Part 1: Lauren Salzman: Cross-Examination Stopped by Judge: Women of Raniere and Lauren’s Acceptance of Them

This the photo the government is using of Lauren Salzman in exhibits for the jury.

Judge Nicholas Garaufis abruptly stopped the cross-examination of Lauren Salzman at the end of day, May 22, in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.

It is interesting to me in part because the judge chose to terminate Lauren’s cross-examination instead of calling it a day and letting it resume the following day. He suspended the cross-examination at close to 5 pm – when the court would have ended its day.

I am in no position to judge the appropriateness of this decision, but other [appellate] judges will likely do so at some point in the future.  That’s because this decision to end Lauren’s cross-examination will almost certainly form one of – if not the main – bases of the inevitable appeal – if, as expected, Keith Raniere is convicted.

The cross-examination of Lauren Salzman began before lunch and lasted through the afternoon. It would have likely gone on the following day had the judge not ruled it was excessive and unnecessary.

Lauren, the longtime associate of Keith Alan Raniere, pleaded guilty to racketeering and racketeering conspiracy – and is, thus far, the only co-defendant of Raniere to testify against him. She signed a cooperation agreement – and was testifying, I think it is obvious to state, at least in part to lessen her prison sentence.

The judge presiding over her testimony in court is the same judge who will determine her sentence. Her sentence date is currently scheduled for September 11.

Lauren faces a maximum sentence literally of 40 years in prison [20 max for each count]. But this kind of draconian sentence is extremely unlikely. There is no minimum sentence. The applicable federal sentencing guidelines, which the judge is not bound to adhere to, are, I believe, in the range of 3-5 years.

But the judge may make a downward departure on sentencing guidelines [down to zero]. Lauren’s testimony for the prosecution and her cooperation is intended to persuade the judge that she should get such consideration.

Since the judge stopped the cross-examination – clearly, I believe, [and as we shall see] sympathizing with Lauren – this may [or may not] indicate his view of Raniere [as villain] and her as being, at least in part, his victim.

I am not speaking for the judge. I am simply presenting events that occurred and my impression of them.  The sudden ending of the cross-examination by the judge amid Lauren’s breakdown into uncontrollable tears, nearly at the end of the day, caused Raniere’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, to seek a mistrial the following morning. That motion was denied by the judge.

The ending of Lauren’s cross-examination will undoubtedly form part – perhaps a major part – of an appeal if Raniere is convicted. So it is germane for those who are following the trial.

Agnifilo will almost certainly point to the ending of Lauren’s cross-examination as a game-changing event in the direction of the trial. The judge’s thwarting of his due process right to fully confront a witness who had very damaging direct testimony about his client will be appealed.

In short, Agnifilo will argue that he was stopped at the crucial moment when he was on the way to truly impeaching her.

How much of this is actually true and how strong his argument will be on appeal is hard to gauge. Clearly, Judge Garaufis thought Agnifilo was merely badgering Lauren, with no genuine value to his continuing questions but to break her and cause a potential nervous breakdown right in his courtroom.

I think readers might like to review the cross-examination, especially some crucial parts, to judge for themselves whether they think it should have been terminated by the judge when he did so.

The cross is lengthy [in total nearly half a novel] and much of it is tedious – and is the review of exhibits and rehashing testimony said on direct examination. I will present the highlights of the cross [with the exact language and taken from the transcripts]. I will present it in several parts and abbreviated.

This is Part 1.

Where I have eliminated basic repetition and skipped portions of the cross examination it is indicated wither with  […] when it is merely a sentence of two and with [***] when questions and answers are skipped.


Q Good morning, Ms. Salzman.

A Good morning.

Q We’ve met before?

A Yes, we have.

Q I want to introduce myself anyway. My name is Marc Agnifilo, I represent Keith Raniere. I am going to ask you some questions today. If I ask you a question that you don’t understand, please tell me that. And if you would like me to rephrase it or ask a different question, I’m happy to do that.

Now, you said in the beginning of your direct examination that Keith Raniere was the most important person to you?

A Yes.

Q You said he was your mentor?

A Yes, he was.

Q You said he was your teacher?

A Yes.

Q You and he had a romantic relationship?

A Yes, we did.

Q And you loved him?

A Yes.

Q And he loved you?



Q Did he ever tell you — I’ll ask it — did he tell you that he loved you?

A He has told me that.

Q You wanted to have children with him?

A I did, yes.

Q You once wanted to share your life with him?

A Yes.

Q Now, Ms. Hajjar asked you whether your relationship with Keith has ended. Do you remember her asking that question?

A Yes.

Q And your answer was: “For me.” Do you remember giving that answer?

A Yes.

Q Can you explain that answer?

A Well, I had hoped at one point in time I would be able to speak to Keith about the ending of our relationship, but that was not possible through this [legal] process, and so I was just communicating where I was at. He and I have not discussed where he’s at, or anything beyond that.

Q Okay. Now, you and Keith had a life commitment, right?

A Yes.

Q And there is no indication from Keith that that’s been broken?

A You could say that, yes.

[Lauren, being questioned, spoke about her first meeting with Keith, her impressions, that she was 21, that she had been backpacking through Europe, coming home to Albany, of her having friends and spending a lot of time alone, etc.]

Q … what was the nature of your relationship with Keith?

A He was my mother’s friend and business partner, and he had started a school [ESP, Executive Success Programs] with her, and I was taking classes in that school.


A We had weekly classes that Keith taught and it was a goal-setting program…. Keith usually ran two classes a week…

[Lauren was living with her mother Nancy]

Q … did Keith … inspire you to move somewhere else….

A He told me that a friend of mine, Jory, had moved out and started asking me when I was going to move out, and also I think he inspired my mom to start charging me rent in the house and help me to understand things come from somewhere and somebody’s providing that and help me learn to provide that for myself.

Q And did you have any feelings over the fact that Keith inspired your mother to charge you rent for living at home?

A … at first, I didn’t like that, but then I came to understand that … what it would take to be self-reliant.

Q Now, at the time this was happening, when you moved out of the house with your mom, Keith was living at 3 Flintlock?

A Yes, he was.


Q … Keith was living with three women at the time?

A Yes.

Q And did you know … that Keith had an intimate relationship with each of the three women at the time?

A … yes.


Q … tell us a little bit about [Pam Cafritz].

A … she was the person who was around Keith … she was supportive of and she befriended most of the women that he was in relationships with….  she helped build a type of rapport that was helpful to him….

Q …did you grow to have a relationship with Pam yourself?…

A  Pam …  was a mentor, an advisor to me. She was a close personal friend. We had an intimate and sexual relationship for some period of time.  I loved Pam very much. She was one of the closer friends I’ve had in my life.

[Pam’s illness was discussed, then some of the women Keith was having sexual relationships with.}

Q At some point…  you started developing feelings, romantic feelings for Keith?

A Yes, that’s correct.

Q At about 2000?

A Yes.

[It was about a year after she met him]

A … I would spend social time with him. He and I would go for walks and I was invited to hang out at 3 Flintlock, so we were spending time together.  He would come over to my mom’s house while I was living there.

Q And at some point did you see or conclude that he had feelings for you as well?

A Yes.

Q ….  the first time that you had an intimate contact with Keith was April 1, 2001; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And this was completely consensual on your part, am I right?

A Yes, it was.


Q Now, did you have concerns at the time, back in April of 2001, when you were starting to get involved with Keith, about his lifestyle, the fact that he was living with three women, that he seemed to be close with other women? Did any of that concern you?

A Yes. Some of the things about it. It was difficult. I mean, I felt insecure, you know, but I also at that time believed that Keith’s relationships were very selective and special, you know, and it was a small group of people that he was choosing to have them with, and, so I felt special to be part of that.

Q And did you understand that there were certain rules… that Keith had for people that he was in a relationship with?

A Yes, that they not have relationships with other people.

Q ….  One of them was that his partner would have to be honest and transparent?

A Yes.

Q Second is that his partners had to be monogamous and committed to him?

A Yes.

Q Third is that the partners had to inform Keith before leaving the relationship; correct?

A Yes.

Q But one of the rules wasn’t that Keith had to be monogamous in return?

A Correct.


Q …. Keith …was … expecting you to be fully committed, monogamous with him, but he wasn’t planning to be monogamous with you or any of the other women he was with?

A That’s true.

Q … why did you choose to pursue this relationship with Keith given what you knew about him and what his conditions were?

A Because I believed that Keith had a world view and a certain set of values and principles that were in line with things that I really admired and wanted to be like, wanted to have and uphold in my life and that relating with him and having him in my life would help me do that better.

Q … what were those principles…?

A That he was humanitarian, that he had this vision for how we could all be, the word we used was ‘interdependent’ but worked as a team as kind of a collective humanity and learned to be compassionate and care for each other and support each other in non-violent ways with ethics, and I wanted that.

Q And how was it that you were able to see that?

A Mostly through the teachings, the curriculums that he put out, my interactions with those, and how he would advise me in my life and with some of the struggles I had.

Q … [you] and Keith were in an intimate relationship between 2001 and about 2008 …?

A Yes.

Q During that period of time, was he ever inappropriately aggressive sexually with you?

A In a situation with Dawn … [at 3 Flintlock, Keith’s home that he shared with three women]

Q O…  he was sort of trying to pull your pants down?….   you were with Keith and Dawn Morrison; right?

A Uh-hum.


Q And you didn’t want to do that?

A Uh-hum.


Q You told [him] a number of times and he stopped?

A Yes, he did.


Q Did you ever express to Keith at any point, other than the Dawn Morrison situation… that he was asking of you or encouraging you to do of a sexual nature that you didn’t want to do?

A … when different women would approach me to have group sex with him that that wasn’t something that I wanted to do….

Q … There were occasions where you had sexual contact with Keith and another woman where you wanted to do that?

A Yes.

Q And then there were occasions where you just said women would approach you to possibly have sexual contact with you and Keith where you didn’t want to do it?

A … there were occasions where I went along with having sexual experiences with women with Keith that I didn’t want to, but I did it anyway … I would act unhappy in the circumstance, but I would go through it anyway.

Q  … Did you ever tell him, even after the fact, ‘I didn’t want to do that’ or ‘I don’t ever want to do that again’ or anything along those lines?

A No, I didn’t feel able to communicate that…. I didn’t want him to be displeased with me.

Q  …. did he ever yell at you, anything like that?

A Yes, he has yelled at me.

Q …  Has he ever touched you in a hurtful way, …  hit you, kicked you, slapped you?

A Accidentally, not on purpose.

Q The times when he would yell at you…  give me a few examples…

A He would say that I was having … a temper tantrum or my behavior was difficult for him and he wasn’t going to talk to me about things if I was going to be like this.

One time he kicked me out of the house until I came back and apologized for my behavior, but generally, it would take place in situations where I would express upset or frustration over the things that were going on with us, or our relationship, or the circumstances around us.

Q … it wasn’t easy being in a relationship with Keith, in part, because he had these other romantic interests?

A Correct.

Q And there were times when you didn’t think you wanted to put up with that?

A Yes. … I didn’t feel like we were in a relationship because we weren’t even interacting for years.

Q …  after 2008 or 2009 your intimate relationship started to wane; correct?

A Correct. And he told me he put it on hold.


Q — … he was still having intimate relations with other people?

A Yes….

Q And that was hurtful?

A It was painful.

Q I think you said … Keith was highly respected, highly regarded in your community?

A Yes.

Q And he was viewed as an authority on different topics?

A Yes. … we edified him and the teachings and, so, he became highly regarded…


Q So people would say things about him. Fair to say it was almost like a myth around Keith?

A To a degree, yeah.

Q People said he could affect the weather?

A Yes. He said he could, or [said] these things happened around him and he could never explain them.

Q Right. He told you the time he was with Toni Natalie, right? … it was raining?

A I didn’t know it was Toni Natalie. I heard the story with the rain.

Q And it was raining on Toni and not on Keith, this is the story that he told?

A Yes.

Q … was he conveying to you that because of some great force he wasn’t being rained on?

A ….  there were these things that happened to him that he couldn’t account for and that there was something really unique or special about him … therefore, we should really take seriously — like the way he was saying … it wasn’t raining on … him and it was raining on her because somehow her behavior…  was out of line and she wasn’t listening to what he was saying and that what he was saying was so …. important, that ‘it’s not even raining on me, look, this is how you can believe what I’m saying, that what I’m conveying is of such importance … and who I am is so different.’

Q You’ve seen it rain on him? He gets rained on like everybody else?

A Of course.


Q … Keith seemed very afraid to have women leave him. Does that seem right?

A Yes…. He didn’t ever want anybody leaving. I mean, he wouldn’t end of the relationships even when they were over…. some of the women were having real emotional and addictive problems that were potentially life threatening, he wouldn’t end the relationship to allow them to move on…. he got us all to collateralize life vows to never leave no matter what.


Q So [Keith] never left Pam? Was with her until the day she died; right?

A Yes.

Q Barbara Jeske was with her until —

A I have issues with the term with her. He didn’t end the relationships.

Q So when you say you have problems with regard to her [Jeske], go ahead, tell us what you mean.

A … in the last years of Barbara’s life, he wasn’t interacting with her very much and in the time she was sick, he didn’t go to visit her almost at all…. he never formally ended the relationship, but he wasn’t actively participating in the relationship … I expressed to him …  concerns that I had because I observed …. Barbara, who wanted to have a child at one point in time, Pam as well….  [Keith] made a number of promises [to have children] and those years passed by. And when…  women became past their fertile years…  he was like, oh, he had somehow misgauged this, or whatever, and I would express this to him on an ongoing basis, that ‘I don’t want our relationship to be like that,’ to not make me promises if he’s not going to do that [sire a baby for Lauren] [and] that I saw this happen with other women…. I related more with …. the way … he related with Barbara and that my concern was that we were going to have this relationship that was not active and in the end, I would die alone, that he wouldn’t come visit me either.

And, so, he was with [women was …  he never formally said ‘I don’t want to be in this relationship anymore.’ He wanted them to stay loyal and monogamous with him, but he wanted to be able to not have to invest further in the relationship and just go do other things that he wanted to do while they were still there waiting, hoping that it would change and feeling very feel emotional things or having issues with it, that he would, in my experience, not empathetic to and that he felt that they were — they could just learn to be joyful and they should be able to just get over those issues and be happy no matter what the circumstance was.

And in some cases that he thought it was better for them to stay with him because if they left and had a relationship with someone else that relationship …  would be very damaging or destructive to them…

Q Did he seem to really believe that?

A Yes, I think so. I think he did.


Q And you didn’t leave him?

A I didn’t. Correct.


Q  Dawn Morrison, another person I think you mentioned was in a relationship with Keith for a period of time; correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you know if Keith had a relationship of some sort with your mother?

A Briefly, he did.

Q Many, many years ago?

A Yeah, before mine.

Q And then there’s yourself. Then there’s Barbara Bouchey. And Keith had an intimate relationship with Barbara; correct?

A Correct.

Q Kathy Russell the same?

A The same.

Q Daniella the same?

A Yes.

Q Marianna the same?

A Uh-hum.


Q Camila the same?

A Yes.

Q Monica Duran the same?

A Yes.

Q Ivy Nevares the same?

A Yes.

Q Loretta Garza the same?

A Yes.

Q I think you said a couple of days ago Keith had a relationship with Clare Bronfman?

A I believe so, yes.

Q Jim Del Negro?

A No.

Q Emiliano Salinas no?

A No.

Q Mark Vicente no?

A Correct.

Q Nicki Clyne yes?

A Yes.

Q Rosa Laura Junco, I think you said you didn’t think he had a relationship with?

A He told me no and she told me no.

Q Dani Padilla Bergeron yes?

A Yes.

Q Allison Mack yes?

A Yes.

Q And Alex Bentancourt, [redacted] no?

A No.

Q So the only woman … [of his inner circle], that he did not seem to have a relationship with is Rosa Laura?

A Yes.

Q What rank was Rosa Laura?

A Rosa Laura was a proctor in the ESP. I’m not sure how many stripes she had.

Q I mean, a pretty high level?

A Yeah.


Q Other [than] Allison Mack…  all of the romantic relationships that Keith had were before DOS was ever created?

A Yeah.


Q So Pam, Barbara, Karen, Kristin, Dawn, Nancy, yourself, Barbara, Kathy, Daniella, Marianna, Camila, Monica, Ivy, Loretta, Clare, Nicki, all before DOS?

A Yes.

Q Fair to say Keith’s lifestyle from when you knew him was that he had many relationships with many different women for extended periods of time?

A Yes, and he would change the rules on it…  when this started, I thought that it was this small select group of people and he said that’s true and then at some point that changed. …  he would change things and tell me several years after the fact….

Q … regardless of the individual rules at any point, it was pretty well known… Keith had many relations with many different women and that this went back to the late ’90s?

A Yes.

Q Now, fair to say Keith never said to you that your position in NXIVM was in any way independent on whether or not you had an intimate relationship with him?

A Correct.

Q He never linked the two; right?

A Correct.

Q He never said to you “if you want to be a proctor, if you want to have an … orange sash or a green sash, you’re better off if you have an intimate relationship with me?” He never said it?

A No, but the women who did were treated differently and the women who left were treated differently.


[Stay tuned for Part 2 – which concerns Lauren’s role in confining Dani].


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Why didn’t Raniere sleep with Rosa Laura? And Raniere slept with Mark Vicente too? He cried in his testimony right? So Raniere is a gay pedophile with a harem of female wives? I wouldn’t be surprised if he fornicated with animals too.

  • Are we going to get Lauren Salzman’s testimony as well or just her cross-examination? I am curious to what she was asked and how she answered. I’m not sure what to make of what we’ve seen so far. I honestly am not getting much of a feeling of remorse, more like someone with a few qualms but would go right back to it all if this just went away. Maybe that’ll change as we get more information.

    Frank, I wanted to say thank you so much for giving us the coverage of the trial, because we’re not going to get much from the main stream media. I know this is very time consuming, so thank you.

    A request, when you have time to get around to it, or if someone else could help with this in a reply… there’s a lot of random videos on YouTube from various members as well as interviews while they were in NXIVM. A number of them have been posted in the past, could we be given a place where all the links are in one place for people to see. They’re becoming harder to find as the trial has increased the number of videos that pop up when you search for NXIVM or the names of the various members. Please and thank you.

    • I work overnight and have not had much sleep the last few days… as soon as I hit post, I remembered that the Lauren Salzman testimony was posted 3 weeks ago. So disregard that part of my comment please. Sorry

  • I’m not sure whether the judge would have stopped Salzman’s testimony if he had heard some of the subsequent testimony about her. He would have had a lot less empathy/sympathy.

    • Scott,

      It’s hard for any real man to hear another man abuse a woman verbally, even if it occurs in a court of law, during cross examination.

      The judge is a good man and he is only human after all.

      Nevertheless, the judge should have been above the fray.

      Agnifilo-asshole was shooting for something. Everything he does is calculated.

      • Agnifilo’s job is to aggressively defend his client.
        After being a Judge for almost twenty years Garaufis should understand that.
        The proper course of action is to suspend questioning until emotions simmer down.
        Berating the defense attorney in front of the jury is improper and prejudices the trial.

        • You’re of course right Shadowstate.

          I will be honest Shadowstate. After reading so many of your articles and comments, I believe you would have reacted similarly to the judge’s reaction.

          I mean that as a compliment.

          I think everyone agrees the judge made a fairly large error.

    • Scott,

      Allison Mack will probably be testifying maybe you will get your garlic and bush then.

      Allison Mack has been skewered by the testimony of Lauren and Nicole.

      If Allison testifies I expect her testimony to be her greatest performance yet….

    • From the New York Post link.
      “Nicole — who said she was ordered to call Allison “Madame Mack” — added that she was told she also had to sign other papers that would release the accused cult of liability for such things as “physical and psychological injuries” and “disfigurement.”

      It looks like Allison Mack was into some serious Sado-Masochism.

  • If Keith Raniere is granted a second trial he will most definitely lose a second trial.

    The only real problem is if Keith Raniere is allowed to make bail…..

    …..because we all know he will flee the country.

      • Scott,

        Well, a new judge will be appointed to a new trial. Raniere’s attorney now has 2 examples of the judge being prejudicial in this case.

        If Raniere is granted a new trial, he will receive a new judge. It’s that simple.

  • Appeal most likely granted….

    There could be an appeal granted even if it was only one event during the cross examination of one witness.

    A judge can not conduct a trial 1/2 ass.

    Omar was way of base.

    My guess is Frank spoke with real criminal attorneys or prosecutors to form his opinion.

    • Wrong.

      Sorry, but you’re dumber than a box of rocks.

      Frank has no ‘legal eagles’ giving him expert advice on this topic.

      He’s just talking outta his butthole as usual, to get clicks.

      Frank knows almost nothing about why appellate courts would overturn a verdict. Frank has the legal intelligence of you and Heidi combined, which is to say he has virtually no legal intelligence whatsoever.

      Guess what, asshole?

      Firstly, the appellate court would have to find that the judge made an error in abusing his discretion (not likely).

      Secondly, they’d ALSO have to find that without the testimony in question, the jury would have likely acquitted Keith.

      That’s just not reality YOU DUMB FUCK.

      FACT: There are MOUNTAINS of evidence against Keith and if you throw out Lauren’s testimony, he’d still be convicted of lots of counts, if not all of them.

      You and Frank remind me of the 3 stooges, except there are only two of you.

      You’re both as dumb and useless as a sack of shit.

      *If I were Frank (and I thank god every day that I’m not) then I’d at least consider the option of improving the world by performing Seppuku on myself. 🙂

      As for you, I’d get a paternity test done ASAP just to make sure. 🙂

      • Thanks Bangkok! I hope you have a great Summer Vacation!

        I am fairly certain Frank would have been my father but five other guys came-before him (double entendre). 🙁

        I hope Lauren Salzman and you connect one day! 😉

  • Sex Work Would Be Broadly Legal in New York Under New Bill Introduced Monday
    The bill removes penalties for buying and selling sex in many cases
    Published 3 hours ago | Updated 2 hours ago

    “For us, this is a bodily autonomy issue — our bodies, our choice — but more than that, it’s an economic issue. And it’s personal,” Jessica Raven, one of Decrim NY’s organizers, wrote in a Daily News op-ed Monday.

    Two of the bill’s sponsors, state senators Jessica Ramos and Julia Salazar, have said that 9 out of 10 people arrested in sex-work-related massage parlor raids are immigrants, with most being undocumented Asians.

  • Are you going to include what the Judge said at the point where he apparently intervened along the way, admonishing Agnifilo for pushing the cross too far? A number of people who were present in the courtroom have reported that there was a a build-up to the judge’s ending of cross-examination and his final rebuke of Agnifilo, that wasn’t clear from reports of just the exchange at the end.

    • it will appear at its proper place in the cross examination – so that readers can get a full picture.

  • “[Pam’s illness was discussed, then some of the women Keith was having sexual relationships with.}”

    You yada yada’d two of the best parts. Pam’s illness from an inner circle perspective – and Keith’s sexual relationships from the mind of an inner circle member.

    • Keith’s sex life is the least important part of all this. It’s his CRIMES that need to be dealt with. Having sex with lots of people isn’t illegal.

      • Yes, but that salacious information sure does prejudice the jury against him. Nobody in the jury deliberation room is going to bat for Raniere. All that loathsome detail about his promiscuous sex life, his piggishness, his inability to get a proper erection has nothing to do with the letter of the law of course, but does the letter of the law matter? Are jury trials won by reason, or by emotion? I suspect the latter.

        • What are you people talking about? Agniflio’s entire opening statement was about some “seeing things through Raniere’s eyes” bullshit and his lack of criminal intent. Raniere’s claims as an ethical role model are being completely obliterated by the witness testimony. Do you think anyone on the jury believes that this clown was having sex with multiple partners for the spiritual betterment of his women followers? That he locked Dani in her room for her own good? That tying a naked Nicole to table and commanding one of his DOS slaves to perform oral sex served some ethical purpose other than his own gratification? These testimonies are being given to lay the unbreakable foundation that a person like him has no ethical sincerity, is an utter charlatan, and thus would have no qualms about commanding others to do illegal things as the head of a criminal racketeering enterprise. The government already has all of the illegal evidence they need. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been able to elicit plea deals out of everyone who was indicted except for the big idiot on a trial.

  • The crimes of NXIVM and its top members are horrible.
    There is no way witnesses can discuss these crimes, whether the witnesses are perpetrators or victims, without having some emotional events.

    The proper response is for the Judge to halt questioning until the witness can compose him or herself and continue the cross examination until later.
    The Constitution provides the defendant the right to confront witnesses against him.
    The Constitution does not provide an exception to that right if the witness becomes overcome by emotion.

    I don’t like Raniere but he still has the Constitutional rights that every other defendant has.

    • Raniere and Mack will do the most time. Not as much as they should, but some. The Salzmans and Russell, will most likely get a few months. Bronfman might buy herself some justice which is easy enough in the US if you have enough money. Or it might turn out that everybody but Raniere will end up with some kind of non-custodial sentence.

      None of them will get what they deserve.

      • I agree with the first sentence but you are only partly right for the second…

        Even in this testimony (as much as Nicole’ testimony), Allison’s role was extremely small…
        Lauren was in every crime and frequently cited since the beginning of the trial but except for the extorsion(ish) part, Allison is rarely cited.
        Except for her stupid comments.

        She is gonna do more time than she deserves (especially while she lost everything and she was clearly a victim)

        Hell, people like shadow tried to imply that it was Allison who forced most of the girls (who had sex with Raniere) while in the testimonies, it’s clearly stated that she was exactly in the same position as Nicole and was only in sex relationship due to DOS…

        So that makes it that:
        Allison was not a member of the “crime family” until 2015.
        Allison was not really in the inner circle until 2015 (which fits with was has been heard by some members and is confirmed by several emails and messages)
        But Allison was already in a seriously dangerous diet back in 2013-14 (witnesses and pictures showing she was melting)

        Allison had no decision power.
        Allison had no revenues (even the source thing is BS as they had to pay the fee afterward…Why would Allison share an apartment with MANY girls and the same bed while Lauren had her own house?)

        The reality is this article is confirming (just like Nicole’s testimony) that Allison was stupidly following orders (and commenting) but she wasn’t in power of anything.
        She didn’t threaten Nicole to release anything until the end (and even then, she didn’t, she actually said that she wouldn’t release it)

        If you consider Allison to be the monster, then so are people like India and let it be clear, for me ,it’s a victim (India).
        As for those who see Allison as one of the masterminds…my gosh, you are as stupid as Allison’s comments!

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083