General

Raniere’s Expert Wasn’t Fired; He Changed Whistleblower Law for FBI

04/26/2022·

Frank Parlato

There is confusion about what Dr. James Richard Kiper did at the FBI. He is the lead expert cited in Keith Raniere’s Rule 33 motion.

Raniere alleges FBI evidence tampered with Camila’s photos.

Here are some comments and my replies.

Nice Guy

Suneel’s FBI agent was fired from the FBI, which precludes him from being credible.

Frank

Dr. Kiper retired from the FBI after 20 years.

StevenJ

Do you have proof of that? How do you know under what circumstances he left the FBI?

Frank

At the FBI, he exposed waste and fraud. The FBI retaliated. But he didn’t give up. He was the genesis of the FBI whistleblower law.

Anonymous

I can’t find any mention of this online. Can you furnish me with a web link?

Frank

Here is a link to the video of the Senate hearing.

The Washington Post, March 5, 2015: Senate hearing faults FBI system meant to protect whistleblowers

The FBI assigned Kiper to the FBI Academy as chief of investigative training in 2011. He reported problems to the training division’s leadership. He said the division misled the Office of Management and Budget about the training of new agents and analysts.

He made disclosures to the highest-ranking officials at his work site. He hoped these FBI executives would make positive changes.

Kiper said, “I was just trying to do the right thing — as I’ve always done.”

Instead, the FBI demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position and transferred him to another division.

He sued.

Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “Unlike every other federal agency, FBI employees are not protected from retaliation when they report wrongdoing to their direct supervisors.”

He got the attention of Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

“If every other law enforcement and intelligence agency can protect disclosures of waste, fraud, or abuse… why can’t the FBI?” said Grassley. “Whistleblowers should not have to fear retaliation for speaking up… And, they should not have to rely on Congress to see justice done.”

Senator Grassley wrote to FBI Director James Comey. He asked him about FBI policy and their retaliation in Kiper’s case.

The FBI ignored him.

Grassley called a Senate hearing. He told Comey to attend.

Dr. J. Richard Kiper with FBI Director James Comey.

On the eve of the hearing, the FBI finally sent Grassley’s office a response:

The FBI does have policies in place.

The FBI couldn’t comment on Kiper because he was “engaged in litigation.”

Grassley asked Kiper to speak at the hearing.

Comey sent FBI Deputy Director Kevin Perkins.

“I never imagined that my desire to promote excellence would be used against me,” Kiper told the committee.

Fired?

The Senate hearing was on March 4, 2015.

The FBI Whistleblower Protection Act became law in 2016

Kiper’s LinkedIn page says he retired from the FBI in July 2019, four years after the hearing.

The FBI did not fire Kiper.

So…?

Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud.

That did not work out well for the FBI.

He is about to reveal that the prosecution presented tampered

evidence in the Raniere trial.

Until we hear what he says, we shouldn’t dismiss him.

He might take the matter to the US Senate.

The FBI may not have tampered with evidence. But someone monkeyed with those files.

I am not saying Keith Raniere did not take Camila’s photos when she was underage. I am not calling Camila a liar. I am not a fan of Raniere’s.

I won’t ignore potential government corruption because the defendant is an adversary. There are several possibilities. I plan to find out which one is true.

Comments (36)

Add Your Comment

ShadowState195804/26/2022

Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud. That did not work out well for the FBI. He is about to reveal that the prosecution presented tampered evidence in the Raniere trial. Until we hear what he says, we shouldn’t dismiss him. He might take the matter to the US Senate. Frank Parlato Senator Grassley is one of the most fearless members of the US Senate. He has been in the Senate since 1981. If the Republicans do well in the November election Grassley will be the President pro Tempore of the Senate and a powerful member of Congress. Right now Grassley is occupied with the Hunter Biden case and the possibility that the Biden Administration has been running a Pay to Play scheme. But with Grassley's past experience with Kiper I am sure Grassley will find time to listen to any complaints Kiper has about the FBI's handling of the Raniere case.

It’s Nice Guy04/27/2022

“Kiper’s superiors wanted to cover up waste and fraud.” Kiper is buddies with James Comey. How in tarnation do you weave these bullshit narratives….. You are so living in a fantasy land. Do you inhabit Narnia, OZ, Middle Earth, or Walt Disney Land?

Magoo04/26/2022

It's kind of fun to watch Frank acting as though he's about to publish the most explosive & viral story of 2022, which, in his own mind, will probably be picked up by mainstream media and catapult himself to a Pulitzer. lol. Somehow, I seem to doubt that this Rule 33 Motion is anything more than a typical motion, supported by paid experts, who can't definitively PROVE that evidence tampering took place. There are 2 reasons why I doubt Frank's confidence in this Rule 33 motion. Reason #1: Frank Parlato, along with his NXIVM 5 friends, keep saying that the 'credentials' (of Rick Kiper) will be the deciding factor in 'PROVING' (to the court) that evidence tampering took place. In fact, Frank's already got a huge BONER from talking about Rick Kiper's credentials. Based on his tone…. It seems as though Frank literally WORSHIPS the ground this guy walks on, judging by how 'giddy' he sounds when redundantly laying out Kiper's credentials for us (which he's already done in previous articles, and which he's getting ready to do again this week, and probably again next week, lol). Frank feels honored to be in this man's presence and is totally enamored by Rick Kiper, in the same way that Sultan is enamored by Kreuk. Problem is, true scientific 'evidence' or 'facts' — which are submitted AFTER a guilty verdict has taken place — are not reliant upon credentials to prove their truthfulness (only DEBATABLE OPINIONS are dependent on credentials). This Rule 33 motion is not the same thing as presenting evidence to a jury again. In a typical trial, the jury gets to decide, based on gut feelings, which witnesses are telling the truth (where 'credentials' can sway their feelings). However… After a conviction happens, the threshold for getting a new trial is MUCH HIGHER than a typical jury trial. It's not enough to cite 'credentials' as a reason to overturn a verdict. You need to PROVE you're point with more than dueling experts, for the prosecution and defense, interpreting the data in different ways. Now, if the government responds by admitting that everything Kiper says is true, then I'll agree with Frank. But I seriously doubt it's gonna happen like that. To reverse a conviction and proclaim that 'evidence tampering' actually took place (which could possibly lead to indicting FBI agents) there needs to be more than typical courtroom OPINIONS expressed, regardless of the credentials of the person making the statements. Credentials don't establish facts. Data will establish facts. But if that data can be interpreted in different ways, then there's NO FACTS which can be presented, only opinions. In essence, Frank is trying to scream that “My daddy can beat up your daddy”. Frank is trying to claim that Kiper's credentials make his OPINION an infallible 'fact' (which nobody can dispute unless they've also worked for the FBI for 20 years, LOL). Kiper is probably a smart guy, but he's hardly the best cyber-crime expert in the world. Truth is, the FBI's cybercrime unit has lagged WAY BEHIND their civilian-world counterparts for many years, which is why the top cyber experts in the world do not work for the FBI. Let's not forget, people like Carl Mark Force and Shaun Bridges were invited to be part of the government's cyber-crime 'task force' for the biggest cyber-case in government history. Yet, these 2 guys were among the dumbest federal agents on the planet (they actually registered LLC's, using their own real names, to launder their stolen bitcoin from the Silk Road investigation, lol). Just the fact that our governmental task force would INVITE these 2 guys (to join their team) shows that the US government is not really 'ground zero' for the best and brightest cyber-crime people. Even though these 2 guys worked for the DEA and Secret Service, the FBI coordinated that entire investigation, and it was sloppy from start to finish. Reason #2: The 2nd reason why I doubt that Frank is sitting on the most explosive story (of 2022) is because of the Silk Road aftermath. Let's remember… When 2 governmental cyber-crime agents (from the biggest cyber-crime investigation in history) were caught with their hands in the cookie jar — and were fired and sent to prison for years — it wasn't a viral story and nobody really gave a shit, after a few weeks. Nor did these fraudulent agents derail the conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. There was no 'vacatur'. There was no “get out of jail free” card. It was a big NOTHING BURGER even though the scope of the 'misconduct' (by these federal agents) was way beyond what Frank and Suneel are asserting here. I'd like to know if Mr. Claviger can write an article to tell us just how much evidence is needed to toss out a conviction for a Rule 33 motion. In other words, if an expert cites his credentials and then expresses an OPINION (saying that he 'thinks' something 'likely' happened), is that enough to toss out a conviction if the government can present alternative explanations for the same data? Frank, please allow Claviger to challenge your point of view here. Please encourage him to do that. If the truth is really fair, then stop trying to force us to listen to your same DRIVEL about how enamored you are with Rick Kiper. Yeah. We get it, Frank. You love Rick Kiper's credentials and you likely get a boner every time you think about him. We get it. You believe he's the greatest cyber crime expert in human history. You probably hope to build a statue of him on your Florida estate one day. That's fine. Go ahead and do it. But please let Claviger tell us how the LAW actually works. Give us at least ONE real article on this topic — written by Claviger — which presents the OTHER side of the story, for once.

Anonymous04/27/2022

magoo thanks for the detailed explanation,. It gives all of us, without legal training, a deeper perspective on how opinions are viewed post trial.

Anonymous04/27/2022

“the same way that Sultan is enamored by Kreuk.” Mr. Bangcunt Magoo, Sultan’s problem was his extreme loyalty and trust in the word of an actress and a cult member. That’s mondo gullibility and double the chance at deception.

Nice Guy04/28/2022

Bangkok, Anonymous 8:40 ain’t me.

Anonymous04/27/2022

Suneel is in the private sector. Not a behind the times FBI cyber security employee. And they are both in agreement Food for thought

Anonymous04/26/2022

Frank, you should just recluse yourself from NXIVM articles because you’re bias is become so obvious that you must he getting paid to be Keith’s PR campaign now.

Anonymous04/27/2022

Recuse Frank cant be a recluse

Anonymous04/26/2022

“He is about to reveal…” Come on. That's utter bullshit. He is CLAIMING that he is about to reveal…. At best Frank, you keep saying that you are “keeping an open.mind” about FBI tampering and then writing posts and comments as if ALLEGATIONS are facts. In the last 24 hours you commented that “maybe the FBI” tampered. Now it is fact? It's a a really big jump from even proving tampering to then pointing a finger at an entire agency as the culprits. This is really irresponsible reporting.

Anonymous04/26/2022

I'm no fan of Raniere either. However, since the government had control of these files since they were discovered, it is logical to assume that someone in the government changed the data. Whether it is FBI or someone at EDNY, it still means the same thing. The government cheated. This is particularly serious since the main basis of the trial was predicated on these photos! If all this is true, I'm not sure where it leaves us….

Anonymous04/27/2022

Jared Kushner pushed for Trumps BIG 'Unveiling of sex trafficking everywhere' Layed this case at Trumps feet as first proof of Conept, for the newly elected president with a lil help from Roger ( stone) Rabbit, no? At least I read that here….

M. Novak04/26/2022

“Retirement” is a funny word with many different meanings. Nonetheless, I predict that the EDNY will eat him alive during upcoming motion proceedings. “Can we have Kipers for breakfast Mummy dear, Mummy dear?” – with apologies to Supertramp's “Breakfast in America” (1979)

Anonymous04/27/2022

M. Novak- My name is Nice Guy and I approve of your comment.

Anonymous04/27/2022

Re “My name is Nice Guy and I approve of your comment.” Is Nice Guy an established commenter or is it the handle for a contributor that wishes to remain anonymous?

Mr. Swell Fellow04/27/2022

Greetings, Anonymous 5:37, Your question regarding Nice Guy will be answered shortly. We thank you for your show of interest, inquiry, and pleasant tone. Good day, Mr. Swell Fellow

Anonymous04/27/2022

Pardon my ignorance, who is Klaviger? Is Klaviger an established legal firm or is it the handle for a lawyer / contributor that wishes to remain anonymous?

Frank Reader04/27/2022

Who is Claviger ? – I dunno. Occasionally but consistently, there is a contributor here called K.R. Claviger. That's an established fact. He's less anonymous to Frank than you or I tho, im guessing

Ice-nine04/27/2022

Nobody knows. It has been speculated, mostly by Ice-nine, that K.R. Claviger is unlikely to be a he, is probably a she, or possibly a they. I'm not sure Claviger even knows anymore. He/She/They pops in from time to time to offer some interesting legal perspective, has been doing so for years, and is quite good I must say. But their legal qualifications are unknown but only to the most remote corners of the legal industry.

Alanzo04/27/2022

Erasend04/27/2022

The FBI has one core, immutable rule – “Do not embarrass the FBI” An FBI agent can pretty much literally do anything and everything as long as they do not violate that rule. I know your thinking “but then breaking the law is embarrassing.” True but the rule really has the unspoken “(to the public)” aspect. Being an embarrassment internally can be hidden, swept under the rug, promoted away, bought away and very occasionally actually fixed. Whistle blowing though? That is the ultimate sin. That is publicly embarrassing the FBI, violating that rule in all ways it can be. He wasn't fired because to fire him would be seen as firing a whistle blower which would lead to more articles that yep… would “embarrass the FBI.” So their own rule prevented them from doing what they really wanted to do. More than likely he was not demoted, nor was he promoted, but simply assigned to desk duty for the remainder of his career shuffling paperwork. This does not mean he was a bad FBI agent, doesn't mean he was fired. It just means he violated their core rule and was punished for it. This does not mean he isn't qualified to be an expert in his case. If anything the reason he was hired for this case is because he has credibility speaking against the FBI's interests since he is one of the few to do it so publicly. Hiring him for the appeal is a very smart move as he would be credible to any jury and any judge.

Clare threatens defamation suit04/27/2022

TNT will release on May 22 a Rich And Shameless installment called “The Heiress and the Sex Cult” focusing on Bronfman. Clare Bronfman, who hasn’t seen this episode, takes issue with the program’s title. Levin says it “creates the impression that Ms. Bronfman knowingly funded or was in any way associated with a ‘sex cult.'” The episode’s description states Bronfman was a “financier of one of the most abusive cults of the 21st century.” Her lawyer argues that the producers of the series aren’t fully aware of the specific legal findings in Bronfman’s prosecution. He says his client was only involved in Nxivm, which he calls a “well-regarded organization that was and always had been separate and distinct from DOS.” “Not only is the evidence in the court record extraordinarily clear on that point, but the federal judge presiding over Ms. Bronfman’s case made a specific judicial finding on this point,” Levin writes. Bronfman pleaded guilty to charges related to immigration fraud and identity theft. The judge who oversaw the proceedings clarified that Bronfman wasn’t convicted of participating in sex trafficking and that it appeared that Bronfman wasn’t familiar with Raniere’s crimes. “I agree with Ms. Bronfman that the available evidence does not establish that she was aware of DOS prior to June 2017 or that she directly or knowingly funded DOS or other sex trafficking activities,” wrote U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Bronfman’s sentencing memo. The judge held, “I do not find that Ms. Bronfman knowingly funded a sex cult.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/clare-bronfman-legal-threat-to-tnt-over-rich-shameless-documentary-portrayal-1235135899/

Anonymous04/27/2022

Come on, Frank…it can be reasonably assumed that Kiper holds an anti-FBI bias. Yes, he was a whistleblower, but the FBI attempted to ignore/silence/punish him. Kiper SUED THE FBI. And they allowed him to stay on and retire, rather than firing him, because it was the path of least resistance. OF COURSE he's biased against them. If my former employer put me through the ringer (like the FBI did to Kiper) for pointing out waste and fraud, I would ABSOLUTELY hold a grudge. Regardless of his credibility in the realm of technology, he has ZERO credibility as a witness against the FBI.

Frank Parlato04/27/2022

He says he loves the FBI and is saddened by his discovery of tampering.

Anonymous04/27/2022

Ohhh. He “says” that. Okay. The FBI “says” they didn't tamper in the Raniere case.

Anonymous04/27/2022

OMFG…… I love yah, Frank — but seriously.

Aristotle’s Sausage04/27/2022

Nice try. But let’s look at the facts as you yourself cite them: “…the FBI demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position and transferred him to another division.” He was demoted and removed from his position of responsibility. He resented this, to the extent of testifying against his employer the FBI before a Congressional committee. The FBI was forced to reinstate him. I think it’s safe to say his relationship with the Bureau was acrimonious. Strained. Hostile. Here’s a guy with a grudge against the FBI giving his opinion on the “question” of FBI evidence tampering in the Raniere case. I take his opinion for what it’s worth. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Anonymous04/27/2022

He sounds more like a tattle tale than a “whistleblower”. Exposing deadly chemicals are being dumped into the public water supply by the company you work for is “whistleblower”. Saying we spent too much money on the copy machines? Meh.

Isabella De La Cruz05/09/2022

Agree. he was a tattle tale that exaggerated his waste/fraud claims. I'm not dumb enough to believe that the government or FBI does not complete waste/misdeeds on staples to government contracts. It's a given. But whistle blowing is an entirely different thing.

Flavio Loco06/28/2022

Look at his CV…3 years as an agent and quickly made the move into management. Worked on Virtual Case File, one of the biggest flops in FBI history. It did not become Sentinel, no matter what his CV says. Got himself into a spot of trouble by improperly handling personnel matters while assigned to the training division resulting in his demotion and being judge ineffective. But hey, he doesn't have a bone to pick with his former employer, does he.