By One Night in Bangkok
It should be noted that in Marc Agnifilo’s previous bail motion filing (to get Keith out on bail), he said that Keith Raniere’s trip to Mexico was not to flee the DOJ investigation and that Keith was willing to cooperate with the DOJ at any time while he was in Mexico.
As part of that previous bail motion filing, Agnifilo said that another one of Keith’s attorney [Michael Sullivan] had contacted the US Attorney’s Office to setup an interview with the DOJ while Keith was in Mexico (i.e., thereby implying that Keith was willing to return to the US for this interview voluntarily and was NOT fleeing any investigation during his trip to Mexico).
Yet, in his most recent filing, Agnifilo is now CONTRADICTING his previous bail motion by confirming that Keith was NOT willing to voluntarily cooperate with Mexican or US authorities when captured (i.e. Keith was NOT willing to voluntarily come back to settle these charges when captured by Mexican police and had to be involuntarily deported, against his will, at gun point).
Agnifilo is, therefore, admitting — at least tacitly — that Keith was in fact running away to Mexico to flee the DOJ.
I have a legal question for Mr. Claviger…
How can an attorney submit filings which appear to contradict themselves? Especially when he’s supposed to be an officer of the court and is supposed to be 100% honest with every filing.
This is why nobody respects attorneys. Defense attorneys are rarely punished severely for bullshitting. If a filing is not 100% truthful, then the judge should use his judicial hammer.
The judge must put a leash on Marc Agnifilo.