Won’t be shared with plaintiffs or defendants for now
Chief Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak has ordered that a subpoena be served on Suneel Chakravorty demanding he produce “any photographs and communications concerning the images of Camila… or photographs of DOS members in his possession to the Court for in camera inspection.”
In-camera means the judge will see the evidence, not the parties – at least for now.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Neil Glazer
On October 29, 2021, the plaintiff’s attorney Neil Glazer, in the civil suit, Sarah Edmondson, et al, against Keith Raniere, et al, filed a motion seeking a subpoena on Chakravorty, alleging he has nude photos of Camila and others who joined NXIVM and has shared some of the images, which he claims are collateral.
On October 30, Chakravorty sent a notarized letter to Judge Komitee in response to Glazer’s motion.
Chakravorty wrote that he did “possess redacted nude photo [where the breasts and genitals are blurred] of a 27-year-old Camila, taken in 2017,” but stated that the unredacted version “were not collateral.”
He stated the photo is to be used as evidence in defendant Raniere’s criminal trial but “not to be otherwise disseminated” and that he would provide the redacted photo to the Court, ex parte or under seal if requested.
Magistrate Judge Cheryl-Pollak
In addition to ordering him to produce the photograph, Judge Pollak ordered Chakravorty “to submit a sworn affidavit setting forth that he does not possess any additional photographs beyond the photograph he admits to possessing… and providing the names of individuals who provided [to him] or were in turn sent copies of the photographs, including the photograph that he currently admits to possessing.”
It was a partial victory for plaintiffs’ attorney Neil Glazer who had contended that, without the subpoena, there is a “high risk that [the photographs] . . . may be transferred to others or destroyed” and “the proposed discovery may provide a basis for injunctive relief regarding the storage, safeguarding and ultimate disposition of this highly sensitive material.”
Glazer wanted all images of Camila and “any other woman” who was ever a member of DOS in Chakravorty’s “possession, custody or control,” which the judge approved, plus the following, which the judge denied:
“a bit-for-bit copy of any computer or storage device within Mr. Chakravorty’s possession, custody, or control that contains or ever contained these images;
identification of cloud storage services for the same;
identify the location and media storage device.
Glazer also wanted this material turned over to him, not the defendants, which the judge denied.
Glazer made clear in his request for a subpoena that the photographs at issue are not photographs of Camila taken when she was a child, but “when she was an adult” for use as collateral.
Camila by MK10ART.
The judge ruled, “Whether or not the photograph is ‘collateral’ is a fact issue to be decided by the jury, but the Court concludes that Mr. Chakravorty has at least some of the information sought by plaintiffs.”
The photo was obtained as part of Raniere’s legal efforts, Chakravorty said. He told the court that the FBI falsified data, a matter not relevant to the civil matter.
Chakravorty previously explained to Frank Report that the adult photo of Camila is important because the child porn pictures of Cami were dated in part by the fact that she did not have a scar. Her sister, Daniela, testified at the trial of Raniere, that Cami had an appendectomy when she was 16-17 and hence a photo of Camila without a scar meant she was under 17.
Artist sketch of a woman who looks not unlike Daniela
Daniela was not asked to identify the Cami photos used as evidence of child porn at the trial. Instead, an FBI special agent who did not know Camila identified the photos and testified there was no scar in the photos.
The adult redacted photo of Camila at issue here shows her abdomen and hips are clearly visible and there is no visible appendectomy scar. [see editor’s note below]
Clare Bronfman
While there are numerous defendants in this case, only defendant Clare Bronfman filed a response to Glazer’s request for a subpoena.
Bronfman argued that “the materials [Glazer for the plaintiffs] seek have been in existence and known to [p]laintiffs for years—without broad dissemination or destruction.”
***
Editor’s Note
I know the adult Camila photo does not have a visible appendectomy scar because I have personally seen it. I DO NOT possess this photo. I only saw the redacted photo. This is known to Glazer, since I told him. I do not know if the photo was altered to remove the scar.]
Additional notes
On January 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed this action against Keith Raniere and others (“defendants”)
On February 25, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against the defendants.
The plaintiffs in this case are:
Sarah Edmondson,
Toni Natalie
, Jane Doe 8
Jane Doe 9,
Mark Vicente,
Jessica Joan Salazar,
Nicole,
Daniela,
Camila,
India Oxenberg,
Bonnie Piesse,
Tabitha Chapman,
Ashley McLean,
Anthony Ames,
Maja Miljkovic,
Charlotte,
Allison Rood,
Lindsay MacInnis,
Owen Giroux,
Elham Menhaji,
Ariella Menashy,
Warne Livesey,
Katie Shaw,
Tanya Hubbard,
Soukiana Mehdaoui,
Nils MacQuarrie,
Philip Akka,
Yan Huang,
Veronica Jaspeado,
Susan Pratt,
Sarah Wall,
Chad Williams,
Rod Christiansen,
Anthony Madani,
Ken Kozak,
Shayna Holmes,
Isabella Constantino,
Margot Leviton,
Susan Wysocki,
Jennifer Kobelt,
Caryssa Cottrell,
Andrea Hammond,
Jeffrey Goldman,
Adrian,
Valerie,
Rosalyn Cua,
Madeline Carrier,
Deanne Brunelle,
Kristin,
Sara Lim,
Stephanie Fair-Layman,
Scott Star,
Brieanna Fiander,
Alejandro Balassa,
Kayla Grosse,
Michelle Neal,
Gabrielle Gendron,
Ashley Harvey,
Palema Cooley,
Susan Patricia Vieta,
Polly Green,
Karla Diaz Cano,
Rachel,
Paloma Pena,
Christopher Black,
Robert Gray,
Rees Alan Haynes,
Adrienne Stiles,
Hannah Vanderheyden,
Juliana Vicente.
The defendants are:
Keith Raniere,
Nancy Salzman,
Clare Bronfman,
Sara Bronfman,
Lauren Salzman,
Allison Mack,
Kathy Russell,
Karen Unterreiner,
Dr. Brandon Porter,
Dr. Danielle Roberts,
Nicki Clyne,
NXIVM Corporation,
Executive Success Programs, Inc,
Ethical Science Foundation,
First Principles.
.
Plaintiffs are asserting:.
sex trafficking
human trafficking,
forced labor,
peonage,
malicious abuse of legal process,
conspiracy,
“unauthorized human research,”
battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligence,
negligence per se,
gross negligence,
failure to report rape or other sexual assaults,
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
