Some days, it’s just not worth getting out of bed.
And if you’re Keith Raniere, some days it’s just not worth getting out of your prison bunk at MDC.
Yesterday was one of those days…
First, came the news that Nancy Salzman, his original partner-in-crime in the NXIVM/ESP criminal enterprise, was going to plead guilty – and, in all likelihood, end up being one of the prosecution’s prime witnesses against him and his remaining co-defendants in the case of the U.S. v. Raniere Et Al.
Next, came a filing by the prosecution that exposes more of the evidence that it plans to introduce at his trial.
The new details were set forth in a Memorandum-of-Law that the prosecution filed yesterday in support of its pending motion to admit “certain racketeering evidence” in the case.
Before we get into the details, let me explain the legal context of this situation.
As readers of the Frank Report may recall, the First Count in the superseding indictment in this case – which, by the way, applies to all the defendants – is for “Racketeering Conspiracy”.
Commonly referred to as a “RICO charge”, the First Count involves various “predicate acts” that the prosecution alleges were undertaken as a part of a Racketeering Enterprise.
The “predicate acts” that were alleged in the superseding indictment in this case include the following:
• Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft Regarding Jane Doe 1
• Conspiracy To Unlawfully Possess Identification Document
• Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft
• Identity Theft Regarding John Doe 1
• Identity Theft Regarding John Doe 2
• Conspiracy To Alter Records For Use In An Official Proceeding
• Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft Regarding Jane Doe 2
• Encouraging And Inducing Illegal Entry
• Money Laundering
• Trafficking Of Jane Doe 4 For Labor And Services
• State Law Extortion
• Sex Trafficking Of Jane Doe 5
• Forced Labor Of Jane Doe 5
• State Law Extortion Of Jane Doe 5
• Forced Labor Of Jane Doe 6
• State Law Extortion Of Jane Doe 6
• Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft Regarding Jane Doe 7
The prosecution, of course, plans to introduce evidence to support its allegation regarding each of the cited “predicate acts”.
But because this is a RICO charge, the prosecution is also allowed to introduce other evidence to prove such things as:
• The existence and nature of the Racketeering Enterprise;
• The background of the Racketeering Enterprise;
• The membership of the defendants and others in the Racketeering Enterprise;
• The involvement of the defendants and others in the affairs of the Racketeering Enterprise;
• The relationships between the defendants and their co-conspirators;
• The continuity of the Racketeering Enterprise’s illegal activities; and
• The methods and means employed by members and associates of the Racketeering Enterprise.
So, what the hell does all that legal mumbo-jumbo mean?
Well, simply put, it means that the prosecution can introduce evidence of other “crimes and bad acts” that the defendants did even if those activities are not part of the charges pending against them in this case.
Normally, such evidence would be barred as being prejudicial to the defendants in a criminal case. But, unfortunately for Raniere and his remaining co-defendants, it’s totally admissible in cases involving a RICO charge.
So, what are some of these “crimes and bad acts” that the prosecution wants to tell the jury about?
Here are some of the ones listed in yesterday’s filing:
• The securing of visas and immigration status for certain non-citizens so that they could work in one or more Nxivm-affiliated organizations or become sexual partners for Raniere;
• The propensity of Raniere to commit fraud as evidenced by his illegal Consumers Byline operation;
• Raniere’s teachings about “suppressives”, women’s allegedly prideful natures and their willingness to “play the victim”, and “ethical breaches” (The prosecution has more than 300 emails between Raniere and Jane Doe 4 discussing one of her “ethical breaches” – and more than 400 such emails discussing her “acting like a victim”);
• The efforts that were made to keep NXIVM/ESP members “within the community” – and to recruit new DOS slaves;
• The cash smuggling, structuring and tax evasion that were part of NXIVM/ESP’s standard financial operations;
• The “conduit contribution scheme” by which NXIVM/ESP illegally funneled campaign contributions to politicians (This was done for Hillary Clinton and likely others);
• The defendants’ use of political strategists and lobbyists to illegally gain political influence – and to use that influence to have their perceived enemies indicted for crimes they did not commit or on the basis of false or misleading information (This was done to Frank Parlato, Joe O’Hara, Toni Natalie, Barbara Bouchey and John Tighe – and, quite possibly, several others).
• The recruitment and grooming of sexual partners for Raniere, both within and outside of DOS;
• Clare Bronfman’s “longstanding intimate relationship with Raniere”;
• The facilitation of Raniere’s sexual relationships with two underage victims: i.e., a 15-year-old girl who was employed by Nancy Salzman and who, ten years later, became one of Raniere’s first-line “slaves” in DOS – and a child whose sexual relationship with Raniere was known to, and facilitated by, members of the Racketeering Enterprise (The prosecution expects to introduce, among other sources of evidence, dated images of the victim, constituting child pornography, that were created and possessed by Raniere – and electronic communications between the victim and Raniere reflecting their sexual relationship and indicating that it began when she was 15-years old);
• Kathy Russell’s leasing of a property for over 7-years under an assumed name;
• The illegal surveillance of the email accounts and bank accounts of several non-members;
• NXIVM/ESP’s use of harassment, coercion and abusive litigation to intimidate and attack perceived enemies and critics of Raniere and DOS defectors;
• Raniere’s statements in the Raniere v. Microsoft case – which show the lengths to which he was willing to go to avoid admitting to his control of assets that he, in fact, did control;
• The attempts to protect Raniere after the existence of DOS was exposed by, among other things, attempting to silence and intimidate DOS slaves and issuing public statements falsely denying Raniere’s involvement in DOS; and
• Bronfman’s refusal to return the collateral of DOS members who had left the organization.
The amount – and the breadth – of the evidence that the prosecution has gathered in this case in truly amazing.
Of course, it helped immensely that Raniere had a penchant for putting things in writing – and for recording everything he ever did or said.
As it turns out, Raniere will likely be voted as MVP for the prosecution team in this case.
One more item to include in his inflated resume.
Viva Executive Success!