As we continue our evaluation of Keith Raniere’s 2255 motion to vacate his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, we turn to another failure he alleges his counsel made:
Counsel Was Constitutionally Ineffective For Failing To Challenge The Illegal Search And Seizure Of Evidence
Raniere says his defense team should have challenged the illegal search and seizure of Raniere’s library at 8 Hale.
8 Hale
RAniere, who at the time he filed his motion, represented himself, pro se, writes, “the government illegally obtained, manipulated, and staged evidence in this case…” and his defense “counsel entirely failed to raise” an objection.
Illegal Search and Seizure of the 8 Hale Drive Property
Raniere maintains his Fourth Amendment rights were “egregiously violated” during the FBI search of 8 Hale Dr. in Halfmoon, NY on March 27, 2018.
“The actions taken during this search not only defy the principles of lawful investigation but also undermine the integrity of our justice system,” Raniere wrote.
Because Raniere’s counsel failed to “challenge these egregious actions by the government in the search and seizure,” Raniere writes his “§ 2255 motion is due to be granted.”
If he is right, Raniere scampers out of prison.
Just reverse the message to understand what Raniere expects from his motion…
Raniere explains what the FBI did:
The FBI’s photos of the evidence, which the US Attorney used as trial evidence, “demonstrate,” according to Raniere, “that FBI agents engaged in illegal conduct by staging evidence, falsifying search photos, and planting evidence.”
Keith Raniere at 8 Hale Drive, from where the hard drive with the Camila photos was seized.
Exclusionary Rule
He points to the “exclusionary rule,” which is that evidence obtained through illegal means should be inadmissible in court. But, Raniere points out, it only works “if counsel had raised such a challenge.”
The Supreme Court established that the exclusionary rule is meant to deter future unlawful police conduct.
Ranire argues: “This principle is … a cornerstone of our legal system’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. Any defense lawyer who ignores this cornerstone provides ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Raniere writes that in criminal trials, “the Court has consistently found the exclusionary rule to be efficacious in deterring improper police conduct and protecting Fourth Amendment rights, as evidenced by landmark cases such as Elkins v. United States (1960), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), and Weeks v. United States (1914). “
In this case, the allegedly illegally obtained evidence includes a Canon camera, memory card, and Western Digital hard drive.
Canon Camera
EOS 20D
A photo of a Lexar camera card similar to the one seized at the executive library of Keith Raniere.
Western Digital hard drive
“These items were at the heart of the prosecution’s case, purportedly substantiating Racketeering Acts 2-4. However, given the tainted manner in which this evidence was procured, it, and all evidence seized, must be excluded, ” Raniere argues.
In our next post, we will explain Raniere’s evidence that the FBI staged the evidence, and how the FBI photos taken during the raid prove it.
He says. “According to a report by a former FBI expert who evaluated the evidence in this case, it was obvious that evidence in the search had been illegally staged, planted, manipulated, and the search was ‘not legitimate.'”
