Prosecution Wants Victims to Have Anonymity When Speaking at Nxivm Defendant’s Sentencing – Raniere Objects

The US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY has filed a motion with the court to allow the scores of victims of Nxivm to appear anonymously if they so choose at the sentencing of the six Nxivm defendants.

Their identities would not be kept secret from the defendants, but would not be revealed to the public.

As the US Attorney writes, “Some of the victims have indicated that they would prefer to proceed by Jane Doe number; other victims may choose to use the first name or nickname, as they were identified at trial; and other victims may wish to use their full names.”

Five of the six defendants have consented to the government’s request. One defendant has objected.

In making their argument, the government cited the The Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedent.

The full motion us here

The motion reads in part:

Dear Judge Garaufis:

The government respectfully submits this letter to request an order from the Court … permitting victims in this case to address the Court at sentencing proceedings and/or provide victim impact statements without publicly revealing their names or any identifying information….

Counsel for defendants Clare Bronfman, Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, Lauren Salzman and Nancy Salzman have consented to the government’s request. Counsel for defendant Keith Raniere has indicated that he objects to the government’s request….

The government has been in contact with a significant number of victims who would like to be heard at the defendants’ upcoming sentencings but are concerned for their privacy and would like to identify themselves by Jane or John Doe, or by the use of their first
name only. The government is prepared, however, to disclose their true identities to the defendants subject to the protective order entered in this case….  As the Court is aware, there is substantial explicit information in the public record regarding degrading and humiliating treatment that certain victims in this case were forced to endure, and it is anticipated that additional victims will provide similar, detailed information to the Court in their victim impact statements.

In addition, many victims are concerned about being identified publicly in light of the trial evidence regarding retaliation by members of the racketeering enterprise [Nxivm], including harassing litigation…. there would be no error to permit the victims to provide victim impact statements to the Court anonymously at the sentencing hearing.

To require the victims to provide full identifying information does not serve any of the legitimate purposes identified by the courts. Rather, requiring the victims to provide their identifying information at sentencing would serve only to harass, embarrass and “to humiliate or annoy the [victim].”…. 

Indeed, requiring the victims of certain crimes, including sex trafficking, to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to be heard, for fear of having their personal histories publicized, and the embarrassment and humiliation that such publicity could cause them as they rebuild their lives. In addition, a ruling requiring the victims to disclose their full identities publicly could cause other victims to fear seeking help from law enforcement as that could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment….

The government has received statements from numerous individuals who identify as victims of the defendants, but who may or may not ultimately qualify as victims under the statutes defining victim rights and restitution….. Regardless of that determination, these individuals possess information relevant to “the history and characteristics of the defendant[s].” ….  Several of these individuals will describe abusive conduct by the defendants and many seek restitution. Being publicly identified would compound the harms they describe, while causing humiliation, harassment and embarrassment, such that their willingness to come forward could be chilled….

Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Tanya Hajjar
Tanya Hajjar
Mark J. Lesko
Karin Orenstein

*******************

What does this all mean?

First of all, the motion is likely to be granted by the judge. He granted a similar motion during the trial, allowing several witnesses to use only their first names.

There is evidently a boatload of people planning to come to the sentencing of the various Nxivm defendants.

These victims and alleged victims are lined up to speak before the judge before he declares sentence. A number of them don’t want the media [including Frank Report] to publish their full names.

Some defendants will get dozens of victims speaking at their sentencing hearings – and some will get very few to none.

For instance, I doubt Kathy Russell will get many victims reciting the crimes she committed against them.

On the other hand, especially if their names can be kept from the media, there may be 100 or more victims showing up for the sentencing of Keith Raniere.

As for Clare Bronfman – we already know there are lots who wrote victim impact statements about her (Her presentencing report contained 25 pages of such statements). There may be more.

How many will show up for court is anybody’s guess. I don’t know if the feds will pay for the victim’s lodging and expenses to show up in Brooklyn, though Joe O’Hara thinks it is unlikely.

There is little doubt the feds are proactively seeking victims. I have had sources tell me they were contacted by the FBI and encouraged to make victim impact statements. These include people who were not mentioned in the trial as victims.

To date, only three of the six Nxivm defendants have been scheduled for sentencing.

Not yet scheduled

I think it is significant that Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack have not gotten sentencing dates as of yet.

I suspect [though I don’t know it] that these three may be cooperating with the feds to help bring about a second round of indictments that could include more charges for Raniere, Clare Bronfman, and charges for Sara Bronfman, Emiliano Salinas, Alejandro Betancourt, Rosa Laura Junco, and Nicki Clyne – and maybe even some of the attorneys who crossed the line in providing legal services to the NXIVM cult.

If we do not see a scheduled sentencing date sometime in January of the Salzmans and Mack, I think the odds are getting better that they are part of a second Nxivm case.

[There are some who might suspect that the heightening of Clare Bronfman’s sentence is the compromise measure made by Main Justice in return for not charging Emiliano Salinas. If Clare gets, for example, 7 years {instead of two years as was planned} under the guise that new victims came forward, or they miscalculated her Guidelines, the DOJ may be able to alleviate the optics of injustice of not charging her for her many more serious crimes and leave Emiliano protected. It is believed that Dennis Burke was “hired” as an attorney for Bronfman for this very reason – to protect Emiliano. This, however, is pure speculation.]

If the two Salzmans and Mack are not part of a new Nxivm case – as witnesses for the prosecution – then I would expect they too will have a slew of victims on hand at their sentencing to tell their stories of abuse prior to sentencing.

I suspect Nancy will have so many victims that there will be a line out the door.

If what is going down on Clare – a probable longer sentence – influenced in part by victims coming forward – I think then that Keith and Nancy will be most impacted by it.

If the judge is in a harsh sentencing mood, we might see the following sentences:

Keith Raniere: 25 – 40 years.

Clare Bronfman: 4-10 years

Kathy Russell: 1- 3 years.

Allison Mack: 4-10 years

Lauren Salzman: 3-6 years

Nancy Salzman: 4-10 years

On the other hand, if Nancy, Lauren and Allison are witnesses in an upcoming case, then I would expect they will get anywhere from probation to 2 years max and won’t be sentenced until after the second trial is complete – which might be another year or so from now.

Finally, Joe O’Hara reminded me that MK10ART recently created a lovely painting of the very lovely Toni Natalie.

It is not known if Toni Natalie will qualify as a victim. She almost certainly will not be entitled to any compensation. She left Nxivm a few months after it started some 20 years ago. It has been proven that most of her victimization stories are utter lies.

Chances are she will be permitted to speak at Raniere’s sentencing and she is a persuasive speaker – especially when she is lying [i.e. her mouth is moving].

And don’t worry, Toni will insist on using her full name and be available for media questions afterward.

Indeed, other victims better be careful that she doesn’t stampede them if they try to get in front of the cameras after sentencing.

Viva Executive Success!

Frank Parlato