The Vanguard

Bangkok: Keith Raniere Might Be Innocent

By Bangkok

I’d like to make the case for Keith being innocent since even Satan needs an advocate.

Frank is so biased against Keith that I don’t think he’s capable of seeing the other side.

But WHAT IF Keith is innocent of the charges?

What if the jury sees things like this:

April 19th is National Garlic Day, a terrible day for Keith Raniere.

1) Keith encouraged his girlfriends to maintain a garlic-free, thickly coiffed twat.

A little weird perhaps, but is that a crime?

2) Keith enjoyed partaking in poontang with multiple women and eating pussy.

If that’s a crime, then we’re going back to the dark ages.

3) Keith may have lied about being a judo champion and breaking the 100-yard dash record.

Where’s the fucken crime in that?

Keith Alan Raniere

4) Keith may have lied about his intellect in order to gain consent towards fornication.

Is that any different from a guy who pretends to be rich and successful in order to score some poontang from the local bar?

Keith Raniere specialized in taking photographs of naked women. This is not one of his photos.

5) What about the issue of consent?

It sure sounds like each woman stripped for Keith and spread like cream cheese voluntarily, of their own volition. Keith never tore off their clothes. Keith seemed to always ask for their consent before ravaging their twats with his tongue. The fact that they regretted it afterward does not remove the original consent.

He considered himself the world smartest man, the most ethical and one of the most athletic.

6) Keith may have assisted poverty-stricken women from Mexico into gaining employment within the United States of America.

He may have fibbed a little on their VISA applications, but is that any worse than sanctuary states supporting millions of illegals who enter the country with NO application? Keith merely had the desire to help diversify Clifton Park with immigrants.

A group ceremony involved the first line slaves and their master [in the center] Keith Alan Raniere – where they were to give him a group blow job.

7) Keith may have lied when not telling women that their ‘branding’ would contain his initials.

How can the presence or absence of his initials be a crime?

 

It’s possible that Keith is innocent.

About the author

Guest View

38 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • I wasn’t sure exactly what the crime of sex trafficking entailed, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia: “to meet the definition of trafficking, there needs only to be exploitation of an individual after they have been coerced or deceived”

    Stick a fork in Keith, because he’s done. The bar is set quite low for this crime, and the punishment is severe. Ample evidence has been presented at trial that these women were both coerced and deceived into providing sexual services to the accused. Allison Mack is extremely lucky that the government dropped the trafficking charge against her in her plea deal, because she is plainly guilty of sex trafficking and should be facing the minimum 15 year prison sentence for her crime. Or more, as I don’t see any grounds for leniency for either of these two felons.

    The other major charge, racketeering, has a similar broad legal definition and low bar of proof. Nxivm and DOS are clearly corrupt organizations. Abundant evidence has been produced of a pattern of deception, coercion, fraudulent bookkeeping, and other irregularities more in keeping with a crime syndicate than a legitimate business.

    To draw a parallel with another criminal case that has been in the news, I wouldn’t have thought paying a bribe to get one’s kid a higher SAT score for college was illegal. Immoral, sure, but go to prison for it? Nah. Well, surprise surprise, some rich and famous people have had to plead guilty to felonies and are looking at jail time.

    • “I wasn’t sure exactly what the crime of sex trafficking entailed, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia:” …Okay…How about looking the real meaning? like in the penal code? i’m sure if you can search on wiki, you can find the complete thing on a more accurate website! No?

      The real definition include a complete and clear situation with several point to be filled to be acknowledged as such…

      You keep coming back with Allison (and how Lucky she was), the reality is that there is absolutely Nothing that fit with the sex trafficking in her case! That is why the prosecution dropped so easily this part against her…
      Even the extortion is borderline and barely pass.

      But for the defense of prosecution, they just do follow the code , not some extremely limited explaination from wikipedia.

      Oh and thanks for showing what kind of a moron you are! Always a pleasure to read that kind of ridiculous comments !

  • It’s always been the problem here – where you draw the line between consent and forcing someone. It is one reason I am following this case and find it so interesting.
    However if he had sex with a girl when she was 15 and knew that and if it were illegal in the place he did it then surely that’s one crime. A lot of the other stuff is not illegal and no collateral was ever released – the collateral has always felt to me something like teenage girls might invent as a scheme to help them lose weight etc. If KR asked them to send naked photos I am not sure that is even easily proved as by force but I still think it all went so far he probably will be found guilty of some of the charges.
    He could have avoided all this by just obeying the law and kept all sexual stuff out of the cult. Same with the FLDS – – had the leader not started marrying younger and younger girls they would instead have been left alone to have lots of wives as long as they were over age of consent.

  • If Raniere is innocent, than anyone who was involved in a conspiracy or racketeering case where they didn’t actually lay hands on another or pull a trigger, and anyone involved in a domestic abuse or human trafficking case where the victims weren’t physically restrained or actually had a gun to their head, should be released and pardoned.

    It’s a somewhat interesting devil’s advocate argument, but it also skips over some of the points on which Raniere is most directly culpable, such as the use of collateral for extortion, and the deceptive and false pretenses under which people were induced to do things.

  • Bangkook, this was stupid. Did Frank ask you to come up with a retarded article, or did you do this all by yourself?

    • Somebody,

      How dare you call into question the authenticity of Bangkok’s motives.

      Bangkok is motivated by a highest of callings…..

      …..He craves attention.

  • Are you talking about “innocent” as a legal matter or “innocent” in a moral sense? If it is the former, there is no such thing as being legally “innocent.” The jury will find him “guilty” or “not guilty.” Finding him “innocent” is not an option.

    This isn’t just an issue of semantics. It is a fundamental part of our legal system. As an example that everyone is familiar with: OJ Simpson was not found innocent. The jury concluded that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed murder.

    To be clear, I’m not suggesting that KAR isn’t guilty. He is clearly guilty of lots of things. But I’m not completely convinced that he is legally guilty of a federal crime. I’m obviously not in the courtroom and perhaps the government has proven its case and/or will prove its case before it rests.

    Bottom line: I think it is unfortunate that this case was not brought in state court. I think it would be much easier to convict there. (And perhaps a state court case will follow this case).

    As for a civil lawsuit, there is a legal doctrine of “clean hands.” While some of these women may have clean hands, some of them clearly do not. I would have to research whether the clean hands doctrine even applies here.

  • All valid points especially since it would be difficult to prove “intent” to harm.
    EXCEPT, there is the issue of Coercion / Blackmailing which is not a small concern. It may not fit the traditional definition of sex trafficking but it will be difficult for the jury to acquit on this issue.

    What I think is possible is he gets the minimum mandatory 15 year sentence for sex trafficking with time served and time off for good behavior. (approx. 12 more years till release).

    • Coercion and blackmailing absolutely got the standard definition for sex trafficking. The legal definition states that services (sexual or otherwise) obtained by “force, fraud, or coercion” constitute trafficking. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

  • I sense a little tongue-in-cheek in the above, but I believe all this testimony is laying the groundwork for the specific charges of illegal acts. Just read the threatening, letters he drafted with Bronfman to silence people he felt might go to law enforcement – those letters were sent to intimidate and instill fear. I suspect it will also be proved he was the head of an organization that smuggled cash over borders and avoided paying taxes. I believe people were brought here illegally from Mexico to act as indentured servants for little or no pay. I am unable to go through all the charges, but he is guilty of a lot. It’s true that disgusting sexual behavior and emotional abuse / manipulation are not, in and of themselves, against the law. But stay tuned.

  • Weird. Someone calling himself Bangkok (get it?) wants to talk as much as possible about hot naked girls.

    Okay, dude.

    You left out the part where Keith had sex with a 15-yr-old and set up a blackmail system under the guise of “personal growth.”

    • BrainlessCock
      Keith isn’t charged with branding. He isn’t charged with convincing naive women to have sex with him, and he isn’t charged with lying or with fabricating his achievements.

      I’m sure that the prosecution will be able to convict him on the crimes that he has been charged with.

  • You are right he is innocent. Innocent of possessing the smallest shred of human decency, good hygiene, any chill whatsoever, no regard for others, a fully functioning penis, above average intelligence and the list goes on. Guilty as charged. Anything else is just semantics. Bring on financial testimony

  • The ONLY way Keith could be “Innocent” is if he TRULY believed what he was doing was for the better good – but then there’s a simple problem: He might not of KNOWINGLY broken any laws but he needs confining in a mental institution because he is obviously VERY broken himself. What he did is not NORMAL, controlling others is not NORMAL – he shows a lot of psychiatric tenancies (Convincing others he is – basically – god is NOT NORMAL) and THAT is what the public have to be afraid of if he is released. He truly appears to believe he is better than everyone else, and that is scary and the fact he can manipulate others into believing that everything he touches is basically divine is just ……… let me think ……… NOT NORMAL !!!

    • ignorance of the law will not be an allowable argument in a court of nys law to prove innocence its on you to know right from wrong

  • What he did definitely doesn’t fit the typical definition of sex trafficking, BUT it makes him look like an absolute pile of garbage. Even if he is acquitted on sex trafficking, I bet he will be convicted of racketeering. And the judge can go above the sentencing guidelines on the grounds that he’s a piece of shit, even if not technically a sex trafficker.

    * Fingers crossed that Allison testifies! *

    • someone sex trafficked some underage sisters from mexico where does blame lie? those kids were underage by nys standards {not that nys has any standards left moral and financially bankkrupt} parents surrendered their children he took advantage to me its international at this point and mackymack grooming the neighbors child no there was a sex trafficking element that CANT be denied favors were traded and something was “understood” that hasnt quite been articulated yet

      • Everything you said is true but he’s not charged with trafficking underage Mexican girls. He’s charged with trafficking a 30 year old woman from California. The child porn charge is the only one involving anyone underage. Again, it doesn’t change a thing about how disgusting he is, only the nature of the charges. That’s why his entire defense is structured around technicalities in the legal system. But I mean really, he’s gonna get convicted of at least a couple things no matter what.

    • What he did fits the legal definition of trafficking like a glove. He obtained “services” (sexual and otherwise) by means of force, fraud, and coercion. That’s pretty much it.

      • Quite possibly, Val, you may be right. Jupiter and Mars are out of alignment and will not line to the Orion constellation for another 3 months.

        Yes Val B & A are in the same summer school because academia does not recognize their true brilliance.

  • It’s also possible that Bangcook isn’t an asshole.

    Probabilistically speaking, the chances that Raniere is innocent is very slim, perhaps on the order of 0.000000000001%. Such a chance can only be deemed available because no human being can know the subjective consciousness of another person with absolute certainty.

    The chance of not proving Raniere guilty by getting a jury to convict him is higher, but that is something quite different.

    • He is decidedly not innocent if he took (and kept) pictures of a naked underaged girl or had sex with her. I would not be surprised if that evidence is presented right before the prosecution rests.

About Frank Parlato

About Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in major publications all over the world, including The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CNN, Fox News, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and more.

Frank Report is dedicated to Frank's investigative journalism and the pursuit of truth.

Read more about Frank Report's mission.

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

     
     
%d bloggers like this: