UPDATE: We just received a copy of the full transcript of yesterday’s Status Conference – which includes Judge Garaufis’ initial thoughts on the issues raised by Kathy Russell’s attorneys. Although he agrees that the prosecution may have, in fact, mislead Kathy at the outset of her grand jury testimony as to whether she was a “target” of its investigation, he has also indicated that he does not believe such conduct entitles her to a dismissal of the charges pending against her (It might mean that her grand jury testimony would have to be excluded from the trial – which the prosecution has already agreed to do).
Judges usually don’t share their opinions before they issue rulings on pending motions unless they’re trying to send a message. The message to Kathy and her attorneys was pretty clear: I will not be dismissing the charge you are currently facing in this case.
Based on what Judge Garaufis had to say yesterday, Kathy should be working even harder to get a plea deal done. Now, it’s just a matter of what the prosecution will require from her in terms of the charge – or charges – she will have to plead to.
*****
With all the hullaballoo yesterday regarding the announcement of Allison Mack’s plea deal and the start of the jury selection process, little notice was given to the other proceedings that were taking place in the U.S. courthouse in Brooklyn.
One of those other proceedings was an oral argument by Kathy Russell’s attorneys, Justine A. Harris and Amanda Ravitch, as to why all the charges against her should be dismissed.
This argument followed several previous filings by those same lawyers: i.e., a motion to dismiss and memorandum-of-law that were filed back in January; a renewal of that motion that was filed on March 22nd after the issuance of the second superseding indictment; and a follow-up letter that was submitted on April 3rd after they received additional discovery materials from the prosecution.
From the outset, Justine and Amanda have argued that the prosecution made two major mistakes in the way that it treated Kathy:
(1) They told her she was merely a “witness” rather than a “subject” or a “target” of the NXIVM/ESP investigation; and
(2) They failed to attach an “Advice of Rights” form to her subpoena (Per DOJ policy, that form needs to be attached to subpoenas that are served on “subjects” and “targets”).
Just to remind everyone of the difference in those three terms as they apply to federal criminal cases:
• A “target” is a person for whom the prosecutor already has evidence that links them to the commission of a crime.
• A “witness” is a person who the prosecutor believes has information that might be relevant to help prove the guilt of other individuals.
• A “subject” is a person whose conduct is within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation (A “subject” lies somewhere between a target and a witness).
*****
At the time that she was subpoenaed to appear before the EDNY grand jury, Kathy was being represented by William Fanciullo, a criminal defense attorney from Albany, NY.
For reasons that are known only to him, Fanciullo declined several invitations to talk to – or meet with – Moira Kim Penza and Tonya Hajjar before Kathy’s grand jury appearance to discuss the possibility of a deal whereby Kathy would have been granted immunity in exchange for her cooperation and testimony.
Even on the day on her appearance before the grand jury, Fanciullo again declined to have any discussions with Moira and Tonya – and instead, sent Kathy into the grand jury room armed only with a scrap of paper.
That scrap of paper had the words printed out that Kathy would have to utter in order to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
But because Fanciullo was not allowed inside the grand jury room, Kathy was left to decide on her own when to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and when not to do so.
The results were devastating for the would-be ballerina as she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights 75 times during the course of her testimony.
In addition, she also declined a proffer that would have protected her from being prosecuted on the basis of her own testimony before the grand jury (It is not known if Kathy even understood what a proffer is).
In effect, Kathy talked herself into an indictment.
Fanciullo was replaced as Kathy’s attorney shortly after she was indicted.
*****
In their most recent filing, Kathy’s attorneys cited several interviews that FBI agents conducted with witnesses who directly linked Kathy to the commission of crimes. All those interviews took place before Kathy’s grand jury appearance on May 10, 2018.
In addition, they also cited all the other evidence that the government had regarding Kathy’s alleged illegal activities before her grand jury appearance. This included materials that were seized by the government from Nancy Salzman’s former residence shortly after Keith Raniere was arrested.
Finally, Kathy’s attorneys have asked the prosecution to produce a list of all the new evidence was discovered after Kathy’s grand jury appearance that resulted in her being indicted. No such list has been produced as of yet.
*****
Kathy is only charged with Count One: Racketeering Conspiracy in the second superseding indictment.
She is also not named in any of the predicate acts that support the Racketeering count even though she was originally listed in two of the predicate acts set forth in the first superseding indictment (No explanation was ever given for dropping her from those two predicate acts).
Given those facts – and given the circumstances surrounding her appearance before the grand jury – it’s beginning to look like Kathy may be able to walk away from this mess relatively unscathed.
Perhaps a plea to Racketeering Conspiracy – and an agreement to fully testify against Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere, both in this trial and in any subsequent trials – will garner Kathy a relatively light sentence.
Maybe as little as – or even less than – the expected sentence for Nancy Salzman.
*****
If, as expected, Kathy does end up with a plea deal, that will just leave Keith Raniere and Clare Bronfman as defendants in the case.
The question will then become which of them will be first to turn their back on the other in order to cut a couple of years off their own sentence.
Will Clare stay loyal to Keith?
Will Keith stay loyal to himself?
Is Keith brave enough to go to trial?
Viva Executive Success!
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
It sounds like a set up for Kathy Russell to take some kind of fall for part of NXIVM crimes.
Clare Bronfman put marching orders into place from Mexico while on the run, making sure that if Kathy was called into the Grand Jury that she was assigned an attorney that would not meet with the DOJ. This could lead to getting Kathy’s charges dropped.
Clare made sure that Kathy was to be sent into the Grand Jury with a scrap of paper saying to take the 5th when certain questions were asked. In the long game, this would shift the focus away from Clare (the money gal) and put the blame onto Kathy as the bookkeeper.
Problem is, Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere have a track record of being Dumber and Dumbest when it comes to legal strategy. They have had delusions of grandeur when it comes to winning court cases. Their track record shows they lose, just as they have so far in this RICO case.
At some point, Bronfman and Raniere had to know they would be arrested for some of their illegal actives. There had to be some kind of plan in place to shift the blame away from them.
Allision Mack was going to take the blame for DOS. Who else in the organization did they plan would take the fall for their crimes and how had they planned to set them up?
Rings true. I’m certain they had plans and tried to set-up even dead people including Gina Hutchinson, my sister, by spreading propaganda reports that she and another dead woman, Pam Cafritz, were poisoning girls brought here from Libya!
May seem senseless but it’s true — maybe to deflect guilt and cause confusion over the teenage Chihuahua, MX girls (btw, were any of them poisoned? Do we know?) curtail sympathy towards Gina and Pam, IDK, but Keith was always a surreal schemer like that with his bizarre genius strategies to cover-up any misdeeds or failings of his own doing.
I’d love to know who else besides prolly everyone else was meant to take the fall, too.
Heidi – That’s the first I’ve heard of the poisoning story. I am now convinced that Keith poisoned Pam, Barbara Jeske, probably, Nancy, and probably many others.
1) He blames others for what he does.
2) He gets a defense set up before he is caught or even accused of the crime.
I’d love to hear details of the propaganda reports you are referencing.
I wonder if Toni or Barbara B ever had health issues pop up when they were with Keith? He claimed to be an expert on nutrition and vitamins. I bet everyone ingested whatever he told them to.
Who the fuck cares what happens to Kathy Russell. She’ll be long forgotten, just like Scott, when the trials are over. LOL!
Girl Scout cookies,
LMAO made me laugh hard. That joke is worth at least 5 boxes of Thin Mints!!!
Krclaviger,
Great reporting and amateur analysis!!!!
A proffer is not a guaranteed right.
Why would an Appellate court ever rule in her favor because she was given “public defender level advice”?
Come on Krclaviger get on the stick.
Did Krclaviger go to an accredited Law School?
**********************
Kathy Russell is the most innocuous and least a culpable of the defendants. She deserves the shortest sentence even if she abandoned her teenage son.
A proffer is, in fact, a guaranteed right – just not a very extensive one. Had Kathy entered into a properly drafted proffer agreement, whatever documents she turned over – and whatever other evidence she provided – could not be used to prosecute her. It could, however, have been used by the prosecution to seek other evidence of her involvement in crimes.
The real problem is that any discussion about a proffer should have occurred before Kathy went into the grand jury room. Once she was in there, I doubt she really understood what was being proposed (She could have – and should have – asked for time to discuss the matter with her attorney).
Once a defendant enters into a plea deal, it’s almost impossible for them to get out of it. One of the few accepted bases for an appeal is “ineffective counsel”).
Krclaviger,
Thank you!!!!!
I was just pulling your chain and proved in the process that for some reason you prefer to answer questions from rude assholes.
Thank you for your time and I realize fully that you probably won’t be answering any of my questions in the future.
@ NiceGuy LOL You manage to be funny even when not being nice! That’s gotta be worth something!! 😀
Alex
Meant to be humor with a point that in the grand scheme of things does not matter.
Krclaviger’s detractors should not matter to him as much as they do. He should not feel the need to defend himself on this forum.
I hope and pray that Keith’s narcissism has him fight this thing all the way to life in prison. Please Keith! Don’t give up!!
Typically when a person is going to plead the 5th, the attorney will discuss with the person what is involved, why better not to testify, what they must say, etc.
Prior to appearance before the Grand Jury, the Defense Attorney will then tell the US Attorney’s Office, “My client will invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination”. That stops the entire event. The AUSA will not take the person in, if the AUSA already KNOWS that the client intends to take the Fifth. That would be a huge waste of time. Thus, with the info provided beforehand to AUSAs, that prevents the entire proceeding.
Also, the Defendant cannot selectively plead the fifth. Once the grand jury proceeding starts, and the person starts to answer questions, she cannot just plead the Fifth as to certain questions. It’s too late. If Kathy wanted to clear her name (or stay safe), she should have signed the immunity deal beforehand. But immunity does not shield her from obstruction or lying to the Grand Jury.
Sounds like her first attorney really F#cked up. That is basic. I would not let my client go into a Grand Jury proceeding, if I already know they are going to invoke the Fifth.
KR, your thoughts???
While it’s technically permissible for a defendant to selectively invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege, doing so can often pinpoint exactly what illegal things they actually did. Invoking it 75 times but not 100% of the time is a really good way to get indicted.
I would never send a client into a grand jury proceeding if I knew they were going to selectively invoke the privilege. And I would never refuse to talk to the prosecution before a client was to appear before a grand jury.
Looks like someone is using your name to post.
That person probably likes goading Sultan by insulting Kreuk. On the Clyne post, the imposter repeated the HS dropout lie that is easy to check and has been disproven, just to get a reaction from Sultan. The imposter is making you look silly and not honest.
Would Keith plea to get a better deal and throw Clare under the bus?
Could Keith’s testimony be used to go after more targets?
Wouldn’t that be interesting.
Is Keith really brave enough to go to trial on his own? Has Keith ever been Brave or Selfless in the last 30 years???
I wouldn’t put anything past Raniere. The question is whether the DOJ is interested in more targets. Normally they go after the top and let a lot of the underlings scatter like the cockroaches they are. Raniere isn’t “brave” to go to trial, he’s probably not getting a very good plea deal and is willing to take his chances with a jury and/or the Feds screwing up something.
I think the prosecution will likely want to work out a deal with Clare before they have any serious discussions with Keith. And although we obviously haven’t seen the cooperation agreements that have been entered into by Lauren and Allison, they most likely contain “total cooperation” language – which means that they will be testifying in the current case plus any subsequent cases. That’s pretty standard in this sort of situation where it’s likely that other cases will be brought.
Russell is probably waiting for the answer from the judge regarding throwing her case out. If it doesn’t go her way, she will probably flip like the rest of the fishes.
Seriously Frank, what are the odds that Mr. Raniere uses his “mad skills” as a thinker to get himself and his co defendants off on all charges?
It seems to me, from what I’ve read, that Mr. Raniere expended great effort to avoid being tied to certain of Nxivms enterprises. Even if they present an incriminating text from the Vanguard, they can’t conclusively prove it was him texting. He could say he lost his phone.
And if the women do testify, isn’t there a possibility they won’t be believed? After all, Nxivm was their livelihood, they were in it partly for the money.
I’ll be watching your site with great interest. I hope you give a daily briefing of the trial – a step by step, blow by blow description of events to it’s completion.
Each is standing alone, so there is little Raniere can do to help them. The phone excuse is probably beyond a reasonable doubt, as he’s the only one allowed to f*ck the women. If the testimony is consistent with each other and with other documented evidence, they almost have to be believed. There may not be a trial if they all plead.
Thanks for all that analysis.
What’s your estimation of the chances of Russell getting the charges dismissed? It seems to me that even if the feds might have made an error of process, the fact that she was well-represented and advised to so liberally use the 5th Amendment means that she in no way suffered any harm of self-incrimination.
My guess is that it’s a hail Mary, and once it’s turned down, then Russell will plead.
And I still think that Raniere and Bronfman have their own reasons to want to fight on rather than plead; he because he wants to try to outsmart the feds or else go down as martyr for his ideas, and she because she thinks she can spend enough money to out-lawyer the feds and eventually force an outcome more favorable to her.
Russell may not have used the 5th with the right questions. I doubt Bronfman can out-lawyer the feds, they have too much evidence and witnesses.
Anonymaker, and I hope Keith and Clare do exactly that. Ride this one into the flames!!
Given the judge’s commentary at yesterday’s Status Conference (See the “Update” to the original post), I think there is zero chance of him throwing out the charge. And he announced he’ll be making a decision on that issue by the end of this week – which really puts the pressure on Kathy to get a deal done.
“Both Park and Kreuk have cut ties with the group and downplayed their involvement, stating they were never involved in any of the recruitment efforts, however, former members of the group have stated that the roles of the two actresses were significant. They’ve both avoided any charges.”
https://lrmonline.com/news/smallville-actress-allison-mack-pleads-guilty-in-sex-cult-case/
Kristin Crook has not admitted to being a coach or recruiter, nor the one responsible for recruiting Allison Mack in the first place. Virtue signalling requires no sacrifice. Admitting what you did in NXIVM does. Coward.
Knowing about crimes and unethical behavior while continuing to support the cult makes you guilty. Same with Jihadi brides who don’t actively participate in bombings. You are an enabler.
Kook Fan,
You need to get a job and a life. How about changing the posters of your teenage crushes on your bedroom wall at your parents house. Maybe get rid of the little mermaid twin sheets you’ve had for years on your bunk beds
That could be a good sign your finally growing up.
This case is never going to be about your obsessions buddy no matter how many comments and post you try to do.
If you can read beyond a 2nd grade level, you could read the court documents provided and try comments that have to deal with the case the rest of us are dealing with. If not, go watch some reruns of Smallville and make sure you wash your sheets afterwards, jerk-off.
And who are you moron? Kristin Kreuk will always be a huge part of the NXIVM story. A story that is more than two years of DOS. Deal with it.
Sounds like attorney malpractice to me!
Even if she gets off the charges entirely, she will have racked up a fortune in possibly unnecessary legal fees.
Clare racked up the legal fees. Russell racked up a fortune in ballerina lessons.
What does Kathy Russell care about those? Clare paid them.
I believe that was covered in the curcio hearing when her former counsel subbed out, they had Kathy waive conflict of interest and claim she was satisfied with her representation thus far or some CYA/BS, Orange.
Good thoughts but, sadly, doubt anyone — certainly not they who set her up on the dirty books (and subjected her to the dirty sex lair) to begin with, IMO — would pay to go after the Albany lawyer on Kathy’s behalf anyway.
Looks like the prosecution really isn’t after her, though. She ought be getting victim’s restitution in my books, not sentenced.
So sweet of Claviger and Frank to analyze her case and support her plight here.
To quote from another story earlier today, this is a much better example: Russell’s former attorney was either dumb or devious.
This also points out why lawyers delay pleading guilty, as there is a chance the government will screw up. The judge should soon determine the answer to that issue.
Russell should get a lesser sentence than Nancy Salzman regardless. She was the ballerina, not the brains behind NXIVM. And if she cooperates and Salzman doesn’t, the sentence would be even lower.
They could offer Kathy a misdemeanor charge, in exchange for a plea. That way, it ties up the loose end of getting the entire crew convicted. And it would save Kathy years off her sentence, to make it extremely worthwhile to plea instead of risk a guilty charge.
There is no need to offer a misdemeanor, there is a lot of flexibility the judge has regarding the length of sentencing. One of the primary factors is ensuring there is more punishment given out to those who did the worst things, for the longest time, to the most number of people, and who led the effort. Russell probably comes out relatively well in those regards.
Krclaviger, if possible to answer this question, what could be possible reasons for Fanciullo refusing to speak to the DOJ? Could his conduct give rise to appeal or something that would work on Kathy’s favour should she be found guilty?
Kathy might be able to put together an appeal based on ineffective counsel but the odds of her winning that appeal are extremely low.
I have no idea why any defense attorney would choose not to talk to the prosecution BEFORE their client got indicted.
He’s a dumb ass?
Thank you