unnatural” to many people, I was well aware that people’s feelings
about uncomfortable matters (including those that involve consenting adults) can
cloud actual justice and rational thought about those matters. I recall sharing that
some of the practices with collateral that I had heard about “felt” odd to me, but that
I didn’t think that made them wrong.
20. The final and most concerning act the Government took in this case was an
intimidation tactic used on my brothers, Marc Elliot and Justin Elliot, and myself in
which the prosecution used a direct threat to suppress public discourse about
character assassination in the media and its relationship to the justice system.
21. Inspired by conversations and ideas to promote honorable civil discourse in the
media, in mid-June 2019, Marc posted to social media an advertisement for a talk he
was going to give entitled, “Who’s Next?: The Rise of Character Assassination and
the Loss of Human Decency.” An alternate title of this talk was “Kindness Above All:
The Rise of Character Assassination and the Loss of Human Decency.” The talk was
not intended to discuss matters, evidence, nor witnesses in the ongoing NXIVM trial.
I had helped Marc develop some of the content for this talk.
22. On or about June 24, 2019, my brothers and I received a call from our attorney. My
recollection of this call included my attorney saying that the prosecution was
“infuriated” by Marc’s post and that they demanded he immediately cancel the talk.
23. I recall my attorney saying that Ms. Penza took this post as a direct attack on her
integrity.
24. Based on this call with Ms. Penza, my attorney believed she would do anything she
could to pursue all three brothers if Marc carried through with his speech.
054
25. I recall my attorney relaying that Ms. Penza said something to the effect of, “If it
weren’t for the First Amendment, I would be coming after them.” This made no
sense to me, because if our actions were only intended to be exercising First
Amendment rights and raising public awareness about upholding principles of
justice and human kindness in the media, I thought: “Why would that be grounds for
the prosecution to ‘come after’ anyone?”
26. Our attorney said that Ms. Penza viewed Marc’s talk as a “recruitment for NXIVM.”
This was troubling and confusing to hear for several reasons:
27. First, it wasn’t even clear to me if NXIVM still existed as an actual entity at that
time, and thus “recruitment for NXIVM” certainly was not one of the aims of the
talk.
28. Furthermore, Marc’s talk was intended to be distinct from NXIVM. I recall that the
talk he had practiced with me was about the perils of character assassination in
modern society and its potential harmful impacts. I recall Marc’s experience of
character assassination while being part of NXIVM as one of many examples he
discussed in his talk.
29. Our attorney, a former AUSA himself, explained the playbook for how easy it is for
the government to make anyone appear to be criminal, particularly in RICO cases.
In light of the threat I had understood the government to have tendered, I made the
difficult decision to immediately sever ties with dozens of longtime friends,
colleagues, and business partners who were part of the community that had formed
around NXIVM. I also ceased helping my brother develop his talk. I made these
decisions not because of knowledge of criminal activities or intent related to the talk,
but because I feared the threat of malicious prosecution if I did not comply.
30. Within two weeks, I had left New York City and moved to my Midwestern
hometown. On account of the government’s threat, I had to completely rebuild my
life, my social network, and my business. All the while, I still could not see what was
wrongful about my brother posting a talk about the loss of human decency in public
discourse and the negative effects of character assassination in society and in our
justice system. I was very concerned about the Government’s attempt to suppress
free speech in this instance.
31. If anything, my experience with the Government’s threat illustrated one of the very
points my brother’s talk was trying to make—prejudice against anyone who was
part of the NXIVM community spurred the erosion of due process and the allowance
of miscarriages of justice. Nonetheless, given the high-profile nature of this case and
the degree to which I saw character assassination used as a prosecutorial tactic in
the case, I chose to step away from my involvement in my brother’s thwarted public
education campaign altogether.
32. Now, almost four years later, I am sharing these occurrences at risk of instigating a
similar retaliatory reaction from the Government.
33. Once I reestablished communications with many longtime friends who had been part
of the NXIVM community, I learned that the experiences of intimidation I had with
the Government was not an isolated case.
34. Having studied public policy and government in both my undergraduate and
master’s education and having long been committed to social justice, I felt it was my
civic duty to share my experience so that these concerns could be evaluated
alongside the testimony of others to ensure that due process was upheld.
35. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that
the foregoing is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge, except as to
055
those matters stated upon information and belief. As to those matters, I believe
them to be true.
Executed on June 15, 2022 at St. Louis, Missouri
_______________________
Brian Elliot
State of Florida
County of Miami-Dade
This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of online notarization,
this 06/15/2022 by Brian Elliot. PASSPORT.
Type of Identification Produced _______
---------------------------------
Nathaly Fernandez
Online Notary
056
Declaration of Marc Elliot
1. My name is Marc Elliot and I currently reside in Tucson, AZ.

2. At the age of nine, I was diagnosed with a neurological disorder called
Tourette’s Syndrome due to incessant vocal and motor tics that interfered
with every aspect of my life. It was estimated I ticced around 25 million times
and every medical professional concluded my condition was uncontrollable
and incurable.
3. I later completely overcame my Tourettes in 2013, drawing from innovations
from courses in emotional intelligence (taught by NXIVM), using only mind
over body, and sheer will. Over the last fifteen years my message of
compassion, tolerance and overcoming adversity has reached all across the
globe.
4. While suffering with Tourettes, I was introduced to courses on emotional
intelligence called Executive Success Program (ESP), a course under the
NXIVM umbrella. I found the courses to be profound, life changing, and
moved me in such a way to be a better person that after two years of taking
courses I decided to pursue becoming a trainer in ESP. Thus, from 2009 to
2017, I dedicated my life to be the best version of myself, to be more
compassionate, more open, more principled and worked with other people to
do the same in their own lives.
5. From 2012 to 2017, I also worked with NXIVM to help other individuals with
severe Tourettes to overcome their symptoms and live a life free of this often
debilitating disorder. In short, my life was dedicated to helping people.
6. In March of 2018, while at my house in Albany, NY with my brothers, Justin
Elliot and Brian Elliot, FBI agents knocked on our door and told us that my
brothers and I were being subpoenaed to a grand jury, and they informed us
that Keith Raniere had been arrested. I remained silent, as I was in shock.
Their tone and demeanor was accusatory, as if we were presumed to be part
of something horrible and complicit in criminal activity.
7. I retained an attorney who explained to me that any misstep at the grand
jury could lead to serious exposure and problems, and so I took the advice of
my attorney and exercised my right to exercise the Fifth Amendment.
8. Our attorney informed the lead prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Moira Kim
Penza, that we would all do so. Our attorney relayed to us she was furious.
He said he had never seen a prosecutor conduct herself in the way she did.
He said in every circumstance like this, the government would not require his
clients to attend the grand jury since it would be a waste of time and
057
resources. Instead, Ms. Penza insisted we show up, knowing full well we
would plead the fifth in response to every question.
9. I had printed out on a piece of paper the exact phrase I would say every time
the prosecutor would ask me a question. The lawyers drilled it into us, that
under no circumstances can we veer from that statement. Doing so could
jeopardize our fifth amendment rights and again create unwanted exposure.
Although I knew I hadn’t done anything, I felt afraid.
10. At the grand jury, the situation felt very intense. My brothers and I waited in
a small room, while one of us would go at a time in front of the grand jury.
Even though I knew I would say that I plead the fifth every single time, I felt
afraid that I might misspeak.
11. As I sat on the stand, Mrs. Penza’s tone was tense. She asked me many
questions about my life and my participation in NXIVM. She asked about my
Tourettes, about my speaking career, and many other things that seemed
completely unrelated to any criminal activity. Her line of questioning about
my Tourretes suggested I might be making it all up.
12. At the end of the day, Ms. Penza got noticeably upset with our attorney,
something he said has never seen in his whole career. She was upset that we
invoked our Fifth Amendment rights and didn’t answer any questions.
Instead of leaving early, Ms. Penza prolonged the day and brought us in front
of a judge where she continued her complaint about us.
13. I left that day scared and confused by what had just happened and Ms.
Penza’s intemperance, which seemed to be highly aberrant, according to my
attorney, who himself had been an AUSA.
14. In the summer of 2019, on June 18, I published a Facebook post promoting a
new speaking presentation I had planned, entitled, “Who’s Next? The Rise of
Character Assassination and Loss of Human Decency.” (See attachment
below). The subtitle read, "Inspired by Marc’s journey of beating Tourette’s
syndrome with the help of NXIVM, a group misrepresented as a sex cult in
the media." I launched this presentation in response to hateful blog posts
against me on the Frank Report. The presentation was about my journey of
overcoming Tourettes through ESP trainings, what I believed was the
character assassination of NXIVM and the NXIVM community, by way of a
false media narrative, and how to deal with this adversity through love. I
intended to also talk about the teachings of non-violence notable figures such
as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other notable thinkers.
15. On June 19, 2019, the jury had delivered a guilty verdict. About a week later
on June 24, 2019, my attorney asked to have a call with my brothers and me.
058
16. On the call, my attorney shared that Ms. Penza had called him to tell him
that she took my marketing post about the presentation as a “personal attack
on her integrity.” She shared that if it were not for the First Amendment, she
would have already arrested me. My attorney made it clear she shared if I
proceeded with putting the presentation on, there would be a very high
likelihood that I would be arrested. I was never told what charge I would
have been indicted for.
17. I asked my lawyer if she knew, or if he had told her, that what I would be
talking about revolved around my story of beating Tourettes. He had said he
did mention that to her and that when he shared that she responded,
“Sounds like recruitment to me." Thus, she could inaccurately allege that
this talk was seen as recruitment for NXIVM, even though it was no longer in
business, and I could be considered part of the vaguely defined racketeering
enterprise in the criminal case, referred to as Mr. Raniere’s “inner circle” of
friends and colleagues..
18. I felt devastated and scared after the call with my attorney. I did not have the
courage then to stand up against the threats and find out if the prosecutor
was bluffing or not. I canceled the event, paused my speaking career and
moved out of NYC.
19. Even though the trial had finished, the prosecutor's conduct made it clear to
me she would go as far as pursuing an indictment against me, simply for
publicizing my experience with NXIVM and Keith Raniere.
Executed on March 19, 2022 at Tucson, Arizona
_______________________
Marc Elliot
Notarized online using audio-video communication 059

ATTACHMENT
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
)
tate Commonwealth of _______________________
VIRGINIA
)
City County of _______________________
Henrico )
On __________________
06/14/2022 before me, __________________________________________,
Dequan Winborne
Date Notary Name
Prem Sahajo Haertel-Kozak

personally appeared ________________________________________________________
Name(s) of Signer(s)
personally known to me -- OR --
proved to me on the basis of t e oat of _____________________________ -- OR --

Name of red e tness
passport
roved to e on t e asis of satisfactory evidence: _________________________________
Type of ID Presented
to e t e individ a s ose na e s is are s scri ed to t e it in instr ent and
ac no ed ed to e t at e s e t ey e ec ted t e sa e in is er t eir a t ori ed ca acity ies
and y ro er a t ority and t at y is er t eir si nat re s on t e instr ent t e individ a s
or t e erson s or entity on e a f of ic t e individ a s acted e ec ted t e instr ent for
t e r oses and consideration t erein stated
WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Electronic Notary Public
Notary Public Signature: _________________________
Notary Name:__________________________________
Dequan Winborne
7940580
Notary Commission Number:______________________
Notary Commission Expires:______________________
06/30/2025
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

Title or Type of Document: _______________________________________________________
Declaration
Document Date: _________________________
06/14/2022 Number of Pages (w/ certificate): ___________
8
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _______________________________________________
N/A
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)

Signer’s Name: _______________________
Prem Sahajo Haertel-Kozak Signer’s Name: _______________________
N/A
q Corporate Officer Title: _____________

N/A q Corporate Officer Title: _____________
N/A
q Partner – q Limited q General q Partner – q Limited q General
q Individual q Attorney in Fact q Individual q Attorney in Fact
q Trustee q Guardian of Conservator q Trustee q Guardian of Conservator
q Other: ___________________________
N/A q Other: ___________________________
N/A
Signer Is Representing: _________________

Herself Signer Is Representing: _________________
N/A
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
068
Declaration of Brandon B. Porter
is Brandon B. Porter. I am a resident of the State of lowa. I am 48 years old.
1. My name
M.D. and
physician and scientist. In 2006, I earned an a
. I am trained and educated as a
Ph.D.
3 I trained in Internal Medicine in the state of lowa until 2009 and then started practice as a
hospitalist physician in Albany, NY.
From 2001 until 2018, I participated in Executive Success Programs (ESP) and NXIVM
4.
education programs.
I met with a criminal defense attorney in January of 2018. My attorney contacted the
5.
investigating federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York, and he was told
that I was not a target of their criminal investigation regarding Keith Raniere
6 My attorney told the prosecutors to contact him if anything were to come up.
1. However, on April 17, 2019, FBI agents came to my home in Waterford, NY, to
personally serve a criminal subpoena in the matter of USA vs. Keith Raniere on me. They
did this despite knowing that I was represented by counsel. The FBI agents
misrepresented the contents of the subpoena and tried to interview me without my
counsel being present.
8. My children were scared that I was going to be arrested.
9. The government's subpoena demanded medical records from 2007 for a patient who
lived in New York. I wasn't practicing medicine in New York in 2007. Since this is
information that is public or readily available, the prosecutors either knew or should have
known this.
069
10. The subpoena demanded for records related to Camila, the person who the government
claimed was the victim of child pornography at the hands of Keith Raniere.
11. While experts later proved the evidence supporting the child pornography claims were
false and due to FBI corruption of the photograph files, at the time, I took the government
subpoena to threaten to irrevocably connect me with a potential victim of child
pomography ifI decided to testify for Keith Raniere.
12. My counsel tried to contact the lead prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Moira Kim Penza,
to ask about the subpoena. He never received a response.
13. Since Mr. Raniere's trial was set for May 7, 2019, less than three weeks away. I
interpreted this hand-delivered subpoena by FBI agents as an intimidation tactic to get me
to not be involved in the trial.
14 I made this conclusion for the following reasons: a) despite being represented by counsel,
the prosecutors had armed FBI agents personally serve a subpoena, b) the subpoena was
for information that the prosecutors knew, or should have known, that I was unlikely to
have, c) the prosecutors never replied to my lawyer's inquiry into the subpoena, and d)
the subpoena was delivered just three weeks before the trial.
15. During Keith Raniere's trial, I heard a story about a friend and former DOS participant,
Sahajo Haetel-Kozak, who attended one day ofthe trial and was hastily givena false
subpoena from a Federal prosecutor.
16. Also, near the end of Keith Raniere's trial, another friend, Marc Elliot, was threatened
with indictment through his lawyer, by Assistant US Attorney Moira Kim Penza, if he
gave a planned public speech about character assassination and how people attacked him
and NXIVM and how to overcome differences with love. He did not perform the speech
070
and wouldn't even share with me the speech he was planning to make out of fear ot
retribution by the Assistant U'S Amorney.
17 These friends of mine were performing constitutionaly protected acts and had committed
no crimes. I1 was chilling to me to experience this type of intimidation from a group of
people who's roles were to seek the truth of the matter. as opposed to seeking to seare
their "opposition" into silence.
18 I understood that. in a RICO case. simple association with a govemment target could tum
into my being indicted. The aforementioned intimidating actions led me to believe, and
fear. that these federal prosecutors and FBI agents were willing to suppress infomation
that contradicted their false narratives about NXIVM, DOS, and Keith Raniere
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters
stated upon information and belief. As to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Executed June 14. 2022
Brandon B. Porter
ERIKA BIBIAN
Commission Number 832590|
My Commission
071
EXHIBIT E
Affidavit of Frank Parlato, Jr.
State of Florida
County of Monroe
COMES NOW Frank Parlato, Jr., being first duly sworn, under oath, and states
that the contents of Attachment 1 are true and correct statements of relevant facts
and his opinions, to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the contents of
the redacted emails in Attachment 2 are true and accurate.
Signature: ____________________________
Date: June 21, 2022

JURAT
State/Commonwealth of_____________________
VIRGINIA )
)
City County Newport News
of ______________________ )
On __________________,
06/21/2022 Rushane E Smith
before me, _________________________________________ ,
ate Nota Name
the foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me by:
________________________________________________________________________.
Frank Parlato
Name of Affiant
Personally known to me -- OR --
Proved to me on the basis of t e oat of _____________________________ -- OR --

Name of red e tness
Proved to driver_license
e on t e asis of satisfactory evidence: ________________________________
Rushane E Smith
Notary Name:__________________________________
Notary Number:______________________
7857590
07/31/2024
Title or Type of Document: ____________________________________________________

Verification Affidavit
Document Date: ________________________________

06/21/2022
Number of Pages (including notarial certificate): _____________

2
2
ATTACHMENT 1
Statement
June 21, 2022
My name is Frank Parlato. I am a resident of Florida.
I am 67 years old. I have no criminal record. Though I stand indicted by the bad faith efforts of
the US DOJ and Keith Raniere - starting in 2011.
I am not a supporter of Keith Raniere. I am not now and never was a member of NXIVM. I
worked as a consultant for Raniere in 2007-08.
Mark Vicente, filmmaker, whistleblower, former Executive Board Member of NXIVM, said on
HBO's The Vow: "Frank Parlato used to work for Keith and NXIVM. He left on bad terms, and
the company went after him. To fight back, he created the blog called the Frank Report, to share
news he was hearing about NXIVM."
I have published around 5,000 stories on NXIVM and Raniere. These stories have had more than
20 million views.
The New York Times acknowledged in their seminal story that I broke the story of DOS and the
branding of women.
“Many of Mr. Raniere’s followers learned of the secret society from a website run by a
Buffalo-area businessman, Frank R. Parlato Jr. Mr. Parlato had been locked in a long legal battle
with two sisters, Sara and Clare Bronfman, who are members of Nxivm, and the daughters of
Edgar Bronfman, the deceased chairman of Seagram Company….
“In early June [2017], Mr. Parlato published the first in a torrent of salacious posts under the
headline, ‘Branded Slaves and Master Raniere.’”
Sarah Edmondson told her story to HBO. She said, "I told Frank about my branding experience,
so that he could expose DOS in time to stop the next session.... We were successful. The word
about Frank's blog spread in the community. And because of this heat, the next branding
ceremony was called off."
DOS ended with my reporting - four months before the New York Times story. No woman was
branded again.
India Oxenberg told her story on Starz 'Seduced.'
1
India said, "Even within NXIVM, no members outside of DOS were supposed to know that it
existed. As soon as the [Frank Report] posts started coming up, there was a ton of questions, and
a lot of chatter. My slaves left immediately after that. And none of them had to complete the
seduction assignment or be branded. That was a huge relief."
Her mother Catherine Oxenbergh first told me of this shocking sorority. She wanted to get her
daughter out. She wrote, “Frank was fearless. And once I’d given him this information, he ran
with it. And he didn’t stop.... He was an unstoppable force."
Vicente from the Vow: "When Frank came out with the news it set the whole organization into
panic. A lot of people began asking questions. And that was the idea – it’s not just to expose
what’s going on, it was also about getting people to leave, getting people away from danger."
The danger was Raniere.
I present this to show that I am not a supporter of Raniere.
INVESTIGATING INVESTIGATORS:
The DOJ in their sentencing memorandum of Keith Raniere wrote:
“Raniere’s crimes were difficult to investigate and were uncovered due to more than a year-long
investigation that required significant government resources, including interviews of more than a
hundred individuals.”
That was a lot of investigating for it all to shift at the last minute and come down from 100 to
one.
I am a private citizen without authority. I agreed to investigate the investigation and publish the
results.
I am publishing the report, "Analysis of Allegations of FBI Tampering of Evidence in US v

Raniere." I will publish it on www.frankreport.com.
Suneel Chakravorty co-authored the report. We have different views of Raniere. Chakravorty is
Raniere's power of attorney.
I am Raniere's adversary. I am opposed to Raniere and deplore what he has done.
I believe Raniere is guilty of abusing the victim, Camila. He abused her. It was child sexual
exploitation.
2
Chakravorty believes Raniere has been falsely convicted.
Both Chakravorty and I investigated the competency of the evidence. I spent more than one year
in my investigation.
For my part, this is an investigation. I am as interested in exonerating the FBI as I am in proving

they tampered. Which is to say there is a lot of evidence.
I do not claim to know the definitive answer. We are not prosecutors who seek only evidence of
guilt and wear trial, or truth blinders. Our report will lay out a clear path to finding the answer.
CAMILA:
At a pretrial hearing, AUSA Moira Penza said Camila "goes throughout this case. I mean, there
will be almost -- there's very little evidence in this case that does not relate to that victim."
It became a trial about Camila without Camila.
An FBI SA agent actually portrayed her on the witness stand, reading her texts for hours, as an
AUSA read Raniere.
They presented her medical history. Her sister and others spoke about her. Her landlord, her
nurse, and others spoke.
An FBI agent testified he saw so many naked photos that he could identify dates without the
metadata.
Another agent discussed the evidence of dating her photos with metadata.
Then there was the most dramatic scene in the trial. An FBI agent walked her photos in, in a red
binder - and everyone sat in stony stillness. She opened the red binder before the judge, and he
turned away. The jury saw, and then she brought them the binder - of Camila. They jury
shuddered. They looked down. They turned away. All the while, she was not at the trial.
Her abortion records, her appendectomy. Her extremely private texts were read. The most private
personal texts.
Her diary was shared. They had pictures of her and discussed the reasons for an alleged suicide
attempt. Pictures, medical records and hearsay.
She was a conspirator when that let evidence in, and a victim when that helped.
3
Despite being the crucial victim, Camila did not testify at the trial.
This was a trial about Camila without Camila.
And digital evidence supplanted the live witness.
Raniere's counsel did not get the digital evidence either. The evidence that convicted him - the
digital evidence - was withheld until days before trial. Some of it was never provided.
It is understandable that the government might not have wanted her to testify. She was no longer
a child. She was 28. She was one of the First Line of DOS. A DOS First Line master.
AUSA Penza said of the First Line. "Every member of the first line was a co-conspirator. There
is no question; there's no distinction about that… When they joined DOS, they knew that the
defendant was their grandmaster.... They conspired with the defendant to conceal his identity and
to recruit new people... to get naked pictures. To get property. And... to get women to have sex
with the defendant.
Camila was part of the scheme that confined her sister, Daniela.
At trial, Judge Garaufis would ask: Is Cami a co-conspirator?
AUSA Hajjar: Your Honor, she was involved -- as Daniela and Lauren Salzman testified, she
was involved in the confinement of Daniela in the room, and so, in that respect, she was assisting
in a criminal scheme. She is, however, a victim in other respects.
The Judge later said "she is a co-conspirator, or alleged to be a co-conspirator." The allegation
came from the prosecution, not the defense.
And Camila participated in the sex trafficking count. When Raniere blindfolded and tied Nicole
to a table in her apartment.
There was very little evidence that did not relate to that absent victim.
New evidence suggests the DOJ calculated they did not want her as a witness.
New evidence suggests the DOJ could have called her, but decided not to.
They might have put in place mechanisms available to federal prosecutors to have a witness
come to court and testify.
4
Yes, She Is a Victim.
I was present when Camila said she was a victim of sexual abuse at Raniere's sentencing. She
spoke after the trial, after his conviction.
I heard Camila say Raniere abused her when she was 15. I heard her say he took pictures of her
when she was 15. I believe her.
But the forensic evidence is questionable. Evidence seems to have been withheld from the
defense. Expert witnesses seemed to have made misrepresentations. The FBI bungled evidence.
There were instances of evasive testimony.
And new evidence contradicts the idea that the DOJ could NOT produce her.
Neil Glazer:
I had many communications with attorney Niel Glazer, as a reporter.
Before and during the DOJ investigation, alluded to above.
Sometimes we had conflict. I also have tremendous respect for his advocacy for clients who were
victims of Raniere. Glazer is one of the most zealous advocates for clients I ever saw or can
imagine.
There may not have been a case against Raniere, but for his efforts.
I have included in my report a few small excerpts from our correspondence. They are probative
to the tampering investigation. They show his zealous advocacy. They can also answer if the FBI
tampered.
I do NOT think Glazer would participate in tampering or permit a client to do so. One of the best
reasons to doubt FBI tampering is Glazer. He represents Camila and her sister, Daniela.
The photos and the digital evidence are at the heart of the allegations.
Glazer would not tolerate tampering or suborning of perjury.
Yet if tampering had occurred, it might have come through other sources.
5
I have redacted the great majority of the text of the scant few emails. But they constitute new
evidence.
His client Camila stated Raniere abused her and took photos of her. I believe her.
But the question is, are the photos the government used as evidence that they purport were her at
15, found accidentally as they claim?
Are the forensic dates accurate? Or were they tampered with?
Some of his clients may know the answers.
If the photos are accurate, were they found where the FBI said they found them?
I am not interested in proving Raniere did or did not take photos of Camila. I assume he did.
What I want to know is did the government tamper with evidence to convict Raniere of a crime
he DID commit?
My colleague Chakravoty does not believe Raniere is guilty. He believes the FBI tampered.
I have reviewed enough evidence that I believe Raniere abused Camila. And I believe the FBI
may not have had the evidence to prove it.
I think it is also likely that the FBI did not "accidentally discover" the evidence as they claim.
Some evidence causes me concern. I will address that in our report.
Either the photos were there at 8 Hale or they weren't. Either they were there from the start or
they made a belated arrival.
Either they are Camila when she was 15, or they are not.
A non-party may have supplied evidence beneath the nose of official actors.
Or maybe the photos were there - for years hiding in plain sight. Despite evidence contradicting
it.
I reject these false equivalences:
6
Camila said Raniere abused her when she was 15, hence the evidence used by the FBI is
competent. Raniere is guilty, so the FBI evidence is competent. Camila said Raniere took photos
of her when she was 15, so the evidence must be competent.
The DOJ made this argument. It is illogical.
Camila has not identified the actual evidence.
Due Process for those law enforcement know are guilty
The FBI should not present tampered evidence against a guilty defendant.
If we allow this perfidious camel to nose into the tent of our enemy, we invite his presence in all
our tents. He will be our constant companion.
Camila is a victim, Raniere committed the crime. But the FBI has to prove it. They cannot cheat
the jury.
If they are innocent, we should find out. Soon.
That is at least partly because Neil Glazer represents clients who may hold the key.
Either those photos were sitting on the hard drive or came from somewhere else.
Our report will appear on FrankReport.com
7
ATTACHMENT 2
1/25/22, 9:04 PM Gmail - Re: taking an affirmative step
Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>
Re: taking an affirmative step

Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:24 AM
To: FRP <frankparlato@gmail.com>
Please consider posting the following.
Post: To all former and current victims of, and those who have information about, these various Raniere related entities,
and Raniere, Bronfman, Salzburg, etc.: there are law firms looking at this.
I have spent a year investigating and learning about the whole situation. I believe there may be
something to be done.
There are a few categories of preliminary interest, subject to revision as facts are developed and law researched. One is
to do the investigation and legal research necessary to deliver a prepackaged prosecution. This is how these things are
done. Another is one or more large collective or class actions. Another is a number of coordinated actions by individuals
and small groups of individuals. None are mutually exclusive
Interested Outsider
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:39 AM FRP <frankparlato@gmail.com> wrote:

I will be glad to discuss the matter.
Sent from my iPhone

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bbf7fe660a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1579680443108696273&simpl=msg-f%3A15796804431… 1/7
1/25/22, 9:01 PM Gmail - Talk
Talk
Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM
To: FRP <frankparlato@gmail.com>
I think you figured this out, but Neil Glazer. My firm is Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. In Philadelphia.
I have been watching, learning and

speaking with people for a year. I don't know if litigation is the best approach, still have much to learn and figure out, but I
want to help these people anyway I can, in the courts or elsewhere.
. If I can destroy
this guy, take his world down, I will gladly do it. If I can redistribute the Bronfman sisters' fortunes to the victims, I will do
that as well.
Some of this will not be easy, we have to do

a lot of hard work, and need to make some new law, and it will require my firm to invest many millions, but it can be done
and I am acutely interested. And as I said, litigation is only one option. He can be taken down.
Neil
[Quoted text hidden]
1/25/22, 9:07 PM Gmail - legal
legal
Neil Glazer Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:44 PM
To: frankparlato@gmail.com
I’ve been given the green light to more actively pursue legal angles, civil and criminal.
If all I do is on the criminal front, I won’t charge. If

there is civil litigation, nobody pays up front, we put in the time and cover all expenses; if and when there is a damages
award or settlement money, the clients agree to the lawyers taking a fixed percentage.
Neil
1/25/22, 9:18 PM Gmail - New coverage
New coverage
Neil L.Glazer <nglazer@kohnswift.com> Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:03 AM
To: "frankparlato@gmail.com" <frankparlato@gmail.com>
I am not working on
the civil litigation angle at the moment, there are far more important matters to resolve. There are moving pieces you are
unaware of, interested eyes beyond the Albany region. I would like you to consider whether posts might create a
misimpression of leaky investigations or offices,
We are learning precise locations of evidence, we need time to get rock solid warrants.
I am working pro bono to bring this thing to a just conclusion that you will surely applaud. This is a costly undertaking, in
expenses and value of time. Much of these expenses is out of my own pocket and the cost in time will reduce my
compensation.
Neil
Neil L.Glazer
1/25/22, 9:30 PM Gmail - Dani
Dani
Neil L.Glazer <nglazer@kohnswift.com> Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:19 AM
You just posted a whole piece about Dani, naming her multiple
times.
I am more devoted to Dani’s well-being than any other client,

and you know that says a lot. There is nothing I won’t do to protect her.
Neil L.Glazer
We've Moved!
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1/25/22, 9:30 PM Gmail - Once more
Once more
Neil L.Glazer <nglazer@kohnswift.com> Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:09 AM
I implore you to please take down the post.
We represent dozens, growing by the day. The criminal investigation is massive and the civil action will be
unprecedented. That is soon. I will give you first view before we file.
Neil L.Glazer
We've Moved!
1/25/22, 9:39 PM Gmail - Camila still in Nxivm
Camila still in Nxivm

Neil L.Glazer <nglazer@kohnswift.com> Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:11 AM
To: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>
Cami has been interviewed. She is not testifying for Raniere. FBI victim services are in contact with her to make sure she
knows they will help her to get help. No, she has not fully come forward, but she has been willing to stay in contact with
them and the fact is they don’t need her testimony to prosecute and convict Raniere for what he did to her. Moira told me,
and this is a quote, “we have all the evidence we need.”
I am building a
civil case and have more than 80 clients to serve, and it grows by the week.
Neil L.Glazer
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=bbf7fe660a&view=lg&permmsgid=msg-f:1629794885034741649 1/4
We've Moved!
From: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:59 AM
To: Neil L.Glazer
Subject: Re: Camila s ll in Nxivm
Best
Frank
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 12:17 AM Neil L.Glazer <nglazer@kohnswift.com> wrote:
Neil L.Glazer
From: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 10:36 PM
To: Neil L.Glazer; Neil Glazer
Subject: Camila s ll in Nxivm
EXHIBIT F
Affidavit of Nicole Clyne
1. I am Nicole Clyne.
2. The attached emails in Attachment A are true and accurate copies of email
exchanges I had with Camila between the period of February 26 and March
8, 2019.
3. I have redacted certain information to protect Camila’s privacy as well as my
own. I can make the unredacted copies available as needed.
4. In these emails, as well as during a phone call I had with her in March 2019,
Camila expressed gratitude and a desire to be in touch, and spoke positively
about Mr. Raniere and her involvement in NXIVM.
5. In her “Cover Letter,” Camila describes the experience she’s gained working
with Rainbow Cultural Garden and how it aligns with her life goals.
6. I have photographs of the DOS first line, including Camila, where the area of
her appendectomy scar is clearly showing and the scar is not visible. I have
similar photos where the scar is visible, which means that its visibility is
dependent on the lighting and angle of the photograph. They are true and
accurate depictions of Camila. I can make these available as needed.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that
the foregoing is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge, except as to
those matters stated upon information and belief. As to those matters, I believe
them to be true.
Executed June 21, 2022
_________________________
Nicole Clyne
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFICATE

Attachment A
6/21/22, 5:42 PM G a - Le e +CV
Nicki Clyne >
L +CV
5 messages
Camila T e, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:58 PM

To:
NICKI!!!!!!!! Hello!!!
Ma sistah! Ho I miss o !!!
I am so sorr for e er thing that is going on. I hope o are holding p oka . It might so nd eird, b t thank o for
sta ing strong. It gi es me strength to kno that o are still there. Please kno that I am still here... al a s.
And thank o for agreeing to help me ith this! I as er e cited to hear that o said es!
It is a rst draft. It might be a little disorgani ed and ith lots of errors b t gi e it a look
Lo e, lo e, LOVE....
Cami
I ha e attached m CV since the are asking me for one. It is so sad, I am tr ing to o er it p someho . Let me kno if
o ha e an ideas
2 attachments
Cover Letter- Padova.rtf
5K
Curriculum Vitae- Padova.rtf
3K
Nicki Clyne > T e, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:18 PM

To: Camila >
OOOOOOH MYYYYYY GAAAAAWD!!! It s so, so, so nice to hear from o . I m reall happ to be in to ch, and I totall
kno the feeling of relief and gratit de in kno ing others are sta ing strong. Yo can al a s co nt on me. 100%. I am so
e cited o anted m help! Yo co ldn t ha e asked for a better thing for me to help ith either. It s hat I as bred to
do, haha. When I rst landed in Brookl n, I sent o t o er 70 personali ed co er letters and res mes. Sadl , I onl got a
fe inter ie s and no jobs, b t I think that had more to do ith m google search res lts than m riting skills :( Sigh.
An a , hen is this d e? I m a little fried right no and ork at 6am tomorro (I m managing a egan cafe in brookl n,
go g re!), b t I can get to it right after ork.
I j st q ickl read o r co er letter and m rst tho ghts are that it s still q ite general and ag e. The parts that are going
to stand o t are speci cs. Ho man families ha e o orked ith? In hat a s did o ork ith both the children
and the parents? Ho did o track o r progress and res lts? What books and teachers ha e in enced o most? Ho
ha e o ta ght o rself? What q estions do o ha e abo t the eld? Wh do the matter to o ?
Also, it s important to speak to speci cs abo t h this partic lar program is the right t. Look at their marketing and pick
o t lang age and concepts that make it niq e and ork them in. Yo co ld appl and go to an school, h this one?
Since o re considered a mat re st dent (I kno ), I o ld reall pla p o r life e perience and hat o ha e to
bring in that regard.
Sorr , this is sort of a brain d mp, b t hopef ll it ill help sp r some more ideas and then e can re ne from there
Ma be send me the link to the program too?
Sending o big h gs and kisses!!! Talk soon!
Nickita
:// a . e.c / a / /0/? =871c9 641 & e = & ea c =a & e d= ead- %3A1626589182969587785& = - %3A1626589182969587785 1/2
6/21/22, 5:42 PM G a - Le e +CV
[Q ed e hidde ]
[Q ed e hidde ]
<Co er Letter- Pado a.rtf><C rric l m Vitae- Pado a.rtf>
Camila > T e, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:31 PM

To: Nicki Cl ne >
This helps so m ch!

M brain is pre fried righ no b I ill ge o i in he morning.
Oh, and i is d e on he 28 h.... ikes! I kno ...
I apprecia e an and all help o are illing o gi e and his alread gi es me so m ch o ork on!
I is so good o hear from o . I missed o !
[Q ed e hidde ]
Nicki Clyne > T e, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:34 PM

To: Camila >
Ok perfect. Incorporate this feedback and send me another re ision tomorro and I ll get to it asap o o. I missed o
too!!
[Q ed e hidde ]
Camila > Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:15 AM

To: Nicki Cl ne >
Here's he link o he program:
h ps:// . nipd.i /en/ps chological-science
On T esda , Febr ar 26, 2019, 10:19:08 PM CST, Nicki Cl ne > rote:
[Q ed e hidde ]
:// a . e.c / a / /0/? =871c9 641 & e = & ea c =a & e d= ead- %3A1626589182969587785& = - %3A1626589182969587785 2/2
6/21/22, 5:44 PM G a - D af
Nc C e >
Draf
1 a
Ca a > W , F b 27, 2019 a 10:18 PM

T : >
S N,
I a b b a a .I a a a .M a b - b
.
B , a a ba CV?
C e Le e - Pad a. f
13K
h :// a .g g e.c / a / /0/? =871c9f641f& e = & ea ch=a & e h d= h ead-f%3A1626681003357184073& = g-f%3A1626681003357184073 1/1
6/21/22, 5:45 PM G ai - a e d af
Nc C e >
la es draf
11 me age
Ca a > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 11:03 AM

To: < >, >
C e Le e - Pad a. f
9K
Nc C e > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 3:47 PM

To: Camila >
Cc: >
He ! I m o orr , I m in he middle of mo ing I j a do n a a cafe o re ie ho gh. Will end back m no e

a ap!!
o,
N
On Feb 28, 2019, a 11:03 AM, Camila > ro e:
<Co er Le er- Pado a.r f>
Nc C e > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 4:33 PM

To: Camila >
Cc: >
Cami, o I made a b nch of no e and gge ion . I hope he make en e! I m a li le r hed b a I reall an o help.
Some of hi o ld be a lo ea ier o er he phone. Can e Sk pe or oom? Or Wha App ma be? Le me kno ! I m ill
no o all clear h o cho e hi chool. Al o, o r career and e perience i a li le nclear. A he end i o nd like
o alread ha e a career, o c rio h o ld an o do a Bachelor no I hink I can help o re ne he narra i e
o i make en e o hem beca e righ no i ill a li le ag e.
Le me kno ! I ha e he ame n mber B i de ni el coming along and i m e ci ed for o .
Al o, ince i in E rope, I onder if ma be Sara co ld help?
Al o, minor no e. Thi ho ld likel be en in Word or pdf forma . Do o ha e ord?
Talk oon,
N
On Feb 28, 2019, a 3:47 PM, Nicki Cl ne > ro e:
He ! I m o orr , I m in he middle of mo ing I j a do n a a cafe o re ie ho gh. Will end back

m no e a ap!!
h :// ai .g g e.c / ai / /0/?i =871c9f641f& ie = & ea ch=a & e hid= h ead-f%3A1626729181955190215& i = g-f%3A1626729181955190215 1/4
6/21/22, 5:45 PM G ai - a e d af
o,
N
On Feb 28, 2019, a 11:03 AM, Camila > ro e:
<Co er Le er- Pado a.r f>
C e Le e - Pad a NC. f
14K
Nc C e > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 6:46 PM

To: Camila >
Cc: >
So for o r CV, I hink o can ll i o a lo and be a more de ailed in o r re pon ibili ie . There o m ch o did a
par of Rainbo ! Re earch, paren ing media ion, care aking of children, coordina ing and raining ne MDS righ ?
Al o, ere o onl in j nior high for one ear? Did o grad a e?
Ha e o had an o her job a all?
Al o, i no e en ial, b i migh be nice o clean p he de ign a bi . Word ha ome empla e . Can a oo. No hing
fanc , b i hink comp er li erac i impor an hen appl ing for ni er i ie he e da o I hink i o ld help.
Le me kno ho i can help!
Can o ge an e en ion?
o,
N
[Q ed e hidde ]
[Q ed e hidde ]
<Co er Le er- Pado a NC.r f>
[Q ed e hidde ]
Ca a > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 8:47 PM

To: Nicki Cl ne >
Hi Niki a!
Tha k m ch f all hi ! I k 'e e b
I am i g g e if h I c ld ge a e e i . I de i el mi ed he deadli e he had
hei eb i e.
I ill c i e ki g hi , h gh, a d feedback i hel f l. I i a
h ge elief.
I al h gh f Sa a. I a ked Te d he e he' a i h all hi a d if he ld be a
g d e each .
I am gi i g !
LOVE YOU LOTS!
6/21/22, 5:45 PM G ai - a e d af
. Le me k he ' e f ee e ca c ec hi he i e. W ld l e hea
ice!
A d he e did m e ??? I' e had m e i e a bi a ell... i ' bee i e e
[Q ed e hidde ]
Nc C e > Th , Feb 28, 2019 a 10:41 PM

To: Camila >
Hi hi!
Oka o nd good I hope o can ge an e en ion! And eah, hing are b , b I m mo l elling o beca e I
i h I co ld be more re pon i e. The ne fe da are a more open. I j ha e o ni h an e a I ha e for cla
(I m aking a ri ing co r e in Brookl n!) and do ome ff for ork, b a more chill. I nall go all m hi mo ed
onigh . I a long or , b ba icall I ended p i h o apar men and I nall fo nd a ren er for he one and mo ed all
m hi o . S ch a relief! For he r ime in age I ha e all m ff in one place. No o go hro gh i all!
An a , I o ld lo e o connec i h o oo! Thi eekend o ld be grea . Wha o r ched le like? Al o, I hink Sara
o ld be happ o help if he co ld. C ac all men ioned i , and Sara i coming o i i oon, o We ll g re ome hing
o !
I m orr o e had o mo e a lo . I cra . I e mo ed a ridic lo amo n . B I e become q i e e per a i , haha.
Oka , I ll alk o o oon. Lo e o lo and end o big h g !!!
o,
N
[Q ed e hidde ]
Ca a > Fri, Mar 1, 2019 a 3:50 PM

To: Nicki Cl ne >
Hi Niki a!
Y aid had he ame mbe a al a , b I ac all d ' ha e he ame mbe h e
I d ' ha e a f m c ac a m e. If ' e c mf able i h i ca add me.
Thi eeke d I ha e m l bi hda celeb a i b I ld i i i e a d a ime gi e me I
ca make...
[Q ed e hidde ]
Nc C e > Fri, Mar 1, 2019 a 3:56 PM

To: Camila >
He lo e!! Wa j abo o ri e o and i h o a SUPER DUPER HAPPY AWESOME FANTASTIC RADICAL

LOVING LAUGHING EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN BIRTHDAY!
:)
M n mber i I m abo o head o and on be back n il la er. B omorro Im per open o le e

p a ime! Looking for ard
o o,
N
[Q ed e hidde ]
Nc C e > Th , Mar 7, 2019 a 1:27 PM

To: Camila >
Hola Camici a! J an ed o check in and ee ho o are, and here o re a i h he applica ion I m off from ork
he ne co ple da o more e ible. Wo ld lo e o connec ! Le me kno
6/21/22, 5:45 PM G ai - a e d af
o o,
N
[Q ed e hidde ]
Ca a > Fri, Mar 8, 2019 a 10:21 AM

To: Nicki Cl ne >
Hi Niki a!
I ha e bee ki g i b d he cl ck i ce I mi ed m deadli e. I ha e m ch
g i g ha I ha e ' bee able i d a d g e l i .
S me f he e i a e dif c l a e f me ea b I am ki g a e i g hem.
I a hi ki g f l adi g he d af g gle d i e c ld acce he edi ed e i a

ime a , ld ha hel ?
I ca make a da i he af e if ' e a ailable. I d ' emembe m Sk e i migh

ha e h gh Wha A .
L !
C
[Q ed e hidde ]
c c e > Sa , Apr 18, 2020 a 6:24 PM

To: Camila >
He Camici a,
Imj going hro gh m email r ing o e hi range ime o clean p m ac and I a hi one. I can belie e i
been o er a ear. I kno a lo ha happened and I hone l don kno an hing abo here o are or ho o are
b I an ed o o kno I m hinking abo o and I hope o are oka . I can onl imagine ho ro gh hing ha e
been. I kno I e had m fair hare of challenge , I j hope o ha e friend or people o r o can alk o. Or in
er lea , end inappropria e meme o. I ll al a be here for ha , and an hing el e o need. Le me kno .
Sending o big h g and lo of lo e.
o,
N
[Q ed e hidde ]
CAMILA
To the Admissions Office at University of Padova,
Please accept my application to study the first-cycle Psychological Science course at

the University of Padova that starts October 2019.
I have dedicated the last 12 years of my life to help raise children and have taught
myself as best I can by reading every book I could find on developmental neuroscience,
psychology, biopsychology, early childhood development and also versed myself in
some of the main early childhood and psychology theories like Piaget, Vygotsky,
Kohlberg, Steiner, Montessori, Loris Malaguzzi, amongst others.
I want to attend your school because I want to be able to do more in the world. I want to
train myself as a professional and be able to contribute to the field, and consequently
the world. From the moment I chose this career I knew this was what I wanted to
dedicate my life to. I was certain that this was how I wanted to leave a footprint in the
world and contribute to humanity.
I am limited in what I can do without a degree and believe I need to really be challenged
and be taught by experts in the field. I look forward to learning side by side with
individuals with similar interests and vision for children all over.
I am particularly interested in the neuropsychology of morality. This has been a

question that has always plagued my mind and pushed me to learn more and try to
understand how we develop. What role does the brain play? How could we be more
deliberate in the shaping of our children’s morality on a psychological level?
I am also intrigued by empathy and lack of empathy. Can we shape “goodness” in a
person from an early age?
These are questions I hope to one day be able to answer. I think it could be significant
to the way we currently educate our children.
Although my interests on science and psychology are what got me started in my career,
I recognize that there is an element of humanity as a principle that is important and I
strive to uphold in all decisions.
By the end of my lifetime I would like to have built a wealth of knowledge to change the
way traditional school systems work and provide a new parenting method. I think we
need to instill more humanity, compassion and noble values at an earlier age in
children’s development and help raise more noble human beings. I want to educate
myself and grow my knowledge to responsibly create and develop a body of work to
better children’s lives.
I have worked with 9 families over the years, all with great results. I commit to each
family and the development of their children and coming into a child’s life is not a
decision I make lightly. I try to be mindful in how affect their lives, and recognize
everything I choose and do will affect that individual’s life and how they see the world.
My goal has always been to raise more compassionate children that can empathize with
those around them and can discern right from wrong.
My approach is from multiple angles. I try to stimulate the child’s physical, emotional,
intellectual, moral, and social development. I also focus on the family dynamic, and try
to help the parents with their own understanding process of evaluation.
I measure my results by comparing the child’s behavior before and after intervention. I
believe behavior is an effect of what is going on inside so this evaluation gives me
insight to the child’s inner world. The goal and the standard that I measure up against is
how joyful the child is— do they have an overall sense of well being or do they feel
insecure and therefore experience the need to throw tantrums.
Numerous families have consistently asked me for help with particular circumstances of
tantrums and meltdowns, aggression, etc because of the understanding and knowledge
I have gathered along my career and my own personal way of attending different
situations. My approach is always to help the parents in order to help the child— these
situations usually arise from a lack of understanding of what is going on with the child.
I have been mentored by a Pediatric Occupational Therapist (2006-2008), from her I

learned not only developmental anatomy and physical therapy, along with early
childhood development, but also to work hands-on with children. With her I developed
the confidence to step up and evaluate best course of action and guide a child through
a challenging or uncomfortable situation.
(I am not mentioning Keith, not sure if it’s a good idea. And if it is, not sure how to
portray it)
I take every opportunity to learn more and be better. I have had the pleasure of
attending some of the Learning and the Brain conferences in the US and had the
privilege of receiving invaluable information from neuroscientists, biologists, educators,
administrators, authors, all of whom I have great respect and admiration for including
John Medina, author of “Brain Rules for Baby” and developmental molecular biologist.
I am currently working as a staff trainer at a multicultural school in Guadalajara, Mexico,

that works with children from 0-7y/o. It is a small school but here I have been able to
develop my tact with people and my ability to communicate and teach what I have had
the honor of learning throughout my career. (I need more here…)
I am responsible for overseeing current teachers, capacitating incoming personnel and
following through in their performance with the children.
I have been working on quantifying everything I have learned in my 12 years of
experience to create a curriculum to help parents with their children. I have earned a
certain authority with both parents and teachers through my work and dedication and
currently hold a position where I am able to affect dozens of children at a time as
opposed to one family at a time. It is a big responsibility and something I am cautious
with
I am applying to the first-cycle course on Psychological Science. If accepted, I would

like to continue on to Cognitive Neuroscience and Clinical Neuropsychology and
eventually end up in the department of Developmental Neuroscience and Socialisation.
I am aware I am coming in at a later age than most. I have had 12 years of experience
already and I am choosing to apply now because of what I want to do in the world— this
is not a decision I have made lightly.
I am determined on the path I am taking and have a clear vision of what I want to do in
the world.
I currently reside in Mexico but lived in the US for 12 years. I am choosing to apply in
Padova because of the University and its background. I also found the Department of
Developmental Psychology very attractive. I have considered matriculating before but
had not found a school with a diversity and depth like at University of Padova. I think
you can only grow and be competitive in the field if you’re surrounded by the best. One
of the things I have been lacking is contributions and criticism from my peers and it is
something I would welcome while forming myself at your university.
It would be a privilege to be accepted into your school. Thank you so much for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Camila
)
VIRGINIA
)
City County of _______________________
Virginia Beach )
On __________________
06/21/2022 before me, __________________________________________,
Dennis Bryan Turner Jr
Date Notary Name
Nicole Clyne

Name of red e tness
driver_license
Notary Name:__________________________________
Dennis Bryan Turner Jr
7229383
04/30/2024

Personal Affidavit of Nicole Clyne
Document Date: _________________________
14
N/A

Signer’s Name: _______________________
Nicole Clyne Signer’s Name: _______________________
N/A
q Corporate Officer Title: _____________ q Corporate Officer Title: _____________

N/A

N/A
q Other: ___________________________ q Other: ___________________________
Self Signer Is Representing: _________________
N/A
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
N/A
14
DECLARATION
1. My name is Eduardo Asúnsolo Ramírez. I am 40 years old.

2. I was born in Torreón, México.
3. I am a citizen of the United States of America.
4. I live in Brooklyn, New York. I have been married for 6 years. I have a son, age 3, and a
daughter, age 1.
5. I have had a translation services business for 5 years.
6. I have taken dozens of NXIVM trainings starting from 2005, to 2017. I had senior
leadership roles in the NXIVM companies, which is the equivalent of a Senior Vice
President role or Co-founder role in other companies.
7. I came to New York City 14 years ago to study acting with Mike Nichols. Before that I
had graduated from ITESM, the most highly regarded university in México, which I
attended on a partial sports scholarship.
8. I first met Marianna sometime around 2007. I recall meeting her at the corporate retreat
of NXIVM, referred to as "V-week.” She was trying to pursue a career in tennis.
9. I first met Camila sometime around 2011 or 2012, I mistook Camila for her older sister,
Marianna. I recall meeting her at a residence in Clifton Park where she was taking care of
a child. I said to her, "Hey, so how's tennis going?" I remember the interaction because
Camila got very upset about the fact that I had confused her with her sister Marianna.
10. I also know of several instances where other people in the NXIVM community confused
Marianna and Camila, as well as Camila and her other sister, Daniela.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon
information and belief. As to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Executed on June 21, 2022 at Brooklyn, New York
___________________________
Eduardo Asunsolo
Notary stamp and signature on page 2

JURAT
State/Commonwealth of_____________________
FLORIDA )
)
City County Polk
of ______________________ )
On __________________,
06/21/2022 St Charles Germilus
before me, _________________________________________ ,
ate Nota Name
the foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me by:
Eduardo Asunsolo Ramirez

________________________________________________________________________.
Name of Affiant
Personally known to me -- OR --
Proved to me on the basis of t e oat of _____________________________ -- OR --

Name of red e tness
Proved to driver_license
e on t e asis of satisfactory evidence: ________________________________
St Charles Germilus
Notary Name:__________________________________
Notary Number:______________________
HH199573
11/16/2025
Title or Type of Document: ____________________________________________________

Declaration of Events
Document Date: ________________________________

06/21/2022
Number of Pages (including notarial certificate): _____________

2
2
Declaration
1. I am Suneel Chakravorty.
2. I am 32 years old.
3. In or around May or June 2021, I spoke with Kristin Keeffe and a trusted intermediary.
4. We discussed our opposing viewpoints on Keith Raniere and our shared interest in the
truth.
5. Ms. Keeffe shared with me, through the trusted intermediary, screenshots of text
messages between her and her former attorney Neil Glazer that she felt would help me to
understand her view of Mr. Raniere and help me in my search for the truth. It was my
understanding then that Ms. Keeffe wished that if anyone had lied on either side of the
criminal or civil case, that the truth should come out.
6. In June 2021, the trusted intermediary sent me those screenshots of texts. They
represented that Ms. Keeffe had asked them to pass the screenshots along.
7. Attachment 1 contains a selection of these screenshots of texts that may have evidentiary
value in the context of Mr. Raniere’s criminal matter. These are true and correct copies of
the screenshots I received from the trusted intermediary.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters
stated upon information and belief. As to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Executed June 21, 2022
Suneel Chakravorty
Signature: ____________________________
** Notarization located on 2nd page **
)
TEXAS
)
City County of _______________________
Wise )
On __________________
06/21/2022 before me, __________________________________________,
Robert Eugene Huff
Date Notary Name
Suneel Kumar Chakravorty


Name of red e tness
driver_license
Notary Name:__________________________________
Robert Eugene Huff
132658408
09/03/2024

Declaration
Document Date: _________________________
2
N/A

Signer’s Name: _______________________
Suneel Kumar Chakravorty Signer’s Name: _______________________
N/A
q Corporate Officer Title: _____________ q Corporate Officer Title: _____________

q Other: ___________________________ q Other: ___________________________
self Signer Is Representing: _________________
N/A
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
2
ATTACHMENT 1
IMG_0109.HEIC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GlMutbcvY1uFwU4glk0nb959fwmdtC...
1 of 1 6/7/2021, 11:43 PM
IMG_0111.HEIC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UmbpAdgOGGOU6nXQAIQak7Yzzgf...
1 of 1 6/7/2021, 11:44 PM
IMG_0112.HEIC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DM8dXGsqqBUE7MUnl5tHe2atvPP1L...
1 of 1 6/7/2021, 11:46 PM
IMG_0113.HEIC https://drive.google.com/file/d/138H9Ijel8WqW_n68kfPQvQguEo0Vgr...
1 of 1 6/7/2021, 11:46 PM
IMG_0114.HEIC https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jQqfwPEma8w-C_C4O1H_GSpOD-6N...
1 of 1 6/7/2021, 11:47 PM
EXHIBIT G
Transcript: A Little Bit Culty Podcast, Season 2, Episode 6
Released: Nov. 22, 2021
Anthony Ames (52:40)

I was at the metadata days. That's what I call them. I was at three days of the trial
where you guys just talked about metadata in there.
Moira Penza (52:48)

I’m sorry!

My head was just trying to sustain and to keep myself up. But I guess you guys
obviously had to do it. That's where I think certain people are trying to find an
inconsistency. To your point, he kept the photos in a library. What are they talking
about?
Sarah (53:03)
Are they grasping at straws?
Moira Penza (53:04)

This is true. Grasping at straws. Absolutely.
Sarah (53:08)
It was actually a shifter strategy, which is a strategy that Keith taught us, that when
you're trying to like, deflect and you point at something over here and make a fuss about
something as a way to like get away from the content. And the content is he took photos
of women's vaginas. Let's just remember that. Right.
Moira Penza (53:25)

It was just so well proven in so many different ways. Right? Think about just the photos.
They were situated among all of these other photographs of women we know he was
having sex with, who we knew, we had testimony that he had gotten that camera at that
specific point in time and that he was on a picture taking binge. Right? We had another
woman whose photos, two women testified at trial that their photos were taken at that
exact timeframe. And that we had their photos in the same collection as the child
pornography. We showed that the victim that her appendix scar, which she received her
appendix surgery, which she had when she was 16, that there was no scar visible in the
1
photos. And so this is the kind of thing that I'm talking about, that now that I've read a lot
about, when you argue with people who have these sorts of mindsets, there is no point.

Right.
Moira Penza (54:27)

It's like talking to people who believe that 911 was an inside job or believe conspiracy
theories about JFK's assassination, you're never going to be able to refute every little
point that they try to make, and no one should really be trying to do so.
2
Transcript: HBO The Vow, Episode 8, Season 1
Aired: October 11, 2020
Mark Vicente (37:09)

Catherine's coming.
Catherine Oxenberg (37:12)

Okay, so now they've expanded the investigation. They've expanded their team of
people who -- the task force is now bigger.
HBO Producer (37:28)

This is exactly the kind of conversation that goes in a parking lot. [Vicente laughs and
says “it is!”] It’s Woodward and Bernstein.
Catherine Oxenberg (37:29)

We are deep-throating it. [Vicente and Oxenberg laugh.] The person that I spoke with
who is one of their star witnesses, she kept stressing that -- it was -- that they kept
questioning her about Allison Mack's involvement. They kept asking her, "Well, do you
think Allison instigated this? Or was this Keith who asked -- you know, was Keith?" That
was very important to them. There was a lot of stress on her. I swear to God, I think
Allison is going to be arrested for sex trafficking.

US v. Keith Raniere Rule 33 (Pro Se) - June 21, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US v. Keith Raniere Rule 33 (Pro Se) - June 21, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-CR.-204 (NGG)

REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

KEITH RANIERE, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Dated: June 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

TO: AUSA Tanya Hajjar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-CR.-204 (NGG)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

Dated: June 21, 2022 Keith Alan Raniere

potential defense witnesses (“ Witness Affidavits”).

experts’ disturbing findings of government malfeasance, which occurred in this Court, to be

government conduct, proven by credible experts, to be a substantial issue, instead choosing to

defer ruling on Mr. Tully’s Rule 33 (Dkt. 1169).

the major government witnesses, including government agents, as well as government

intimidation of potential defense witnesses. This constitutes an indisputable structural error.

activity in this case.

A Expert reports of Dr. Kiper, Mr. Abrams, and Mr. Norris

B Defense Trial Exhibit 945 (Chain of Custody of Camera and CF Card)

C AUSA Kevin Trowel’s Opposition to Motion to Stay

E Affidavit from Frank Parlato, Jr., Critic of Raniere

F Supplemental Affidavits and Attachments from Nicole Clyne, Eduardo Asunsolo,

G Select Excerpts from Post-Trial Podcasts and Docuseries

I. Testimony Pertinent to the FBI Tampering Issue

Transcript 4/4/19 at 13:8-11.

(emphasis added) See Exhibit E, Attachment 2 at Bates 007.

Trial Transcript 6/12/19 at 4820:12-4; 4830:3-11.

Dr. Kiper’s report. See Dkt. 1169 at 14 ¶ 3.

was done outside of normal FBI protocol.

Parlato that he had started working with law enforcement. He wrote:

Camila as being the one in the photos.

were six in Lauren’s folder on the drive.

whether or not there was a scar.2

Daniela’s anniversary with Mr. Raniere (November 2).

II. Government Handling of Potential Defense Witnesses

order to avoid incurring that harm.” See 18 USC § 1589(c)(2).

6/7/19 at 4037:13-23; Exhibit D at Bates 011 ¶ 24; Exhibit D at Bates 038 ¶ 7.

defendants.” See Id. at Bates 051 at ¶ 35.

III. Glazer and the Civil Lawsuit

at 4268:10-11; Trial Transcript at 5/31/19 at 3275:6-20. Catherine Oxenberg introduced Nicole to

33 (Dkt. 853) is adopted here.

(emphasis added) See Exhibit E, Attachment 2 at Bates 005 - 006.

(emphasis added). Relief under Rule 33 is based on whether:

(1) the evidence [was] newly discovered after trial;

movant to obtain evidence;

(3) the evidence is material;

(4) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and

403, 406-407 (2d Cir. 2015).

I. Mr. Raniere is Entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing Based on Newly Discovered

Evidence of Perjury by Four Major Government Witnesses and Subornation of

Perjury by the Government

97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976))

(2d Cir. 1991).

knowledge of the perjury:

(S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 35 F.3d 673 (2d Cir. 1994).

officer," was found to be an "arm of the prosecution" whose knowledge was to be

attributed to the prosecution. United States v. Pina, 752 F.2d at 50.

● "Whether knowledge is to be imputed from a government agent to the prosecution for

Brady purposes is instructive in determining whether knowing perjury by a government

v. Sanchez, 813 F. Supp. at 247.

of communication, perjury by a government agent can only be a knowing, intentional

obligations to instances of perjury." Id.

is a journalist and enjoys a well-established legal privilege of protecting his sources.

the credible scientifically certain proof of the malfeasance.