On October 3, 2018, the government sought an order from the court that it be permitted to distribute to Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman, Clare Bronfman and Kathy Russell, full forensic copies of contents of electronic devices (e.g., computers, external hard drives, smartphones, and thumbdrives) seized from Nancy Salzman’s home — pursuant to search warrant on March 27, 2018.
Nancy’s attorneys objected to this on grounds that some of the seized material does not relate directly to charges that certain defendants are facing and, consequently, it would be a violation of Nancy’s rights, including primarily, I believe, privacy rights.
At the status conference on October 4th, Nancy Salzman’s attorneys informed the Court and the prosecution that they would propose a compromise that would accommodate the interests of both sides by October 8th.
That date came and went. On October 9th, Nancy’s attorneys asked for an extension.
One of her attorneys, Robert Soloway, wrote, “We continue to believe that an accord is possible, but we continue as well to work through the many relevant authorities in what is a complex and fast evolving area of law to achieve a workable outcome that will protect our client’s basic rights, and at the same time, will address the government’s legitimate interests and concerns.”
Soloway sought an extension until Thursday, October 11th, to reach an agreement with the government, or to inform the Court of their inability to reach an agreement. On October 10th, attorneys for Nancy and the government had a phone conference and “exchanged ideas” but did not reach an agreement.
The following day, another of Salzman’s lawyers, David Stern, wrote the court, asking for another extension – until October 19th.
Soloway, describing the phone conference, wrote, “We came away perceiving that there remains work to do to reach consensus, but also with the feeling that an agreement is not out of reach. Since both sides hope to avoid further litigation on this topic, we plan to engage in additional efforts to resolve through negotiation the matters at issue. Thus we ask for a further extension until Friday October 19 to come to an agreement; or, if we cannot, to jointly propose a short briefing schedule on the motion.”
It should be noted that it is required of the government to “fully execute the search warrant” by processing the seized devices to cull from the seized content that which is within the scope of the original search warrant. What this means is that all of Nancy’s personal material is not going to be released haphazardly – but only that which is specified as evidence named in the original search warrant.
That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the material seized from Nancy that is within the scope of the search warrant – but that arguably does not relate to the charges against certain, various other defendants – should be released to those defendants. Arguably, it is irrelevant to their defense and, if released, invades Nancy’s privacy rights and may be prejudicial to her defense.
Whether this is a stall tactic, a plea negotiating tool, or a sincere, relevant issue on the part of the defense is hard to know without knowing what has been seized. Whether it is a sign of Nancy’s bifurcation from the other defendants is also unclear – but certainly possible.
How much additional burden this places on the prosecution is also unclear. It may a very painstaking task to examine all the seized data that conforms with the search warrant to evaluate which applies to which defendants.
It might be a mutual goal to extend this negotiation over what to release of Nancy’s material to whom while plea negotiations may be ongoing with Nancy.
Ostensibly, the prosecution is seeking to deliver all the material that conforms to the search warrant to all defendants – as if they had a joint and common defense. Nancy Salzman – who is the one whose data was seized – is not in agreement with it.
What this means, at this point, is anybody’s guess.
Here is document 163
Here is document 167
***
Other filings include [#162) a brief summary of Magistrate Vera Scanlon’s hearing with attorneys for a timeline of discovery.
A request for James Burke to be excused as Lauren Salzman’s attorney[#160) and the judge’s granting the request (#161)
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
RELEASE THE “COLLATERAL”…….EVERY DIRTY BIT OF IT !
Releasing the collateral is just doing Raniere’s dirty work for him.
The only ones who should see the blackmail (collateral) are the judge, jury, lawyers and defendants.
If you want to see salacious pictures and videos the internet has plenty of web sites where women are truly consenting adults, not women blackmailed by Vanguard Raniere and Pimp Mack.
Too funny the comments below. Love arm chair lawyers and detectives. They all think they are Chloe Sullivan.
Nancy is no longer Prefect she is a defect
Well at least you two have something in common.
As I’ve said in the past, the government needs to start kissing Nancy’s ass, and pronto!
Nancy is like the archangel.
She can swoop down and deliver, on a silver platter, the butts of everybody.
Yeah they have other evidence without Nancy’s testimony and can get convictions without her, but don’t be naive, Nancy is like the Holy Grail of witnesses. She can bring forth God’s wrath like nobody else.
If Nancy says ‘jump’, Moira Penza only needs to inquire as to how high.
Moira Penza is in no position to question the mighty Nancy Salzman.
Moira is expendable. Nancy is not. The government could replace Penza in a heartbeat. But Nancy cannot be replaced as the best possible witness in this case.
Firstly, Moira needs to give Nancy immunity. Secondly, immunity for her lovely youngin Lauren. Thirdly, immunity for Michelle and Ben. They need to all walk away, free.
Then, Nancy will sing an opera and bring the wrath of God upon Keith, Clare and NXIVM.
But if Moira fucks this deal up due to ego, she deserves to lose this case and watch her career go splat on CNN.
*I realize this article isn’t about Nancy’s plea deal per se.
But the government needs to stop dicking around and just give Nancy whatever the fuck she wants.
You’re right.
In organized crime cases the government has even given sweet deals to Stone Cold Killers like Sammy the Bull Gravano just to nail John Gotti.
Nancy Salzman holds the Keys to the Kingdom.
It’s not pleasant but it must be done.
And Lauren has signaled by her body language that she can be flipped.
Perhaps Nancy made some statements that are uncharitable or insulting to her co-defendants and she does not want them to see those statements.
Here is the key point:
“Ostensibly, the prosecution is seeking to deliver all material that conforms to the search warrant to all defendants – as if they had a joint and common defense.”
A previous story filed today argues that indeed the other defendants are creating a Common Defense Agreement:
(b) A letter from William F. McGovern and Sean S. Buckley – Allison Mack’s attorneys – which outlines various motions that the defendants plan to file next month. The wording of this letter suggests that the defendants may have all entered into some sort of “Common Defense Agreement”.
https://frankreport.com/2018/10/13/new-court-filings-reveal-clare-will-be-in-clifton-park-next-week/
In reality the defendants do have a joint and common defense.
Allison Mack and her attorneys have said from the get-go that in their view it is a case of consenting adults entering into personal relationships.
The prosecution is not dealing with six separate defendants.
The prosecution is facing a unified defense.
For the prosecution it’s like trying to run over the front defensive line of the Green Bay Packers, not six separate defensive linemen and linebackers.
A big unified green wall