Incredible [false] testimony of Raniere in Microsoft case shows how stupidly he lies

 

Read the entire transcript of Keith RaniereKeith Raniere Microsoft transcript

In the United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Keith Raniere sued Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.  US District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn presided over the case.

On March 1, 2016,  Keith Raniere testified under oath.

Judge Barbara Lynn

Mr., Raniere was represented by Robert Crockett of Santa Clarita, California.

Microsoft was represented by Doug Lewis of Dallas Texas. AT&T was represented by Chris Kennery of Palo Alto California.

Mr. Raniere claimed he invented teleconferencing and owned five patents that proved that AT&T and Microsoft had stolen his invention.

The patents were in the name of a Global Technologies Inc. [Global]. That corporation was dissolved in 1996.

Mr. Raniere submitted to the court a December 26, 2014 [Day after Christmas, 2014] Unanimous Consent document that Mr. Raniere signed on behalf of Global where he claimed he owned 100 percent of Global and assigned Global’s patents to himself.

Microsoft and AT&T made a motion to dismiss Mr. Raniere’s lawsuit because records provided by Global’s attorney, Paul Rubens, showed Mr. Raniere did now own Global but that Toni Natalie [75 percent], Steve Danzig [12.5 percent] and Thomas Delaney [25 percent] owned Global.

Since Global owned the patents and Raniere did not own Global, it was argued that he had no legal authority to assign the patents from Global to himself.

Here are excerpts from the transcript.

MR. LEWIS: representing Microsoft: This case should be dismissed because there
is no evidence that [Raniere] owns the patents…  the person on the [Global] books is deemed to be the owner. That’s not Mr. Raniere; it’s three other people…. Raniere doesn’t own the patents….

THE COURT [Judge Lynn]: …  I’ll hear from you, Mr. Crockett….

THE COURT:  A transfer of shares in the company to him has to be in writing.

Robert Crockett, Keith Raniere’s attorney.

MR. CROCKETT: …. [Toni Natalie] told him [orally] she transferred him the
shares [of Global] [February 4, 1995]….

THE COURT: And then 20 years later, Mr. Raniere transfers the — assigns the patent rights to himself.

MR. CROCKETT: That’s correct.

THE COURT: …  there wasn’t a writing? Or are you saying the writing can’t be located?…

MR. CROCKETT: …  Mr. Raniere … recalls that there was a written transfer between Natalie and himself, but he doesn’t have possession of the document…

*************************************

Keith Raniere is called by Mr. Crockett as a witness.

THE COURT: … Raise your right hand. State your full name.

THE WITNESS: Keith Alan Raniere.

THE COURT: Do you understand you’re under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

.

Keith Raniere claims to have invented teleconferencing.

(By Mr. Crockett) The first document I’d like you to take a look at is the document that starts at Raniere Exam 4, if you look at the bottom.

A Okay. Yes.

Q And you’ll note that the document is dated February 4th, 1995?

A Yes.

Q And you — do you know who Mr. Delaney and Mr. Danzig and Toni Natalie are?
A Yes…..  Steve Danzig was a business adviser of mine. He became president of one of my corporations because of his experience, and he handled most of the business matters.

….

Q Delaney?

A Yes. Thomas Delaney was head of my computer department in that same corporation, and he was someone who I also brought on the team to help develop this idea.

….

Q And Natalie?

A Toni Natalie was my then girlfriend/partner, also involved in one of the other businesses for a skin care…  something called Awaken Skin Care, which was part of a group of companies called Consumers’ Buyline.

….

Q Well, can you explain to me why you’re not — you don’t appear as a shareholder on [Global] shareholder agreement?

A Well, because of the controversy, the media exposure at the time, the attorneys I had felt it would not be wise to have my name associated with a new idea that was
being — attempted to being rolled out. So it was my idea.

….

Q And can you just briefly — very briefly summarize what this new idea was?…

A It was a method of teleconferencing. At the time you had — when you signed on to someone else’s computer, you had the modems and they would talk to each other, but you couldn’t get on the line or do anything. You were very limited. So we decided to come up with a way that people could teleconference and be at the computer at the same time and do a number of functions that way.

….

Q And could you tell the Court very briefly your educational background.

A I have degrees in mathematics, physics and biology.

….

Q From what institution?

A Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

….

Q And Mr. Raniere, did you have some sort of arrangement or agreement with Ms. Natalie about the role that she would play in — in holding shares of Global
Technologies, Inc.?

A Yes. She held them in trust for me.

….

Q What does that mean?

A That at any time they were mine. …  I believe there are actually two agreements
that represent that.

….

Q And did Ms. Natalie ever transfer her shares to you?

A Yes

….

COURT: Just a second. … what agreements are you saying that evidence that she
was holding the shares in trust for you?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, there — when we originally signed the documents, I was to be protected. I believe —

….

THE COURT: Just answer my question. What documents were you referring to when you said that she held the shares in trust for you?

THE WITNESS: I believe —

….

THE COURT: What documents?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, Your Honor. None of the documents that are here represents that.

 

….

THE COURT: Okay. Well, where are these other documents that you think represent —

THE WITNESS: I think one might be held by Mr. Danzig, or it might have been destroyed in a flood with Mr. Delaney…..  The other document has to do with a
bankruptcy that Toni Natalie declared years later as to what her property was and what interest she had in the property. And there was a settlement in that where she
directly stated all interests of any corporations — and there were several — were all mine.

….

THE COURT: Okay. And is that document before the Court?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, Your Honor. No.

….

THE COURT: Well, are you saying that there is a document from the bankruptcy court that says that  Ms. Natalie was holding the shares in trust for Mr. Raniere?

THE WITNESS: That’s not what I meant to say. I’m sorry.

….

THE COURT: Well, let me try again. Listen to my question. What documents do you claim evidence that Ms. Natalie was holding shares in trust for you?

THE WITNESS: …. [T]here was an additional side agreement signed that stated she held the documents in trust. I’m not sure where that is. The second is the bankruptcy that Toni Natalie declared, I think it was in 2000. There was a settlement where she agreed that she transferred any interest in any corporations that she ever had with respect to me, to me, which would include that….

….

Q …  this document is entitled Unanimous Consent Resolution of Shareholders of Global Technologies, Inc. dated December 26, 2014. Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q And do you know who prepared this document?
A It’s my understanding, my attorneys with Steve Danzig’s attorneys and Steve Danzig created this.

Q And the document, at the time — it says, “Whereas at all times prior to dissolution, upon dissolution, or at all times subsequent to dissolution, I was the sole shareholder
of all of the stock in the company.” Do you see that?
A Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Say yes or no, please.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q (By Mr. Crockett) At the time this document was executed, were you the sole shareholder of Global  Technologies, Inc.?
A Yes. I was the sole shareholder as far as at that point in time, but previous to that, I thought I was the sole shareholder relating to this document, but I was not.

Q And can you explain to me why thought on December 26th that you were — that you had been the sole shareholder and you were not?
A Because this document was prepared by — in part by Steve Danzig and his attorney. He handled all of the corporate going-ons. And it was — I assumed that the stocks had not been officially transferred. That had never actually come to fruition. And because he prepared this document and he directed all of the work with respect to the corporation and how that was handled, I made the assumption that this was true.

….

Q Well, how did you obtain the shares of Danzig and Delaney?

A Well, when Tom Delaney left working with us, he was a bit disappointed. And what he said essentially was that not only did he not want to be involved in any efforts, he
didn’t want anything to do with it, and all — …. He transferred all interest to all property, to all stock, and didn’t even want any liability of what might come about in the corporation. He divested himself.

Q And what about Mr. Danzig?
A Mr. Danzig, the same thing, but Mr. Danzig and I maintained a friendship over the years…..

Q Can you explain how Ms. Natalie transferred her shares to you?
A First of all, we signed this document. There was a moment when I first signed the one document where she — I believe — it was my recollection that she made a joke
that, “Ha-ha, now I have it all,” and now there was the next document that was signed — was signed where she transferred it back. And, indeed, I had control and
ownership of those shares [of Global] throughout the process. And in the end, when we separated, she clearly wanted nothing to do with it and transferred everything to me.

THE COURT: Hold on. I don’t understand what you just said. Are you saying that she actually signed a written document transferring her shares to you?
THE WITNESS: I believe so, Your Honor. I don’t have that document.

THE COURT: Well, that’s abundantly clear. What I’m trying to find out is what you’re saying. Because you just now said then she transferred everything to you. So your position is that she transferred the shares to you by a written document. And where and when and how did she do that?
THE WITNESS: With respect to this particular company [Global], I believe that was done first when we signed these documents and then when the venture ended. She verbally
did that.

THE COURT: Let’s talk about the written document.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So are all of these documents signed in Mr. Rubens’ office?
THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Where are they signed?
THE WITNESS: The ones that I signed were signed in our corporate offices [Consumers Buyline].

THE COURT: And who prepared the documents?
THE WITNESS: I think Steve Danzig’s attorneys.

THE COURT: And who was that?
THE WITNESS: Steve Danzig was the person who was my business manager.

THE COURT: Who was Mr. Danzig’s attorney?
THE WITNESS: Well, Rubens was one of them, and I don’t know the others.

THE COURT: Okay. So you didn’t have anything to do with the preparation of these documents?
THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Well, who was advising you about the content of these documents?
THE WITNESS: Steve Danzig and the attorneys that I had.

THE COURT: And the attorney for what?
THE WINTESS: That I had at the time.

THE COURT: Who was your attorney?
THE WITNESS: Patton Boggs from Washington.

THE COURT: Okay. And your testimony is that there was a side deal that for some reason is not with the other papers where there was a transfer from Ms. Natalie to
you?THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What you’ve called, “a side deal?”
THE WITNESS: Yes. Steve Danzig was instructed to protect me against all contingencies. So it had to be that the transfer of stock was something that I had control of.

….

THE COURT: Okay. Well, why do the documents discuss something that can happen in the future if it’s already happened?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know, Your Honor.

….

THE COURT: Well, did you read these documents before?
THE WITNESS: I read them to a degree. But I did trust Steve Danzig. There are a lot of things I don’t understand.

THE COURT: Okay. So are you claiming that there are other missing documents that were signed at the same time or the only one that’s missing is the one that
would establish that you owned the stock?
THE WITNESS: I’m honestly not sure. But…  there is a missing — at least one missing document that would show that.

THE COURT: ….  I’m just trying to make sure that I understand. Your position is
that the only missing document is the document that would establish that you owned stock yourself?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don’t know if that’s the only document, but that document is missing.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead,
Counsel.

Q (By Mr. Crockett) Mr. Raniere, is there a particular person on the face of the Earth today that would likely have custody of corporate documents?
A Steve Danzig.

Q And where does he reside?
A In Washington State.

Q Have there been efforts to obtain his cooperation in this case?
A There have been some.

Q And what did they result in?
A He’s very fearful, doesn’t want to spend a lot of time, has a lot of family obligations, a lot of things like that. He’s — he has a very large family. He’s a family man.
….
THE COURT: Wait. What does that have to do with anything?
THE WITNESS: He was asking what the — my understanding is what happened and —

THE COURT: Okay. He has a big family, and he’s a family man, and therefore, what?
THE WITNESS: He doesn’t want to spend a lot of time with this. So —

THE COURT: How long would it take him, do you think, to give us the document that allegedly resolves the issue now before us?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I honestly don’t know. But he expresses a lot of fear, even sometimes anger, at having to go through the documents. But he’s also vigilant at saying I have standing.
….

Q (By Mr. Crockett) But is it correct to say that your lawyers made effort to obtain his cooperation and it just didn’t happen?
A That’s correct.

….

Q You executed … three documents …  on December 26th, 2014.

A Yes.

….

Q And those documents all bear your signature, correct?
A Yes.

Q And at the time you executed these documents, were you the sole shareholder of GTI?
A Yes.

Q And … after you executed these documents, were you the sole director of GTI?
A Yes.

Q And were you the principal, primary inventor of the patents described in the assignment?
A Yes.

Q Has Delaney, Danzig or Natalie ever stepped forward and say, “I have a share of GTI”? In the — in the lead-up to the lawsuit in December of 2014, did they ever step
forward and say, “I have an interest in GTI”?
A No.

Q Have they in the past few years ever asserted an interest in the patent?
A No.
MR. CROCKETT: Thank you, Your Honor. I have no
further questions.

THE COURT: All right. I have a few additional questions. I just want to make sure I understand your position. …  tell me everything you claim about how Ms. Natalie transferred her shares to you.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I believe Ms. Natalie signed, first of all, an agreement that gave me the right to have the shares whenever I requested.

THE COURT: Okay. And by that, are you referring to the agreement between shareholders?
THE WITNESS: No. I’m referring to the agreement, unfortunately that’s not in evidence, that I haven’t been able to produce.

THE COURT: Okay. So that’s a document that represents that she holds the shares in trust for you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And who prepared that?
THE WITNESS: I think Danzig’s attorney.

THE COURT: Why would Danzig’s attorney have prepared that?
THE WITNESS: Because Steve Danzig was instructed to protect me and protect my interest.

….

THE COURT: Okay. And the reason that you weren’t actually a shareholder on the document entitled Agreement Between Shareholders was what?

THE WITNESS: Because I was controversial in the media at that point, and my attorneys at Patton Boggs said that I shouldn’t have my name associated with any of my new
ideas, because it would cause problems. And I believed that, because —

….

THE COURT: Okay. And by that you mean that the Agreement Between Shareholders, if it showed that …  would you reveal to the public that you were involved in the —
THE WITNESS: No. If I were the president or I was represented like that, and I don’t know all the reasons why, but Steve Danzig and at that time my attorneys put
this together so that I would not be directly a shareholder and that they would be held in trust.

THE COURT: Okay. So your position is — …. Ms. Natalie was …  holding her shares in trust for you, and that [missing document] was prepared when and where and by whom?
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. All I know is that it as Steve Danzig, who presented these documents to me.

THE COURT: All of them?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So they came from the same place, presumably were prepared by the same person, but that document that you claim shows that she held the shares
in trust for you is — you don’t know where that it?
THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. When did Mr. Danzig actually transfer his shares to you?…
THE WITNESS: Sometime before 2000, because I started to go and fund extensions of the patent, which I did so over the next ten years.

THE COURT: Well, how did he transfer his shares to you?
THE WITNESS: He told me he had no more interest and that it was all mine and that I should go forward with it if I wanted.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you claim that there’s a missing document reflecting the transfer from Danzig to you?
THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: … there isn’t any agreement; what you claim was he said just go forth, I don’t want anything to do with it anymore?
THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. And what about Mr. Delaney? Was there an agreement?
THE WITNESS: There was no document for Mr. Delaney.

THE COURT: What did he say?
THE WITNESS: He was fed up with the efforts. He didn’t want to put any more time in. He didn’t want any liability or profit.

THE COURT: Okay. So there wasn’t a written document with Mr. Delaney either?
THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Have you made any effort to get from Mr. Danzig the document that you believe he has regarding a transfer [of Global’s stock to Raniere]?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Okay. And what did he say?
THE WITNESS: He said, “I don’t” — they had a flood in Washington. He walked in and his best friend had died. It was a very long litany of problems that he is facing, and he did not want to go through his storage facility or anything like that.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.

*************************************
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEWIS:
Q …. your Unanimous Consent Resolution {Dec. 26, 2014] …. Who wrote that document?
A I Steve Danzig’s attorney and my attorney and Steve Danzig. They collaborated.

Q And Mr. Danzig’s attorney is Mr. Rubens, right?
A No, it’s not Mr. Rubens anymore, and I don’t know that attorney’s name.

Q Is it somebody at Mr. Rubens’ firm?
A I don’t believe so.

Q And does that attorney — you don’t remember that attorney’s name?
A No, I don’t know if I’ve even ever heard that attorney’s name.

Q When did you first contact Mr. Danzig?
A I honestly don’t know. It would be in 2’14.

Q It would what?
A Well, I — I’ve been his friend for 20 years. But with respect to this issue, he and his attorney prepared these documents in 2’14, I believe, was it — yes.

….

Q Did you contact Mr. Delaney about the ownership of the patents-in-suit?

A I think Steve Danzig did. I did not.

….

Q Do you know Mr. Danzig did?
A I don’t know for sure.

Q Did you ever make any attempt to talk to Mr. Delaney?
A Yes, but not recently.

Q With regard to the ownership of the patents-in-suit at issue in this case, did you make any attempt to contact Mr. Delaney?
A No, I saw no need.

Q And when did you first learn that your ownership of the patents-in-suit was in dispute in this case?
A Do you mean that your side had raised an issue or that I needed to sign these sort of documents so that it pedigreed what existed?

Q When you had first learned that we had raised the issue.
A I think it was in — I’m not sure — August, September maybe.

Q Of 2015?
A I think so, yeah.

….
Q … It’s your testimony that you signed a document with Ms. Natalie wherein she held the shares of GTI in trust for you….?
A Yes. I’m not sure I know exactly what “in trust” means as much as I had to have control over them. They were my shares, but she held them and operated with them on my direction ultimately.

Q And there was a document you signed with Ms. Natalie to that effect?
A I believe so…..

Q And which of those documents can you testify right now were missing ….
A Well, I believe the one document, which is the side agreement with Toni Natalie…

Q So you signed a bunch of documents relating to GTI.
A Yes.

Q And your testimony is that there’s a document missing —
A Yes.

Q — this agreement with Ms. Natalie… Do you believe there are any other documents missing… ?
A I don’t know. I suspect not, but I don’t know.

Q So that’s the only one you know about, correct?
A Correct.

Q Now, you mentioned Ms. Natalie’s bankruptcy earlier, did you not?
A Yes.

Q And that was one of the reasons you gave that supposedly she acknowledged her lack of ownership in GTI…?
A Lack of ownership of all corporations.

Q So do you recall signing a declaration in the Natalie bankruptcy?
A I believe I did.

MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, may I approach with a document?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q (By Mr. Lewis) So, Mr. Raniere, I’ve handed you what is A184 from Exhibit 2 to our motion to dismiss.
A Uh-huh.

Q Is that your signature towards the bottom on the right?
A Yes, it is.

Q And this document A184 is a document that you submitted to the bankruptcy court in Ms. Natalie’s bankruptcy, right?
A I believe so, yes.

Q And when you signed — this is an affidavit, is it not?
A I believe so, yes, it’s an affidavit.

Q And you understand when you sign an affidavit, what you say in the affidavit needs to be true, right?
A Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

Q All right. And in here, you said that Ms. Natalie — quote, “I believe that debtor has knowingly and intentionally misstated and admitted a multitude of items on the petition and that this will result in the loss of well over a hundred thousand dollars to the creditors.”
A Yes.

Q Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q And you swore to that, did you not?
A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was true then, right?
A I believe so, yes.

Q And it’s still true, isn’t it?
A I believe so, yes.
….

THE COURT: …. Is that your handwriting in the upper right corner, Mr. Raniere?
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Yes, that is mine.

THE COURT: And those are your lawyers, Gordon Siegle Law Firm?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

….

THE COURT: Who prepared that affidavit?

THE WITNESS: I believe they did.

….

THE COURT: All right. What is the entity “CBI” under your name?
THE WITNESS: Consumers Buyline, Incorporated.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q (By Mr. Lewis) So, Mr. Raniere… [Shows Raniere an exhibit] Now, this is the agreement wherein you purport to transfer the patents-in-suit from Global Tech to yourself; is that right?
A Yes.

Q And do you see it says, quote, “Global Technologies, Inc., for good and valuable consideration, herein assigns”… Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q What was the good and valuable consideration, Mr. Raniere?
A I don’t know off the top of my head. I had provided a lot of money in creating these patents and provided a lot of money to Global Technologies.

Q At the time of the agreement … did you provide anything to GTI in consideration for assigning the patents-in-suit to you?
A I’m not exactly sure.

Q You don’t recall?
A I don’t recall.

Q This was December of 2014. It was just over a year ago. You don’t recall?
A Well, my attorneys handled this sort of thing. So I didn’t take anything directly out of my pocket at the moment of signing this, but I don’t know what was transferred between them.

Q Now, you mentioned a minute ago that you provided other services for —
A You’re talking about Global, the dissolved corporation?

Q Yes. Did you provide something at the time of the 12-26– 2014 agreement?
A I don’t know.

Q You don’t know?
A I don’t know.

Q And you’ve never paid personally any money at all to the patent — the prosecuting patent attorneys, have you?
A I don’t believe so. I think it’s through one of my corporations, but I’m not positive.

Q Okay. So, therefore, you did not invest more than $75,000 in continuing the patent, correct?
A No. Because I honestly don’t know how the monies are handled. But I have royalties and things are subtracted from my royalties.

Q So what you’re saying is, you didn’t keep track of what you owned personally and what the corporation owns?
A You — I don’t understand how that relates. I’m missing something. I’m sorry.

Q Do you separate out your monies from the corporations, who owns monies?
A Yeah. If I’m paid monies or owed monies, there are people who keep track of what happens with those monies.

Q Did you personally pay for the prosecution of the patents-in-suit?
A If I — I’m sorry to ask you this. If I have monies that are owed to me and the cost of prosecuting the patent are subtracted off, am I paying personally?

Q Mr. Raniere, did you write a check to the attorneys who prosecuted the patents-in-suit?
A No.

Q Did you pay the attorneys that prosecuted the patents-in-suit with cash?
A No.

Q Did you provide any bank transfers or any other means of providing money to the attorneys who prosecuted the patents-in-suit?
A I don’t know that.

Q You don’t know one way or the other?
A Right.

Q So, Mr. Raniere, what is your proof ….  that you invested more than $75,000 into
continuing the patent?
A Because I’ve been continuing the patent, and I asked my patent attorney how much money I invested, and he said it was at least that much.

Q Even though those investments are from corporations that are not the same as you?
A I guess. I took his word for it.

Q So you signed a declaration based on — did you investigate the facts underneath your declaration?
A Yes. I mean, it’s my belief that those monies are subtracted out of monies that I would get.

Q Let me have you take a look at the documents…
A Yes.

Q Do you see where it says, “Toni Natalie has advised the other shareholders that she may wish to sell or otherwise assign or transfer her interests in the foregoing
corporations to Keith Raniere at some time in the future.” Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q And “some time in the future,” you would agree, would mean sometime after this agreement was signed?
A Yes.

Q Those are the ordinary meaning of those words?
A Yes.

Q And the ordinary meaning of those words also wouldn’t assign the corporations to you at that exact moment, correct?
A Correct….

Q Did she do that before 2000?
A I don’t know exactly what date the bankruptcy settlement was reached. But before that, she had said that she had no interest in any of the corporations relating to
this and transferred all of the interest.

….

Q And was there a writing when she did that?

A I believe there was a writing that’s a document, a side document here. But at that particular moment when we were separating our interests, no…. she had several other corporations with me, and she made a blanket statement that gave all of the interest. So what I’m saying is, if there was some doubt, it was transferred there, too.

….

Q It was before the bankruptcy, you’re saying?
A Yes.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Just a minute. Are you saying that document is missing, too, the bankruptcy settlement?
THE WITNESS: I’m not sure if it’s missing. We have looked for it. We went to the court. We went to the law firm. They do not have it. But I think there are potentially a few other places we can go. But as of right now, yes, it is missing.

Q (By Mr. Lewis) So, Mr. Raniere, it’s your testimony that you’ve owned Ms. Natalie’s shares of Global since when?
A Maybe 1997.

Q And you’ve owned — allegedly owned Mr. Danzig’s shares since when?
A Right around that point.

Q And Mr. Delaney?
A Right around that point also.

Q …  did you ever have any board meetings at any time when you were an owner of Global?
A I didn’t own it in a normal way, no. I think they had board meetings.

Q Did you attend them?
A Not directly.

Q You were there or you were not —
A I was not there. I heard about them.

Q Okay. And —
THE COURT: Is that what you mean when you say “not directly,” that were you — are you saying you were there in some metaphysical way, or what are you saying?
THE WITNESS: Steve Danzig was supposed to represent my interests, as well as Toni Natalie.

….

Q (By Mr. Lewis) …. Did he sign something where he said he would represent your interests?

A He may have, because he was president of Consumers Buyline and he was in charge of all of my business dealings. But, no, not with respect to this group of documents.

….

Q So there’s no document on that either that says he agreed to represent your interests?
A Probably not.

Q Okay. So we’re missing another document. Why don’t you turn to page — Raniere Exam 010 in your packet….. Now, this is …  an agreement between Natalie, Delaney and Danzig, correct?
A … And spouses…..  And myself…

Q You’re not listed as a shareholder of this agreement?
A But I approved it.

Q I didn’t ask that.
A I’m sorry.

Q Are you listed as shareholder in this agreement?
A No. …

Q It … lists shareholders/employees separately from you. Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q And do you agree with me that would show that you are not a shareholder?
A Correct.

Q If you could take a look at Raniere Exam 024… There’s a list there of shareholders in Global Tech…. correct?
A Yes.

Q And you’re not listed as a shareholder… are you?
A Correct.

Q And you’re aware this document came from Mr. Rubens, right?
A Yes.

Q Okay. And Mr. Rubens was the attorney for Global right?
A …  I don’t know if he was the only attorney for Global. But he apparently formed the corporate documents.

Q He was one of Global’s attorneys, even if there were others, correct?
A Yes.

Q Do you think Mr. Rubens would have any reason to withhold documents when he produced them under the subpoena in this case?
A I have no — I never met him.

Q But you have no reason to believe he would?
A Correct.

Q Do you ever receive a stock certificate from Global?
A No….

Q And do you understand when you signed [Dec. 26, 2014 assignment of Global patents where Raniere claimed he was the sole owner of Global], you were agreeing under oath that the information provided was accurate?
A Yes.

….

Q Now, there’s no mention in here of any document from Mr. Natalie relating to the shares of Global; is that correct?

A I don’t know. I haven’t read this in a long time.

….

Q You read it in December, did you not?
A Yes….

Q Okay. And at that time, were you aware of the agreement that you now are testifying about with Ms. Natalie regarding her agreeing to give you control of her shares?
A Yes.

Q Okay. But —
A I was aware of my memory of it.

Q And you did not provide that memory in these interrogatory responses, did you —
A I was advised not to.

Q You were advised by counsel not to?
A Yes.

Q But you agree that the information is not in this document…?
A I haven’t read it. I can read it now, if you like.

MR. LEWIS: Please feel free.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And are you saying you didn’t look at those before they were sent to opposing counsel?
THE WITNESS: I’m just not absolutely sure of their content.

THE COURT: Listen to my question. Are you saying that you did not look at them before they were sent to opposing counsel?
THE WITNESS: No, I did look at them. I did look at them.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead.

Q (By Mr. Lewis) Take a quick look and tell me if you put any information in there about Ms. Natalie’s alleged agreement with you.
A If you say it’s not in here, I’ll believe you.

Q And you were advised by counsel not to include that; is that your testimony?
A Correct. I was advised not to include a lot.

Q You were advised not to include a lot?
A Yes.

Q And what were you advised not to include?
A Things that I wasn’t sure of, things that — I don’t even understand sometimes why.

Q Well, if you could give me specifics. What is it that you did not include in your interrogatory responses?
A Well, that agreement.

Q What else?
A I don’t know off the top of my head. I did not agree with counsel’s approach….

THE COURT: Which counsel are you referring to?
THE WITNESS: There were two other counsels. There were —

THE COURT: I’m aware of that. Which counsel are you referring to?
THE WITNESS: The — I don’t know the name of the first person that was before Barry — Mr. Bennett (sic), the one before him, the very first one.

THE COURT: The one before, Barry Barnett, was your lawyer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

Q (By Mr. Lewis) Okay. Besides the alleged agreement with Ms. Natalie, what else did you not include in your interrogatory responses?
A I don’t know.

Q So there’s nothing else?
A I don’t know. I would have to read them and contemplate what went on.

MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, if I may approach with another exhibit?
THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I’ve just handed the witness Exhibit 4 to our motion, which are Plaintiff’s response to AT&T’s interrogatories….. Mr. Raniere, if you would turn to A95.
A Yes.

Q That’s your signature at the top?
A It is….

Q And the response to AT&T’s interrogatories also do not include this supposed agreement with Ms. Natalie; is that right?
A I haven’t read it, but yes, likely not.

….

Q And, again, that was because counsel told you not to include that information?

A Yes.

….

Q What other information was not included in response to AT&T’s interrogatories?
A I don’t know — the same answers with respect to Microsoft….

Q Could you identify which lawyer or lawyers advised you not to include information in your interrogatory responses relating to Ms. Natalie and this supposed agreement?
A It might have been Mr. Barnett. I mean, if that’s his signature there, then this was at the time when he was my attorney.

Q It is your testimony that’s Mr. Barnett’s signature?
A I don’t know, but his name is on the top at lead counsel.

Q Well, there’s three more lawyers below as well.
A I’m sorry. What?

Q There’s three more lawyers below as well.
THE COURT: Let’s move on. I think he said he
doesn’t know.

Q (By Mr. Lewis) … So, Mr. Raniere, so I’ve asked you a bunch of questions and the Court has asked you a bunch of questions and you’ve had at various points some memory lapses. Is it typical for you to have these kind of memory lapses?
A I don’t see them as memory lapses. But do I not know things? Yes. Do I not remember things? Yes.

Q You had — you put in a declaration some years ago talking about your acceptance into the Mega Society.
A Yes.

Q What is the Mega Society?
A It’s a society for like-minded individuals that have been identified as high IQ individuals potentially.

Q And so you testified in your other declaration that the IQ was above 176.
A Correct.

Q And so your allegation is that you have such a high IQ?
A As tested, yes. I don’t believe in the term as used.

Q Does IQ correlate with memory?
A No.

Q I guess not.

MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I have no questions.
THE COURT: Okay.

*************************************

CROSS EXAM BY MR. KENNERLY:

Q Sir, you testified to the effect that your lawyers had made a conscious decision to essentially protect you by keeping your name out of the corporate documents by not
naming you a shareholder; is that correct?
A Yes.

Q And so did you approve that decision?
A Yes.

Q Okay. And so you would agree that at no time were you listed in any of the corporate documents as a shareholder of GTI?
A I believe that’s true.

Q Okay. And the decision to not make you a shareholder was a conscious decision by your lawyers, which you approved, in order to protect you?
A To protect my ownership of the product, yes.

Q What do you mean by protect your ownership of the product?
A I owned the invention. I created the foundational idea of the whole thing. At no point when I made negotiations with Tom Delaney or Steve Danzig or Toni Natalie was that not understood. It was understood. And, in fact, everything was done to protect that.

Q And how would excluding you as shareholder; that is, not listing you in any corporate documents as a shareholder, protect your ownership of the invention?
A If there are liabilities that came about, it would protect it, like being bankruptcy remote to some degree.

Q Well, as a result of that effort, in any event, you don’t dispute and you would agree that you are not listed as a shareholder in any of the GTI corporate documents?
A As far as I know, yes.

Q Okay. Do you recall the Unanimous Consent Resolution that’s been talked about today?
A I’ve seen it….

….

Q And did you read this document before you signed it?

A Yes.

….

Q And was this document true?
A I believed at the time.

Q Okay. Do you see the fourth “whereas” clause?
A Yes.

Q It states, “Whereas at all times prior to dissolution, upon dissolution, and at all times subsequent to dissolution, I was the sole shareholder of all stock in company.”
Do you see that?
A Yes.

Q Was that true?
A No.

Q That was false, right?
A Correct.

Q And you signed this document, nonetheless, knowing that that was a false statement?
A No. I believed it was true at the time.

Q Okay. You have testified that you are aware of a conscious decision, however, prior to this document, not to name you as a shareholder of GTI in any of the corporate
documents, correct?
A Uh-huh.

….

Q So you knew at the time you signed this document in December of 2014 that that was a false statement?

A The “whereas” statement?

….

Q Yes.
A No, I did not.

Q You knew you were not a shareholder of Global in the corporate documents, right?
A Can I explain? I trust Steve Danzig with all of the business handlings. I had believed that shares were delivered and things along those lines. I’d never witnessed it. When he and his lawyer and our lawyers produced this document, I assumed that the technicality of the actual delivery of those shares had never happened because Global never received monies. It was almost informal.

Q Part of this statement that you attested to says, “At all times prior to dissolution, upon dissolution, and at all times subsequent to dissolution, I was the sole
shareholder of all stock in the company.”
A Yes.

Q Right? And you knew that at least as of the date when the corporate documents were prepared, that did not list you as a shareholder —
A Correct.

Q — that you were not a shareholder, correct?
A Correct.

Q Okay. So the statement that at all times prior to dissolution you were the sole shareholder of all stock in Global —
A I assumed the shares were never distributed, so yeah.

THE COURT: You assumed what?
THE WITNESS: The shares were never distributed.

Q (By Mr. Kennerly) What do you mean by that?
A It’s my understanding with corporations that if you decide initially that someone is going to have a certain percentage of the shares, that you distribute them with
some sort of certificates that — within the meetings or the contemplations of the company, there are certain mechanizations that make it official. I didn’t know what made it official or not. Because this was prepared by Steve Danzig, my assumption is there was something that never made the entities really official.

Q Well, what you knew was that none of the documents listed you as a shareholder at all, correct?
A I didn’t know that at the time. I didn’t have the Rubens documents at this point.

Q Well, you testified that you were aware and recall a conscious decision by you and your attorneys not to list you as a shareholder.
A Yes. That’s correct.

Q So as of that time, you knew you were not a shareholder, correct?
A Yes. But I was never sure if the company was constituted appropriately or that the shares were delivered appropriately. I don’t understand corporate law.

THE COURT: Okay. I want to ask a question. I’m confused about what you’re saying now. The — you testified a little while ago that the transfers from the three named shareholders happened in 1997. That was your testimony.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, the company was administratively dissolved on May 20th, 1996.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I didn’t know that at the time.

THE COURT: Well, it says that in this document that we’re talking about.
THE WITNESS: I understand.

THE COURT: And the one that you signed, that is before me. So let’s assume that that part of this is true. So you’re not even claiming that you were a stock owner in 1996, are you?
THE WITNESS: I did not know if the corporation was formed completely. It was an idea. A group of us went out to market it, and I didn’t know if all of the P’s and Q’s of the corporate filing and all of that stuff had been done.

THE COURT: Okay. In December of 2014, is that when you actually signed this?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: That’s the day of this?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

THE COURT: And it recites that the company was administratively dissolved on May 20th, 1996.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: You knew that the company was dissolved before 1997, didn’t you?
THE WITNESS: Not until this document, but once this document —

THE COURT: Well, when you saw this document —
THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Who prepared this?
THE WITNESS: My patent attorney, Steve Danzig’s attorney, and Steve Danzig, I believe.

THE COURT: Okay. Who? A name.
THE WINTESS: Arlen Olsen of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, and that’s the only person whose name I know. I don’t know the other attorney.

….

THE COURT: Okay. But on the face of this, if you’re just reading it, it says the company was dissolved in 1996.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

….

THE COURT: This was about 15 months ago that you signed this.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And you knew that these transfers that you’re claiming happened, happened in 1997, didn’t you?
THE WITNESS: Well, I knew that they divested all of their interest.

THE COURT: In 1997?
THE WITNESS: Yes, at the time I signed this document. I didn’t try to remember when that was, but yes.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead.

Q (By Mr. Kennerly) Sir, you’ve alleged a large number of transfers from Ms. Natalie of her 75 percent interest, from Mr. Danzig of his 12-and-a-half percent interest, and
from Mr. Delaney of his 12-and-a-half percent interest, correct?
A Yes.

Q And would you agree with me that if you had been at all times the sole shareholder, that none of those transfers would have been necessary or would have had any
effect?
A Yeah, I guess.

Q Okay. So one of those things doesn’t add up. Either the transfers were unnecessary because you somehow had a hundred percent ownership, or as you alleged recently,
those transfers did have affect, i.e., you were not the sole shareholder of GTI at all times prior, correct?
A Uh-huh.

Q So again?
A Can I tell you when I signed this, because it was prepared by Steve Danzig and his attorney and my attorney, that I assumed that was true.

Q Okay.
A But during these times when we had these discussions, when Tom Delaney divested himself and Toni Natalie did these transfers, I did assume this was true.

Q Based on the facts as you knew them, this statement in the CRSS was untrue?
A Going into this, I would have said I remember it differently. But this was prepared by the person who took care of the whole affairs of the corporation.

Q And you didn’t question that; you just signed it?
A Yes.

Q And that is one of the key documents that you’re relying on in this instance to try to demonstrate that you have standing in this case?
A If I needed additional documents, I would have done differently. I mean, I — this is my invention.

Q That wasn’t my question, though. This [Dec. 26, 2014 agreement] which you, I believe, acknowledge was untrue —
A Yes.

Q — is one of the key documents that you’re relying on now to try to prove standing in this case?
A I believe so. The clause is not true. It was — I believed it was true at the time I signed it.

Q And it’s untrue?
A Yes. That clause is untrue.

Q Right. And that document that you’re relying on is untrue and false?
A I think the document that’s relying on is partially true. I think the document represents a circumstance. It’s not the circumstance.

Q Well, that statement, which is a key statement in there about your ownership, that’s false?
A Yeah. I did not own all of the stock at all prior — at all times prior to dissolution. That is true. That is correct. And in that document, that is not correct.

Q Now, you signed a sworn declaration in 2003. Do you recall that?
A In —

Q That’s been mentioned today.
A In what context?

Q I’m sorry. In the context of another case. You signed a sworn declaration to various things.
A I believe that’s true.

Q And do you recall in that declaration stating that you gave shares to some of your key employees?
A Yes.

Q Okay. And those key employees were Natalie?
A No. Tom Delaney and Steve Danzig.

Q Okay. Delaney and Danzig.
A Yeah.

Q So you acknowledged in that declaration that Delaney and Danzig had shares?
A Yes.

Q And, again, that contradicts the {Dec. 26 2014 assigment]  in which you say —
A I did not know if the shares — I’m sorry.

Q I’m sorry. I’ll try to let you finish you and you let me finish.
A Okay.

Q Your declaration contradicts, again, the [Dec, 26 2014 assignment] in which you stated that you had at all times been the sole shareholder?
A Yes.

Q And would you agree with me, Mr. Raniere, that sitting here today, you are unable to produce any written document evidencing a transfer of interest from Ms. Natalie to yourself?
A I believe that’s true.

Q And sitting here today, you’re unable to produce any written document evidencing a transfer from Mr. Danzig to yourself?
A Yes.

Q And sitting here today, you’re unable to produce any written document evidencing a transfer from Mr. Delaney to yourself?
A Okay. I don’t believe —

THE COURT: Okay. He asked you a question. Just answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

Q (By Mr. Kennerly) And between Natalie, Danzig and Delaney, together they had a hundred percent of the shares, correct?
A Yes.

Q And in essence, there is no writing that you can provide that demonstrates a transfer of even one percent of the share interests of GTI to yourself?
A I believe that’s true.

Q I think you testified to the fact that Danzig was a good and trusted friend of yours; is that fair?
A Yes.

Q And was it your testimony that he was unwilling to attempt to help you demonstrate your alleged standing without a subpoena?
A No.

Q Okay.
A I believe he tried, and he used his attorney and created the document.

Q Well, he was unable to —
THE COURT: No, I don’t — ask your question again. I don’t think you’re answering the question he asked you. Go ahead. Ask it again, please.

Q (By Mr. Kennerly) Sir, the question was: Did Danzig refuse or was he unwilling to assist you in your effort to demonstrate standing without a subpoena?
A I — I don’t think that’s true.

Q Okay. Did you ask him to do his best to try to find any writing that would evidence a transfer of at least his 12-and-a-half percent ownership to you?
A I don’t believe that writing exists, but yes, I asked him to do his best to help me with this.

Q Okay. And he was unable to find anything?
A Yes, with his searching.

….

Q Okay. So between you and your friend Danzig, who allegedly transferred his ownership to you, neither of you can produce any writing evidencing such a transfer?

A Yes.

….

Q Okay. And is the same true with respect to Mr. Delaney? Did you ask him?
A I did not ask Mr. Delaney.

Q Why not?
A I’m not on speaking terms with Mr. Delaney.

….

Q Well, you agree this is an important matter that we’re here about today.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, let’s move along. I think we’re plowing old ground here.
MR. KENNERLY: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.

*************************************

Redirect.
MR. CROCKETT: Briefly.
THE COURT: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CROCKETT:
Q Mr. Raniere, has anything changed since your December 26th [assignment] to lead you to conclude that you didn’t hold one hundred percent of the shares at all times?…
A Yes.

Q What?
A I saw Mr. Rubens’ documents.

Q And has that caused you to want to renew or amend your interrogatory responses?
A Yes.

Q And, in fact, is it true that your interrogatory responses say that you’re in the process of attempting to locate and obtain copies of documents relating to GTI’s
governance?
A Yes.

Q So now that you have the benefit of Rubens’ documents, is it correct, then, that you understand that documents were —

THE COURT: Excuse me. Leading.
MR. CROCKETT: I’ll withdraw, Your Honor.

Q (By Mr. Crockett) What is it about the Rubens’
documents that cause you to rethink your statement that you
held 100 percent of the shares?
A There were documents there that I had never seen before, including shares that were handed out to people, share documents.

Q Did you see documents that you had signed that caused you to change your — refresh your recollection?
A Refresh my memory, yes.

Q As to the $75,000, was the money that was spent yours to deal with?
A Yes.

Q It was just held by other corporations?
A Yes.

Q You’ve stated many times that you were not a shareholder of the corporation. Do you recall that?
A Correct.

Q Did you understand that you had some interest in the company?
A Yes.

Q What was your understanding?
A That anything that came of it or was done with it was under my control. It was handling my property.

Q And did Toni Natalie hold these — hold her shares for you?
A Yes.

….

Q So is it your testimony that there’s a document that documents the transfer of 75 percent of the shares to you, but you can’t locate it, correct?

A I believe that is true.

….

Q And as to the remaining 25 percent, there’s not a document that reflects the transfer from Delaney and Danzig to you, correct?
A Correct.

MR. CROCKETT: I have no further questions, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: What is it about the documents from Mr. Rubens that caused you to change your recollection?
THE WITNESS: Some of them I hadn’t seen before.

THE COURT: What? What? What did you see there that caused you to have this eureka moment that you had said something in your Unanimous Consent that wasn’t true?
What was it?
THE WITNESS: I saw the shares. I saw the share certificates.

THE COURT: Well, the document that caused the shares to be allocated was the Agreement Among Shareholders that you signed.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if I signed that document. Let me see. Which exhibit is it? Because I believe I had never seen those before…..

THE COURT: Okay. You can look at Raniere Exam 19….
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So you signed that document.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So what were you talking about a minute ago when you say you saw what Mr. Rubens had and that caused you to have a different recollection? Are
you saying you didn’t remember that you had approved the shareholders’ agreement?
THE WITNESS: I didn’t remember that specifically. But what was striking to me were the actual share certificates, because I had assumed that that had never actually transpired.

THE COURT: Okay. But the document that you signed says —
THE WITNESS: That I did not remember —

….

THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me finish, please. In Paragraph 14, the agreement talks about what is going to be the endorsement on the stock certificates —

WITNESS: Uh-huh.

….

THE COURT: — upon execution of the agreement.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: What I’m trying to figure out is, what were the documents that were produced by Mr. Rubens that caused you to have this sudden and unanticipated
recollection that your Unanimous Consent [Dec, 26 2014 assignment] was not accurate or truthful?
THE WITNESS: I saw that this — it was formal, that — the stock certificates are what got me. But yes, there’s this, too. I hadn’t remembered the specifics of this document. I had signed a bunch of things related to Global, but I hadn’t known what they were.

THE COURT: Okay. So when you are referring to the stock certificates —
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — do you mean what is in the back of this production set —
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me finish my question.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you — do you now think that these documents were actually issued?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: … Is there a signature on these stock certificates?
THE WITNESS: Toni Natalie, the last one, I think. I’d have to look, but it’s visible on the very last page, but on the right side of it.

….

THE COURT: Okay. So when you said that Ms. Natalie held the stock in trust for you in some document that doesn’t exist or can’t be located, did you mean something other than she had stock certificates and she was holding them for you?

THE WITNESS: I had a right to have them at any time.

….

THE COURT: Okay. Just listen to my question. You seem to be testifying that you had — when you saw these stock certificates —
THE WITNESS: Yes….

THE COURT: — that you had an epiphany, because until then you didn’t know that these stock certificates were issued.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And what I’m trying to find out is, what did you think was going to happen as a result of the agreement between the shareholders, other than that stock
certificates would be issued to the shareholders?
THE WITNESS: I didn’t remember the agreement to the shareholders at the time either. I didn’t remember a lot of this.

THE COURT: Well, what happened exactly in December of 2014 that caused you to sign these Unanimous Consents? What happened? Here — the sequence, as I understand it, is that in 1996, the company is administratively dissolved, and at the end of 2014, all of a sudden, you’re affirming that you’re the sole shareholder, Global is transferring
interest to you, and all of that is happening in December of 2014, prompted by what?
THE WITNESS: The statute of limitations of 20 years on the patent. I was told if we were going to do anything about this, it had to be done soon.

THE COURT: Okay. Who — who is telling you anything about that?
THE WITNESS: Arlen Olsen, my patent attorney.

THE COURT: Okay. And what did you — how long had Mr. Olsen been involved as your lawyer?
THE WITNESS: 15 years.

THE COURT: Okay. So that doesn’t take us back to the 1995 —
THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, did — did you provide information to your attorney that evidenced the statements made in the Unanimous Consents as accurate? Are you telling me that this lawyer just drafted these documents saying you were the sole stockholder just because you said you were?
THE WITNESS: No. Because Steve Danzig’s attorney — Steve Danzig believed that I should have standing, and Steve Danzig and his attorney worked with my attorney to draft this. That was supposedly accurate and what was needed.

*************************************

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Any other questions for the witness?
Any other questions?

MR. CROCKETT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You can ask questions responsive to my questions if you wish.

*************************************

CONTINUED REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CROCKETT:
Q Did you see the Agreement Between Shareholders where Ms. Natalie agreed to transfer your shares —
A Uh-huh….

Q And you see Subparagraph B where it says in all caps “Toni Natalie has advised”?
A Yes.

Q If you look at that, would you agree with that recital, it provides that it will, quote, not be necessary to obtain the consent in the future as provided in the Stock Purchase Agreements, unquote, with respect to a future transfer of Mr. — to Mr. Raniere?
A Yes, I believe so.

Q And your signature appears on this document, correct?
A Yes.

….

Q Is this one of the Rubens documents that helped you understand what the original arrangement and relationships between the parties were?…

A It reaffirmed that I had control of my property. I hadn’t remembered the specifics of it.

….

Q Did you — were you — had you recalled or were you aware of the existence of this … at the time that you signed that Unanimous Consent Resolution where you said you had always had 100 percent of the shares?
A No.

Q And do you understand what a beneficial owner of shares is?
A I don’t know if I understand in a legal sense…..

Q (By Mr. Crockett) What interest at all did Toni Natalie ever have in the shares of Global?
A She was my voting proxy, if you will. She needed to vote as I would say and protect my property….

MR. CROCKETT: No further questions, Your Honor….
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. You may be seated. Thank you very much.\

Based largely on Keith Raniere’s testimony, the judge sanctioned him with a $1.2 million penalty. He might have been criminally charged for perjury and was lucky he was not.

Read the entire transcript of Keith Raniere: Keith Raniere Microsoft transcript

12 thoughts on “Incredible [false] testimony of Raniere in Microsoft case shows how stupidly he lies

  1. Wow Vanstupid used Crockett on this case? He been on a lot of losses for NXIVM cases.

    The Saratoga in Decline Blogger wrote a lot about Crockett

    He kind of won the real estate case in California but it cost 2 million more than the Bronfmans won in settlement and they lost in the appeal so it wasn’t really a win in the end.

    Crockett was Kristen Keeffee Lawyer in the Ross case which NXIVM loss after an eleven year battle

    Crockett was the main lawyer in the Dones case where Dones represent herself against NXIVM 7 lawyers. Dones beat Crockett’s 750 dollar an hour butt in 9 month battle that ended in a 2 day trial.

    Crockett was NXIVM attorney for the Bronfmans against Barbara Bouchey in a California case dealing with Bouchey being their financial advisor & after she left NXIVM their losses from Raniere ended up going public. The case ended when Bouchey filed for bankruptcy in the state of New York which stopped the California case.

    Crockett doesn’t have a good track record of winning court cases when it come to the evil cult. He sure seems to like taking their money.

    If anyone knows of any other cases please post them

  2. Bubba’s busy but gotta a whole lot to says about this lying sack of horse poop. Come on man, if his nose grew each time he was lying on the stand, it’s be from Texas to Canada.

  3. Great timing on this post. As it turns out, Raniere’s attorney will be appearing in the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC tomorrow morning to try and get the decision in this case overturned. After that fails, the next stop will be the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless, of course, Raniere decides to start over and start a new lawsuit in Mexico.

    • Of course he would. It’s on the record that he’s effectively a lying sack of shit in a court of law. That contradicts the notion that he’s the “most ethical man in the world” to anyone with a half a brain.

      Appealing this to overrule what is effectively a permanent ruling by the judge to a higher court rarely, if ever, happens, because almost always the judge gives ample opportunity for the plaintiff to prove their case like the judge did here. You’re effectively asking a higher level judge to overrule a lower level judge based on the claims of someone like VanDouche, whose past history with the law is sketchy as fuck, where that judge isn’t under the influence of NXIVM brainwashing, and is probably more intelligent than any member of NXIVM and VanDouche himself.

  4. Some excerpts of the ruling by Judge Lynn…

    “I find Mr. Raniere’s testimony to be wholly incredible, and I further find that his testimony is untruthful.

    His untruthful testimony demonstrates a pattern of obfuscation that has been present since the inception of the litigation.

    Every time a defect is identified in Mr. Raniere’s standing, he responds with a promise that he can produce evidence that would resolve that defect, but those promises never bear out.

    He has repeatedly returned to the Court with excuses that his memory has been refreshed and he now remembers additional evidence that would establish his standing. The notion that the Rubens documents provided the basis for some epiphany that would cause him to recollection what he now claims to have occurred that is undocumented is not credible….”

    “In its role as fact-finder, the Court assessed his testimony and found it not believable.”

    “Mr. Raniere’s testimony was evasive and incredible, that the documents do not exist.”

    “The Court dismisses the claims with prejudice because Mr. Raniere’s conduct demonstrates in the Court’s view a clear history of delay and contumacious conduct.”

    “Mr. Raniere responded to Court’s invitation to prove his standing, an issue on which he bears the burden, with documents that contain false representations, including the Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Sole Shareholder of GTI and with references to documents that the Court finds do not exist.

    The testimony of Mr. Raniere on all of the issues that related to standing and allegedly having standing are, in the Court’s view, not credible.”

    • Hey Chris,
      How are things in NXIVM Village? Any action happening around the center now that the great & powerful Vanturd has left the country? You don’t have to report back. Let Frank know. We want to know.

  5. A few observations: for someone who claims to have total recall he says “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember” a lot. Also, it’s very gratifying to see that circular logic is not going to count as a response in the courtroom.

Leave a Reply