Judge Nicholas Garaufis has granted Nancy Salzman’s request that she be allowed to meet with her co-defendants outside the presence of “her” counsel for the purpose of trial preparation.
She may now meet with co-defendants, Kathy Russell, Keith Raniere, Clare Bronfman, and Allison Mack, as long as their attorney is present.
This is a modification of her original bail conditions – which required, among other things, that she meet with any of her co-defendants in the presence of her counsel. As of right now, her co-defendants are still required to have their attorneys present when they meet with her and other co-defendants.
Nancy is also currently permitted to see her daughter and co-defendant, Lauren Salzman, daily at her home without any attorneys being present. This condition was granted based on Nancy’s illness. She is/was recovering from breast cancer surgeries.
Based on a prior bail modification, Nancy is also permitted to go outside her home and travel freely within the Northern District of NY, after having been subject previously to home confinement. She is, however, required to be home each evening and must continue to wear an ankle monitor.
Nancy could conceivably visit Keith Raniere in prison in Brooklyn if one of his attorneys were present. She would, however, have to get permission from the court to travel to Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of NY.
Nancy could also meet with Allison Mack, whose attorneys are in the Eastern District of NYC, while Allison remains under home confinement in California, whenever Mack is in New York City. Nancy could meet with Kathy Russell, who lives in the Albany area – but since her attorneys are in NYC [Eastern District], unless they were coming to Albany, Nancy again would have to get permission to travel.
Clare Bronfman, like Raniere, lives in the NYC area. Her attorneys are also located there.
In order to take advantage of this latest bail modification, Nancy would likely travel to NYC.
Unless she is once again excused from attending due to illness, Nancy is due in court in Brooklyn on Monday, along with all the other defendants for a hearing regarding the trust fund that pays for all the defendants’ attorneys except Bronfman.
Perhaps then she will be able to meet with one or more of her co-defendants without her attorney present but with their attorneys present.
Perhaps it does not make much difference which attorney is present since all the defendants’ attorneys [except Clare’s] are being paid by the trust. This latest motion, however, suggests that, as of now, Nancy is still part of the joint defense agreement – and has not, as previously speculated, made a plea deal.
AUSA Moira Penza, and Pretrial Services Officer Michael Dorn had no objection to Salzman’s request to meet with her co-defendants as long as at least one attorney was present.
The request seems not unusual, and one attorney familiar with the proceedings said he saw it as a mere practical consideration – as a cost-saving measure and one of convenience for the attorneys.
It makes one wonder, why is Nancy wanting to meet her co-defendants without the presence of her attorney? If it’s for pre-trial preparation, wouldn’t her lawyer want to be kept in the loop? There’s no way it’s simply about billing hours.
So Nancy could go to NJ this week to visit her parents (assuming that happened as permitted) but could still argue her illness prevents her from showing up in court on Monday in the same region?
Excellent point Brett
Well I am officially a crank. I asked my wife who happens to be attorney to read this article. My wife saw my comments and asked “Have you lost your mind?” , and said “get a life”. She gave me the big eye roll.
I think I need to cut down on my Frankreport reading and commenting. No doubt Frank can see my IP and my time spent on this site.
I am cutting back. In my defense to my wife I said ” well at least I don’t Facebook. “
Much ado about nothing.
An odd decision. BTW, who knew that Lieutenant Worf works for Pre-Trial Services?
Why do you think this is an odd decision? Is it that common for one person to be behind the funding of others’ legal bills? What does a fake show have to do with reality?
My last comment is directed to Shadowstate
I suppose Cruella Bronfman did not anticipate Kathy Russell being indicted otherwise she would have hired a better attorney for Kathy when she went before the Grand Jury.
You don’t have to pay an attorney to get that result.
You can also go before a grand jury, and if you don’t
have an attorney you can get one from the court.
You have to prove you can’t afford an lawyer, the court doesn’t just give you one.
That’s right. I was thinking about Kathy Russell, who I don’t think she can afford an attorney.
I thought you wanted someone with legal knowledge to answer the question. Shadow is not anywhere near the top of my list in that regard.
This move is clearly aimed at keeping an eye and a level of control over the weak link Kathy Russel.
Uh…can one of the commentators with actual legal knowledge please comment and explain the judge’s thinking?
My opinion is this move is to allow Keith to monitor, communicate and control via Nancy the other codefendants. Clare Bronfman is paying for the trust defense fund exerting control of the attorneys. If attorneys want the fund replenished down the road ….better play for the team.
This move is clearly aimed at keeping the weak link Kathy Russel in line.
The judge is testing the lawyers. He knows that if Nancy’s lawyer does not show up, then her lawyer is colluding with the other lawyers. He is giving the lawyers enough rope to hang themselves.
If this loosening of conditions keeps up we’ll find that V Week 2019 is back on.
You nailed that one.
Yes, as long as the attorneys are present. Rack up those billable hours, at a 10-day celebration at that!
Some of the evidence in the case is irrefutable. Keith is going to do some jail time. The question is how much time?
As long as the followers celebrate it in Brooklyn MDC.
As long as Vanguard’s followers have to celebrate V Week in MDC.