Just as Joe O’Hara predicted, Keith Alan Raniere is now attempting to assert ownership rights to some of the assets that federal prosecutors are attempting to acquire via forfeiture proceedings.
Joe explains, “Raniere claims to own 10% of the assets, proceeds and property of First Principles, Inc. – including, but not limited to, all the company’s patents and proceeds, all of its ethical and psychological tests, all its business and financial records, all its files (student and otherwise), all curricula, materials, rights and related property and any interests and proceeds derived from the assets of the company.
“Raniere has requested that Judge Nicholas Garaufis hold an ancillary proceeding within thirty (30) days to hear his arguments – and to rule on the matter.
“As a result, it is doubtful that any sentencing hearings will be held until after that ancillary hearing has been concluded.
“Although the filing did not include any proof-of-ownership materials, it was noted that Raniere’s attorneys had provided the Court and the prosecution with a copy of Government Exhibit 1279 – which purportedly includes references to the royalties that Mr. Raniere had been collecting or accumulating from First Principles, Inc.”
Thanks, Joe, for explaining it in simple language. Now here is the actual letter to the judge in legalese, of course.
It is noteworthy that Raniere’s lawyers signing off on this latest filing are part of the defense team that represented him as his ill-fated trial: Paul DeroHannesian and Marc Agnifilo.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
KEITH RANIERE,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
PETITIONER KEITH RANIERE’S SPECIFIC PETITION ASSERTING CLAIM OF INTEREST IN CRIMINAL FORFEITURE AND REQUEST FOR ANCILLARY
PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) AND FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(c)
The Petitioner, Keith Raniere, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), hereby petitions for entry of a Final Order of Forfeiture, amending the preliminary orders of forfeiture entered herein as necessary to account for third party rights and any lawful orders, and specifically as to Petitioner’s interests in the release of property from criminal forfeiture in the ancillary proceedings conducted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(B) in
this matter.
I.
The property to which this petition and claim refers (hereinafter referred to as such and as “the property”) is described below as: First Principles Inc., a Delaware corporation, and all assets rights thereof, including but not limited to bank accounts and intellectual property rights.
THIRD PARTY PETITION AND CLAIM OF INTEREST IN CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
II.
The property was identified in the preliminary orders of forfeiture in this matter as subject to criminal forfeiture in the criminal action pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841, 846 and 853(a).1
III.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of criminal forfeiture, the forfeiture procedures are governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2. See, Rule 32(k)(2). These are the sentencing procedures applicable to the Defendants N. Salzman, A. Mack and L. Salzman. Moreover, “[a]ny person convicted of a violation under this subchapter or subchapter II of this subchapter punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any
provision of State law: (1) any property constituting, derived from, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; (2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or facilitate the commission of such violation.” Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(a).
IV.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of criminal forfeiture, third party interests in forfeiture are adjudicated under 21 U.S.C. §853(n). These are the procedures applicable to Keith Raniere.
1 On June 20, 2019, the Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture relative to the defendant Nancy Salzman’s [Dkt. 739] conviction to the subject offenses contained in the Indictment filed in Federal Court.
On June 25, 2019, the Court entered an amended preliminary order of forfeiture relative to the defendant Allison Mack’s [Dkt. 742] conviction to the subject offenses contained in the Indictment filed in Federal Court.
On July 17, 2019, the Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture relative to the defendant Allison Mack’s [Dkt. 758] conviction to the subject offenses contained in the Indictment filed in Federal Court.
On June 17, 2019, the Court entered an amended preliminary order of forfeiture relative to the defendant Lauren Salzman’s [Dkt. 722] conviction to the subject
offenses contained in the Indictment filed in Federal Court. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture relative to the defendant Lauren Salzman’s [Dkt. 759] conviction to the subject offenses contained in the Indictment filed in Federal Court.
[A]ny person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may … petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property. 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(2).2
[T]he petition shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner’s right, title or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought. 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(3).
V.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of criminal forfeiture, the ancillary proceedings conducted by this Court require the entry of a final order of forfeiture. See, Rule 32.2(c). Under Rule 32.2(c)(1), “[I]f, as prescribed by statute, a third party files a petition asserting an interest in the property to be forfeited, the court must conduct an ancillary proceeding, but no ancillary proceeding is required to the extent that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment.”
Keith Raniere hereby submits his sworn petition asserting the nature and extent of his lawful interest, right and title in the subject property inclusive of additional facts supporting his claim and the relief sought. This hearing must therefore determine the validity of the third party interests in the property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(2).
VI.
A. Section 853(n)(6)(A).
Petitioner shall set forth below the nature and extent of his title and interest in the property. Specifically, Keith Raniere’s title and interest in the property set forth below was vested in him, not in the defendants, N. Salzman, A. Mack and L. Salzman. His right, title and interest was superior to that of any alleged interest claimed by any of the defendants who was subject to the forfeiture order. Furthermore, the defendants N. Salzman, A. Mack and L. Salzman claim no interest whatsoever in any subject property.
Thus, Mr. Raniere’s interest in the subject property was superior to any purported interest claimed by the Defendants N. Salzman, A. Mack and L. Salzman (“Defendants”) at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the criminal forfeiture of the property under this section. See, 21 U.S.C.
§853(n)(6)(A).
B. Section 853(n)(6)(B).
Keith Raniere’s title and interest in the property is superior to any other interest claimed by the Defendants or third party. He was “a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonable without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section.” See, 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(B).
C. Material Facts Related to Keith Raniere’s Proceeds and Assets in First Principles, Inc.
First Principles, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation in which Mr. Raniere has by agreement a 10% interest in the assets, proceeds and property of First Principles, Inc.
Mr. Raniere claims his right, title and interest in all proceeds and patents of First Principles as set forth above as well as the ethical and psychological tests, business and financial records of First Principles, Inc., all files (student and otherwise), all curricula, materials, rights and related property and any interests and proceeds derived from the assets of First Principles, Inc.
VII.
Petitioner concludes that he is entitled to relief from forfeiture and this District Court should amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination. 21 U.S.C.
[3 We are providing the Court and the Government with Government Exhibit 1279, via electronic mail only, which references Mr. Raniere’s royalties from First Principles, Inc. We are not attaching the Exhibit in this public filing as it was not introduced at trial and therefore remains covered by the applicable Protective Orders.]
§835(n)(6)(B). Petitioner maintains that the final order of forfeiture against Raniere entered does not affect him and is invalid to forfeit his interests in the property. Several reasons apply. As an initial matter, there has been no determination of the extent of interest of any third party’s interest in the forfeited property.
Petitioner’s interests survive any alleged claim of interest by the Defendants.
Defendants’ interest, if any, could be forfeited, but Petitioner’s remaining lawful interest survives Defendants’ interest. Moreover, Petitioner’s interest in the property is a superior interest to any right, title or interest of the Defendants. 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(A). In addition, Petitioner’s interest is valid because he was a bona fide purchaser for value of a ten percent interest in First Principles, Inc. and any other property relevant to this claim and petition. 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(B).
Likewise, Keith Raniere is an innocent owner of the ten percent interest in First Principles, which is property titled in his own name, having acquired this property with his own lawful funds. He has demonstrated this by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6).
Consequently, the District Court should amend the order of forfeiture [Dkt. 739] and grant claimant’s third party petition for ancillary proceedings under 21 U.S.C. §853(n).
***
What this means, as I understand it, is that Raniere is claiming that he created the technology for Rational Inquiry that was used as Nxivm through a licensing agreement with First Principles. In return, the lad got 10 percent ownership in First Principles LLC [Delaware]. [He actually controlled 100 percent of everything.]
(He also had some [worthless] patents owned by First Principles such as “Tests to Spot a Luciferian” [A sociopath] and “How to Control Dreams”, and, of course, his patent on the colored sashes.)
So now the government is attempting to seize First Principles which is owned primarily by Nancy Salzman. Salzman is not opposing the government taking First Principles. So but for Raniere, the government would grab 1005 of this company.
Nancy is through with Raniere – at least for now. And she is more interested in getting a light sentence than causing any problem with the feds.
Raniere, however, is objecting because he owns 10 percent of First Principles, or so he claims. After all, the genius tech was invented by him. Not only that, he’s got nothing to lose. Unlike Nancy, Lauren, Allison and the others – who might get light sentences – Raniere is down for a minimum of 15 years for the sex trafficking charges alone.
It is not clear if Keith Alan thinks he can resurrect Nxivm someday – when he gets out of prison in 30 years or so – or whether he is trying to obfuscate matters with hopeless legal nonsense.
He may just want to get a hearing in front of the sentencing judge before he is sentenced to show how smart he is and impress the judge with the golden nature of his teachings. Maybe if the judge only understood how ethical and misunderstood Raniere is he would sentence him to a lighter sentence.
Raniere may be able to wax poetic before the judge – without being cross-examined. (He was too chicken to take the stand on his own behalf at his trial – most likely because he feared being cross-examined by a slender woman in turquoise heels [Moira Kim Penza]).
He may – at a hearing – be able to argue that he invented the tech – on his own – with his own brain – and therefore his 10 percent interest is not crime proceeds. Whatever his gambit, however, I suspect, it is not likely to succeed.
But what is the value of this 10 percent interest in First Principles anyway?
The government plans to seize First Principles. If they get it, will they auction it off? Possibly.
Perhaps Clare Bronfman, Edgar Boone, Sara Bronfman, Omar ‘Cuckie’ Boone and others in Nxivm might bid to buy it. Raniere would not want to be cut out.
There may be others, former students – who have left Nxivm and now denounce Raniere – who might think that the tech is still good despite Raniere.
They might also bid for the company that controls the Nxivm tech and try to revive the tech under another name.
Raniere would want his share of the profits.
But can the feds in good conscience sell First Principles?
The argument can be made that the entire tech is nothing more than a devious hypnotic induction program meant to slow boil students into submission to the leader. And then there are the perverse elements of it – the teachings that rape is a metaphor for orgasm for women and that little children who enjoy sex with their parents are not being abused.
Is this what the government wants to sell?
It is all very curious.
Let us see how it plays out.
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 occurs to met that it must drive Raniere nuts, to see his teachings and “tech” completely out of his control, and headed towards either ending up in the hands of others – unless he manages to stay on very good terms with whoever has the ability to buy it – or being buried on the ash heap of history. His ruse about not owning anything has now backfired on him, and the best he can do is to make a dubious claim to own 10% – yet another example, that he never planned for the possibility of things going wrong (even Scientology provides an example of how the ownership of intellectual property can be cunningly hidden behind corporate veils).
The uncertainty about its ownership, probably also helps keep anyone from using it in the meantime, at least not in any way that is obvious or public.
Aren’t Clare Bronfman and, most likely, sister Sara still footing the bill for KAR’s illustrious counsel to now claim of a chunk of their company, First Principles?
I’d say this answers the question of whether the Bronfman girls are deprogrammed or NOT enough to act in their own interests.
Clare should trade in that jock strap Keith had on her for a pair of those cow udders he had on the other DOS chicks — squirting cash in her and Sara’s case.
Heidi, I don’t think we can have any idea what is going on behind the scenes, and thus no basis for making assumptions.
Maybe the lawyers expect that Raniere can pay for his appeal out of Pam Cafritz’ estate, or his share of Clare Bronfman’s island. Or perhaps once they’ve been paid millions of dollars at full rate for a case, they’re willing to see a basic appeal through at the risk of not getting paid much further; and here, do something that might shake loose some money that they could then grab a share of. There are all sorts of possibilities that we could speculate about, and no real evidence for any of them.
I do wonder if the accounts of Clare wanting to pursue further education, indicate that she’s starting to think on her own and go different directions. Once people are out of the hothouse environment of a high control group or cult, their allegiance and interest often start to wane pretty quickly. Nancy Salzman is probably more and more blaming Raniere for ruining everything (I’ve heard rumblings about that, and have a personal source of information to bolster it), and perhaps others are souring on him as well as they look back on things and face their fate. If history is any guide we’re almost certain to be surprised at what was actually going on in a couple of individual cases, so again who knows in any one case.
Clare Bronfman, for one, may be facing the fact that she’s gone from being carefree wealthy, to being very restricted for her, in what she can spend money on, since most of her available assets outside of old trust funds, have either been lost or are now tied up. Probably gone are the days when she could just buy a horse farm for her amusement – or sink tens of millions into an endeavor in an attempt to bolster her imagined reputation as a “humanitarian.” She could end up something like this:
Huguette Clark
American philanthropist
“Huguette Marcelle Clark was an American heiress and philanthropist, who became well known again late in life as a recluse, living in hospitals for more than 20 years while her various mansions remained unoccupied.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguette_Clark
(It’s a truly bizarre story; she was born of an affair between her father, described by Mark Twain as among the most awful men who had ever lived, and a young housemaid)
Some of you may be interested to know that Marc Agnifilo has another criminal client who has retained his services: Darren Indyke. (If you didn’t already know, Indyke is Jeff Epstein’s long-time attorney, and one of the executors of his estate).
Epstein’s estate is worth an estimated 550 million dollars.
A little off topic, but it might interest some of you to know that Marc Agnifilo has another interesting client…Darren Indyke, who happens to be the executor of a certain pedophile’s estate, in addition to being his long time attorney.
What is ‘Sex Machine’ Kathy Russell up to these days?
I think the judge should allow Raniere to have 100% of the information, so long as he teaches only his fellow prisoners. After about five times of getting the sh!t beat out of of him after a class, Raniere will probably figure it out and stop teaching it. If anyone else tries to use it, Raniere could sue them, but not be able to use any proceeds from the lawsuit for anything other than commissary hot sauce and the “just add water” cardboard pizza.
Re NXIVM tech sale at auction:
If Raniere’s tech is auctioned off…..
……. it would be very entertaining if Frank Parlato or Joe O’Hara purchased tech rights for a couple hundred bucks and then…….
….Destroyed all of NXIVM’s tech and then let Raniere know. 😉
There are probably a number of people who would like to see the “tech” buried forever, who could band together to bid for it.
However, if a Bronfman or a rich Mexican wants it, that will be hard to compete with.
Let them fill their boots, hahaha, like buying the rights to Spark-notes’ Sense and Sensibility and imagining you own a real piece of Jane Austin’s intellect..
Interesting that Keith never listed those assets or royalty streams in his financial affidavit filled out 2 days after his arrest, where he claimed to have zero ‘other income’ and no assets other than a $65k property in Albany.
Also, if he’s claiming ownership of income/royalty streams (and never reported that income on IRS tax returns) then he’s admitting to deceiving the IRS.
I hope they nail him for tax fraud if that’s really what happened. 🙂
I’m guessing there’s a lot of tax related charges coming in round #2 of the indictments. 🙂
Should be soon. As a matter of fact your indictment is probably in round #2 of the indictments, Dennis.
I’d recognize Heidi’s alter ego anyplace, LOL. 🙂
You have a one track mind, Sunshine. You seem to think of Denny Burke every minute of every day.
Might wanna start charging him RENT, Miss Heidi, cuz he’s already living RENT FREE in your brain 7 days per week. 🙂
I bid you a nice day, Miss Heidi.
Bangkok,
….. Maybe you should start charging Heidi rent because she occupies a strip mall sized piece of real estate in your mind…..Bangkok….
Have an awesome evening you little schmuck. 😉
Actually I have a lot of things and people on my mind these days, Dennis (Bangkok).
One of the PEOPLE I have on my mind is Max Silberman, an at risk young man who killed himself with a drug overdose after hearing his parents involved in a stressed, yelling argument. Seems they were upset about being improperly threatened with criminal prosecution by a business colleague who was bullying, based on his wrong assumptions and his attempts to manufacture a nefarious history that didn’t exist. Who could that former “colleague” be? If you can bear it, take a look in the mirror for your answer about this and much more, Dennis K. Burke (Bangkok), a.k.a. the king of wishful thinking.
One of those THINGS on my mind is what is proving to be your well established pattern of harassment and retaliation against your coworkers. That is bad, Dennis (Bangkok). Retaliating is bad. You come off like a deranged ex-husband stalker in a family law scenario.
Another of the PEOPLE I have on my mind, although I’m sure you don’t, is Brian Terry. His brother Kent told us that after Brian died as a result of your illicit weapons trafficking with Mexican cartels, you stood in his Mom’s house with Tim Nelson and told the family there had been no gun running (and other things). That was another one of your big lie incidents, and everyone knows it.
You lied to the Terry family, in their house, while nervously making stupid comments about bad coffee. Then you sent your goon buddies to ransack what was left of Brian’s apartment to destroy evidence. What kind of a sick, heartless bastard are you, anyways.
Something else I think about a lot these days, Dennis (Bangkok), is the Salinas regime that you and Marco have become so tight with; the murderous history of that group, and what both of you are willing to do, for money, without a second thought.
Marco and a certain friend of his and Marco’s mother used to talk about the Salinas regime being the basis of most of the bad stuff that has happened throughout Mexico during what was, at the time, the recent fifteen year or more history of the country. You know exactly what I’m talking about.
Marco’s mother, at the time, called the Salinas regime the biggest criminals in Mexico. Yet now you’re in business with them. Marco posts pictures of himself on social media, standing next to his mother who used to speak badly about the Salinas regime, and Claudia Salinas herself, the puppet leader of the Mexican PRI. You know the Mexican people believe Carlos and Raul Salinas murdered Claudia’s Dad, right? And now you work for her father’s murderers, as does Marco.
Marco had Janet endorse Ricardo Anaya on U.S. soil in California, while Anaya was under investigation by the Mexican PGR for money laundering. Mexico’s new President AMLO called the Salinas “puppet candidate” for the Mexican Presidency.
Give me a break. You guys are in so deep with Salinas that you worked with not only one, but two Salinas puppet President personalities? Are there more?
In addition to helping Anaya, Marco was the U.S. campaign adviser to Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, the biggest Salinas puppet in recent history, who as you know is now under investigation by the feds in Mexico in multiple money laundering and bribery cases, among other accounts of egregious improper conduct.
You know damn well that’s your circle of interest, you corrupt bastard, Dennis (Bangkok).
A little over a year ago, you guys brought in Mark Sullivan, the former head of the secret service, to try to help spring Vanguard out of jail.
Are you kidding me? These are the best clients you could get?
Something else I think about is the fact that the only damn thing that seems to matter to you is money. Because apparently, you were persuaded by money to traffic weapons with Mexican cartels while you worked for Obama and Holder, and now Marco works for Carlos Salinas who is considered by the Mexican people to either be, or at least be in in business with lucifer himself.
What’s the deal with NXIVM’s patent #US20130281879, about “rehabilitating luciferians”, anyways?
You took Clare Bronfman’s money to help fund your off-the-books representation of Emiliano Salinas, on orders to keep “Emi” from being indicted, while handing off your own client (Clare Bronfman) for prosecution. Now you trash your former client, Clare Bronfman, on this message board, like the backstabbing fake friend you’ve always been. Not that Clare doesn’t deserve to be trashed — she does — but it’s extraordinary to watch you as her former lawyer violate ostensibly every duty you still owe her under the attorney rules. Par for the course, Mr. “D”?
The University of Arizona law school must be proud of all you’ve accomplished!
Turning back to the essence of your fakeness, your sophomoric fascination with money because you’ve never had any; as you complain about prior business associates, you repeatedly cite what you believe to be a lack of financial strength. However right or wrong you are, it’s the central criteria you use to judge people. Nothing else matters to you. What a guy.
I have no doubt you don’t think about the people and things mentioned here, as you’ve proven yourself a heartless narcissist over time. I on the other hand do think about them. A lot. More all the time, in fact.
Especially Max. Did anyone tell you who was Max’s honorary godfather? Maybe not. Do you know who was there when Max was born? I held him in my arms as a baby — something you don’t understand. Laugh all you want. I miss Max Silberman, Dennis. So does his Dad. You can call us “sick”, as you did in an email you wrote about Max’s death, because it helps you rationalize things, you twisted fool. You went back to threatening criminal prosecutions and trying to manufacture a case that didn’t exist a few days after he died.
Your self-serving rationalizations will never make us miss Max any less than we do, every day of the week.
In the interest of decency, my choice of words is often cleaner than yours. In conclusion I’ll substitute truth for decency as neither seems to be an obstacle to the impudence of your vainglorious ethics.
You know who is sick? You are. You’re a sick, twisted son of a bitch, Dennis.
The Terry family knows it. Anyone familiar with your gun running work with Mexican cartels and involvement with the Salinas regime knows it. We know it. The Arizona Bar knows it.
Your posts on this message board give readers a brief preview of what you’re made of. You can continue to try to mislead, misdirect, and confuse readers about yourself and your identity here. That’s fine. You’ve been doing it for a long time now. You’ve been doing your best to cover things up in your world for a long time now.
Despite your continual efforts at misdirection and your constant self-rationalization of all things, Dennis, make no mistake about the following because you’ve proven it to us, and to everyone, over time. We know, in every sense, who you really are.
Good point that the ownership interest he asserts in his claim was not listed on his relatively recent financial affidavit with the court.
This filing refers only generally to an “agreement” without citing any documents or evidence, so I’m guessing that is at best something verbal. Given all his other claims over time to not have any assets, including I believe when the State of New York came after him for fines he owed from CBL, it seems as if he is unlikely to prevail.
I don’t know that his having received royalties or other payments would necessarily constitute a legal element supporting claims of an actual ownership interest, either. But it’s another interesting point that he’s now claiming to have received income, in contradiction of other, prior, claims, could subject him to various jeopardies.
Apparently, he’s at the point of having his lawyers throw things at the wall and see if anything sticks. Presumably, they would have advised him if a filing might, for instance, expose him to perjury for contradicting other things he has previously sworn to, but he’s apparently not known for taking lawyers’ advice, so who knows.
agree.
I agree, Raniere is really exposing himself legally. I wonder whether his lawyers pointed this out to him? Perhaps they want to represent him in front of the IRS. Cha-CHING!
Please keep us updated, Frank. I want to put in a bid for the sashes. If they do an auction, it could be very successful. Other seemingly trifling things, like Keith’s knee pads, and DVD collections could garner a lot of interest.
I wonder if someone, anyone, has any of Keith’s frozen crap to auction on E-Bay? Allison? Barbara?
“I wonder if someone, anyone, has any of Keith’s frozen crap to auction on E-Bay?”
I read years ago that a museum in Pyongyang, North Korea preserved some of the used toilet paper of current leader Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, Kim Il Sung.
Kim Il Sung, who died in 1994, has an estimated 34,000 statues dedicated to him around North Korea.
“There are an estimated 34,000 statues of Kim Il Sung in the country, everything possible is named after him”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/visiting-north-korea_b_4256519
North Korea sends balloons full of used toilet paper, cigarette butts to South Korea
What will this admission mean to the Court in respect to Raniere’s prior statements that he is/was a renunciate and owns nothing/has no income?
More distraction. When are these people going to be sentenced? What about the disappearing indictments that were supposed to resurface in the NDNY? If this is the stuff which is occupying the courts .. well … honk! honk! Send in the clowns — don’t bother, they’re aready here.
If there are not indictments in the NDNY then the whole prosecution of NXIVM is a sham.
Even Judge Garaufis and prosecutor Penza raised questions as to whether NXIVM is still operating.
Apparently it is.
And the various leaders of this criminal gang are like vultures fighting over the carcass.
Ten percent of nothing is NOTHING!
“Would it be fair – after Keith Alan Raniere created the entire tech that is Nxivm – for someone else to be able to buy it and restart the teachings without paying the genius who created it all? After all, he did do all the work!”
Actually, to be accurate, Nancy Salzman did all of the STEALING!
Nancy stole most of NXIVM’s tech by borrowing (stealing) it from Scientology.
As if America needed a second version of the Scientology scam.
And as for Raniere’s bogus patent lawsuit against Microsoft and A. T & T, financed by Clare Bronfman, Raniere owes the victorious defendants 440,000 dollars in costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Nancy Salzman’s background was in hypnosis and NLP. Raniere had reportedly been interested in Scientology since the 1980s, and some people who had actually been involved provided first-hand knowledge. Salzman is probably responsible for more of the “tech” that actually does anything, but Raniere brought the knowledge of MLMs and cults to turn it into a profitable high control group – which I suspect is the reason that Salzman paired up with, and stayed with, him.
That’s yet another interesting point, about another possible outstanding judgment against Raniere. I doubt that 10% of what NXIVM’s assets would bring at a government seized property auction, would be anywhere near that amount; unless some of the deep-pocketed remaining NXIVM loyalist are bidding against one another, or a bitter former member is willing to spend money to buy the “tech” and bury it, it may not bring much more than the value of the binders and boxes it is in.
“it may not bring much more than the value of the binders and boxes it is in.”
It’s not as if Raniere and Nancy Salzman invented hypnosis and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.