He led a number of there lovely people into Executive Success

Motions to Dismiss by NXIVM Defendants – 10 separate filings –

I haven’t reviewed all the filings in detail yet but I did come across a very interesting statement: i.e., if Judge Garaufis does not dismiss all of the charges against all the defendants, the (remaining) defendants plan to file motions for suppression and motions for severance. What that means is that they’ll be proposing that some/all of the government’s evidence be suppressed (i.e., it can not be introduced at trial) — and they’ll be looking for several individual trials rather than one all-inclusive trial.
Given the time of year – and the likelihood that most of the pending motions will be denied (I think the court will likely order the prosecution to turn over any Brady material – and may order it to file a Bill of Particulars on some of the charges – but that’s about it) – the chances of this trial starting in March are very slim. And they’ll get even slimmer if/when the prosecution files another superseding indictment.
In all, the attorneys for the current six defendants – Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, and hapless Kathy Russell – recently filed the following documents:
From the summary letter of Shapiro, we further summarize the initial pretrial motions:
RE: Count One: RICO Conspiracy /All Defendants
Dismiss Count One
   – For failure to allege a “pattern” of racketeering
   – As impermissibly duplicitous
   – As being unconstitutionally vague.
   – For failure to allege a sufficient enterprise or a horizontally-related pattern of racketeering activity.
Dismiss the predicate acts for failure to specify the underlying offenses or allege essential elements:
– Racketeering Act 1-A: Identity Theft Conspiracy / Raniere and Russell
– Racketeering Act 1-B: Identification Document Conspiracy / Raniere and Russell
– Racketeering Act 2-A: Identity Theft Conspiracy / Raniere, Bronfman, Russell,
and Nancy Salzman
– Racketeering Act 2-B: Identity Theft / Raniere and Russell
– Racketeering Act 2-C: Identity Theft / Raniere and Bronfman
– Racketeering Act 4: Identity Theft Conspiracy / Raniere
– Racketeering Act 5-A: Encouraging and Inducing Illegal Entry / Bronfman
– Racketeering Act 5-B: Money Laundering / Bronfman
– Racketeering Act 6-A: Labor Trafficking / Raniere and Lauren Salzman
– Racketeering Act 6-B: Document Servitude / Raniere and Lauren Salzman
   – Racketeering Act 8.
– Racketeering Act 10: Identity Theft Conspiracy / Raniere and Bronfman
Dismiss the following predicate acts on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally vague, fail to state an offense, are not alleged with adequate particularity, and/or are multiplicitous:
   – Racketeering Act 7: State Law Extortion / Raniere, Mack, and Lauren Salzman
– Racketeering Act 9-A: Forced Labor / Lauren Salzman
– Racketeering Act 9-B: State Law Extortion / Lauren Salzman
RE: Count Two: Forced Labor Conspiracy / Raniere, Mack, and Lauren Salzman
Dismiss Count Two
   – For failure to allege the offense with adequate particularity.
– For failure to state an offense.
RE: Count Four: Sex Trafficking Conspiracy/Raniere and Mack
RE: Count Five: Sex Trafficking / Raniere and Mack
RE: Count Six: Attempted Sex Trafficking / Raniere and Mack
Dismiss for:
   – Failure to allege the offenses with adequate particularity.
– Failure to state an offense.
– For being unconstitutionally vague.
– Because the allegations are duplicitous and fail to set forth a factual violation of the sex trafficking statute.
RE: Count Seven: Identity Theft Conspiracy / Raniere and Bronfman
Dismiss Count Seven
   – For failure to allege essential elements.
– For lack of venue.
RE: Other Motions
   – Move for a bill of particulars.
   – Move for prompt disclosure of Brady materials.
   – Move to obtain the trial testimony of foreign witnesses.
***
If the Court denies their motions to dismiss,  Defendants anticipate filing motions for severance and suppression.
Stay tuned for further analysis regarding some of the motions…

About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is the founder of the FrankReport, publisher and editor-in-chief of Artvoice, The Niagara Falls Reporter, Front Page and the South Buffalo News.

15 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Prosecutors turn over Brady material as a matter of course.
    Brady was decided in 1963
    Failure to turn over Brady material would be like flunking Criminal Law 101

    The Judge is merely telling the DOJ to do what the DOJ was planning to do anyway.

  • In the past, Raniere would leave the room amazed, dazed and confused with his ambiguous prose, now known to many as “word salad.” Voluminous filings by Defendants this week may prove to be “document salad,” cooked up with similar intent to daze, confuse, and overwhelm Government prosecutors. Given the extent of illegal acts documented throughout the history of the NXIVM cult, is the Government or Judge Garaufis likely to be overwhelmed by such “document salad?”

    Are NXIVM Defendants supposed to be astonished at the response drummed up by several lawyers racing to bill as many hourly fees as possible, as quickly as possible by helping NXIVM leadership to author this latest round of self-serving innuendo? Are NXIVM Defendants supposed to look on as the Defense team vomits a pile of rhetorical Motions to Dismiss on to the case docket, and believe that their Vanguard will soon be set free to again serve NXIVM slaves with his magic wand?

    And,

    How much of Clare’s inheritance money was spent to stir up this week’s bullshit?

    Her father was a formidable man. This whole situation is a disgrace to the memory of EBS.

    • There had to have been something legal EBS could have done to protect his daughters and their inheritance. He had proof they were being swindled by Rainere. No court would have bought the illuminati- Bronfman control over the stock market causing the loss of 65 million dollars minimum of Bronfman money.
      This man was not stupid, the key longer installed by Clare should have been discovered, what high profile billionaire does not keep up with the latest computer hacking techniques?

  • The defendants’ backs are against the wall.
    They are throwing Hail Mary passes left and right.

    They are desperate to get the conspiracy charges dismissed or failing that have reams and reams of evidence kept out of this case.

    There’s only one problem for the defendants.
    All of the crimes in this case were committed by multiple defendants acting together in concert.
    That is the essence of conspiracy.

    And Conspiracy Laws allow co-conspirators to be tried together and allows the statements of one conspirator to be used against other conspirators.

    The government always treats criminals acting together in concert more seriously than lone wolf criminals.
    These rules are nothing new.
    Too bad the smartest man in the world, Keith Raniere, did not realize that he had created a massive criminal conspiracy.

  • Whoa. Thanks, Frank, for serving up a feast just in time for T-day! Can’t wait to gobble, gobble up all these pleadings with a side of your saucy remarks!

    Had to Wiki “Brady” myself, may as well share:

    Brady disclosure
    This article is about evidence handling in U.S. criminal trials. For rules in American football, see Tom Brady § The Brady rule.
    Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland,[1] in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.

    Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses.

    • The government routinely divulges Brady evidence to the defense because they don’t want to lose on appeal.
      Violating Brady would be like flunking Criminal Law 101.

      Brady v. Maryland was decided way back in 1963.

      The Judge would merely be telling the prosecutors to do what they plan to do anyway.
      Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Archives

     
     

CONTACT

frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740
%d bloggers like this: