The reader was referring to Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, 43, accused of threatening to use a nude photo to blackmail a woman with whom he was having an affair.
On Thursday, Greitens was indicted by a grand jury on felony invasion of privacy. He was released on his own recognizance.
The governor says he will not resign – and will, instead, fight the charges. The alleged events occurred before he was governor. Greitens was elected governor November 2016.
That was consensual, she said in the audio, but she became aware that he took a photo when she saw a flash of light through her blindfold.
“You’re never going to mention my name, otherwise this picture will be everywhere,” Greitens told the woman, she claimed on the audio.
Nothing in the recording indicated Greitens followed through on the alleged threat to disseminate the photo. In the audio, the woman says she told Greitens she was angry about the picture and Greitens told her he deleted the photo.
The indictment states Greitens photographed the woman without her consent and “transmitted the image contained in the photograph in a manner that allowed access to that image via a computer.”
Greitens’ attorney, Edward L. Dowd, Jr., said “The charges against my client are baseless and unfounded. My client is absolutely innocent. We will be filing a motion to dismiss.”
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner launched the investigation. She is a Democrat.
Greitens, who is a Republican, denied allegations he blackmailed the woman and called Gardner “a reckless liberal prosecutor who uses her office to score political points.”
“I made a personal mistake before I was Governor,” he said. “I did not commit a crime. With today’s disappointing and misguided political decision, my confidence in our prosecutorial system is shaken, but not broken.”
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
To Collateral;
If you’re not Raniere’s new criminal defense attorney, then you must be part of The Knife team. There’s simply no other explanation for all the conflating and misleading information that you’re posting here.
Let’s get a few facts straight:
(1) The Missouri governor was charged with felony invasion of privacy. That charge has to do with what he threatened to do with the nude photograph, not how he got it. His paramour consented to the nude photo being taken. And that didn’t prevent him from being indicted.
(2) The fact that the DOS slave women willingly gave their collateral to Raniere or to his minions is irrelevant to charges like coercion and blackmail. It’s the threat to misuse the material that is the basis for those charges, not how the material was obtained. Had Raniere or his minions stolen the material that would be a separate criminal act.
(3) If Raniere or his minions secretly recorded the brandings – which they did – that would also involved separate criminal charges.
(4) The fact that Raniere had others do all his dirty work does NOT prevent him from being charged. Were that the case,the heads of crime syndicates would always be immune to prosecution.
The real problem here is that these crimes are violations of New York State statutes. That means that unless Karen Heggen gets off her fat ass, NO ONE is going to be charged with any of them. The feds aren’t going to prosecute these criminal activates. The most they might do is include them as part of a RICO charge.
Thank you, Albany Defense Attorney. Very illuminating.
Apparently I’ve failed to made my case in several posts so this is my last attempt. Regarding DOS, coercion, branding and blackmail, here’s where we differ:
Insiders (like you) KNOW IN YOUR SOUL that KR (not his “minions”) is guilty–he mindfucked victims into “consent” and directed his minions to brand and blackmail.
Outsiders (like me, and potential jurors) can believe all that too…but unfortunately haven’t seen the proof.
Your 4 well written points demonstrate your anger and frustration at KR (and maybe me) but are only suppostions,,,not evidence that would stand up in court…which is what I’ve been saying in every post.
Are there emails or texts showing KR directed (not knew of) the branding and blackmail?
Are there wiretaps (like in mob cases) that prove KR directed these crimes?
I hope so, but unless there are, could a prosecutor prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt?”
It is my guess there could be a better chance of convicting KR on taxes, money laundering, alien trafficking, etc, where HARD evidence is more likely to exist….unless KR kept his hands clean there, too.
Criminal trials are messy and hard…remember that the overwhelming evidence against OJ could not convince even one juror.
“…demonstrate your anger and frustration at KR (and maybe me)”
That’s just strange. The only one who seems frustrated is you.
“…not evidence that would stand up in court”
Unless you’re a lawyer, intimately familiar with the minutia of law and its practice, your take on the situation is less informative than a lawyer’s.
Tough guy Keith hides behind other people and he uses women as a shield…but if there isn’t enough evidence to convict him on blackmail charges, I’m sure there is sufficient evidence to convict him on other crimes. Let’s hope law enforcement is just waiting until they have an airtight case. The evidence has to be there, somewhere.
Yeah that fake fuck VanDouche knows how to isolate himself “legally”, but still be the one totally behind it and one hundred percent ethical retard. Like all totalitarians who make up laws to invoke their will, he does the same in his little douchebaggery kingdom.
It is interesting…but the legal differences seem troubling to me.
Unlike the Gov, who took the naked pix and threatened blackmail….
It was the slave women of DOS who took the pix of themselves, consensually, not Raniere.
It was the slave masters, not Raniere, who implied the collateral pix could be blackmail.
Though there are important similarities (naked photos, coerced women, images accessible via a computer), the state laws violated in MO and NY are different.
Greitens was found in violation of MO state law 565.252, Invasion of Privacy, and charged with a class D felony, maximum sentence 7 years.
New York Penal Law 135.65, Coercion in the First Degree, is also class D felony, maximum sentence 7 years. The Raniere cult will likely be found in violation of this many times over.
More about the NY case: https://frankreport.com/2018/02/20/98453/
More about the MO case:
http://www.kmov.com/story/37570617/governor-greitens-indicted-on-an-invasion-of-privacy-charge
OMG, “Collateral”, are you Raniere’s latest attorney, Paul der Ohannesian, posting under an alias? If you are, you surely know understand the concepts of “coercion” and “conspiracy” – which is what any non-compromised District Attorney would have charged Raniere with as soon as the evidence about the brandings and collateral first came out. Makes me wonder if Karen Heggen herself has been branded.
No, I not anyone’s attorney…just an outsider who hasn’t read anything on this blog that is “evidence” KR has exposed himself to coercion or conspiracy.
Maybe I missed or forgotten it, but all items I’ve read don’t seem to prove KR legally culpable…even knowing about DOS doesn’t make him culpable. To me there’s not enough evidence and too much wishful thinking. Unfortunately, KR may have distanced himself enough from DOS to claim plausible deniability,
I sincerely hope you and/or the DA prove me wrong.
Raniere could be prosecuted under RICO. Requires just two “racketeering” crimes within a 10-year period to establish “criminal enterprise.” Pattern of behavior is what’s important, as opposed to the criminal acts. RICO charges have been brought against all different types of organization. And there’s a civil component after the criminal trial which means that private parties can sue. Raniere would be hard-pressed to prove he was not leader of his enterprise during the time the racketeering activity took place.
From Wikipedia:
“Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise”.[citation needed] Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.[citation needed] In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.”
“When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, they have the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant’s assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.”
“In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney.”
“Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts”
Regarding the 35 RICO offenses:
“Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.”
And who do you think is pulling the strings of the slave masters? Santa Claus? the Easter Bunny?. No “collateral”, it is Kreepy Fucking Keith Raniere.
A good DA, who wanted to make a name for themselves, could make a case for forced consent, coercion etc and it would probably be a precedent.by which other cases could be tried in the future.
However, we get Crickets here in Saratoga and Albany county and this travesty of a human potential organization is allowed to continue to operate.
#coercionisnotconsent
Again…it is the slave masters that coerced….and even tho everyone in NXIVM “knows” KR ordered them, any “good DA” knows only evidence can convince an impartial (aka non-EXpian) jury.
Again, again…hope I’m wrong.
The same thought occurred to me regarding consent. The women who gave collateral apparently consented to being potentially blackmailed by the slave masters. Perhaps if the women who gave collateral can say they were misled, for instance about the branding, and other aspects of what they were getting into, that might make a difference.
It’s not consent. When you have had your frog boiled over so many years with the suggestive hypnotism of intensives, you’re already in a predisposed state to accept the idea that giving pornographic pictures and/or exposing things you might regret about your past or current situation or even downright lying about them, is morally acceptable when it is clearly not. Why would someone who is allegedly trying to help you to become a better person request you to do something that is contradictory to such a notion and would cast shame and embarrassment on you if released? Something you wouldn’t do if you were asked to do it when you hadn’t been in such an environment for years? The notion reeks of irrationality and cognitive dissonance.
They were lied to concerning what the ‘blackmail’ would be used for. They were told it was a woman only empowerment group, when in fact it included a man, KR, at the top and they were required to have sex with him when told to. They were not aware of the branding when they gave their collateral, they were not aware of the starvation diets, the monthly collection of further ‘collateral’, master/slave relationship, sleep deprivation, or demeaning punishments.