Keith Raniere’s criminal defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo, told the New York Times he was confident that attorney Neil Glazer’s civil lawsuit against Nxivm and its leaders will ultimately help Raniere’s appeal.
The Times reports:
Marc Agnifilo, a lawyer for Mr. Raniere, said the lawsuit would allow Mr. Raniere to argue that some former Nxivm members did not provide truthful testimony at his trial.
“As several of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit testified at trial that they were not planning on bringing a lawsuit, Keith’s chances on appeal just increased,” Mr. Agnifilo said in a statement.
During the trial of Raniere, Agnifilo cross examined Daniela, the Mexican woman who was confined to a room for 700 days, asking her repeatedly if she was going to be part of a civil lawsuit. She adamantly denied she was.
Agnifilo sounded incredulous when she repeatedly denied she was taking part in the Glazer civil suit. Agnifilo even pointed out that Glazer was in the courtroom at that moment, and was her attorney, as I recall.
DOS slaves Jaye and Nicole, and former Nxivm leader Mark Vicente also testified in the trial and are plaintiffs in the Glazer lawsuit.
How far this bit about victims denying they planned to be part of a lawsuit will go to persuade appellate judges in the Second Circuit to overturn the results of the trial is hard to say for certain.
It doesn’t seem likely
After a six-week trial, on June 19, 2019 the jury delivered its verdict in under four hours.
It convicted Raniere on all seven counts:
- racketeering conspiracy
- racketeering
- forced labor conspiracy
- wire fraud conspiracy
- sex trafficking conspiracy
- sex trafficking
- attempted sex trafficking,
Raniere, 59, faces possible life imprisonment.
The jury also found that Raniere was guilty of perpetrating the following RICO predicate acts:
- Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft
- Conspiracy to Unlawfully Possess Identification Document
- Sexual Exploitation of a Child
- Sexual Exploitation of a Child #2
- Possession of Child Pornography
- Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft #2
- Identity Theft #1
- Identity Theft #2
- Conspiracy to Alter Records for Use in an Official Proceeding
- Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft #3
- Trafficking for Labor and Services
- Document Servitude
- Extortion
- Sex Trafficking
- Forced Labor
- Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft #4
Raniere is awaiting sentencing and the date is uncertain, but expected to be in March or April.
Will the fact that a couple of prosecution witnesses who may have misled the court, or possibly changed their minds after testifying, saying under oath that they were not part of the Glazer lawsuit change anything?
It seems unlikely, by itself.
Agnifilo will also almost certainly argue that Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis’ halting his cross examination of Lauren Salzman prevented him from exposing Lauren’s self-serving motives in her testimony against her former lover, mentor and de facto employer.
Salzman, 41, undammed a river of tears, as she wept for herself over how she had been cruelly deceived by Raniere and lost 20 years of her life.
The judge was moved and told Agnifilo, in front of the jury, to shut up and sit down.
Later, outside the presence of the jury, he told Agnifilo that Lauren was a broken woman and that he was, after all, a man (or did he say “human being”?) first, and a judge second.
In short, did he mean “before there were laws, there were women” and man’s need to protect them? Or would he have acted the same way if a man was blubbering on the stand?
Giving the judge the benefit of the doubt and that there was no inappropriate judicial chivalrous and/or chauvinistic impulse, regardless of gender, he nevertheless stopped the cross examination just at the point where Agnifilo arguably was making some headway toward impeachment of a witness in a trial where the defendant was facing a possible life sentence
No doubt Agnifilo will have other arguments. Perhaps the cumulative value of evidence permitted by the judge to be introduced, like the endless details of Raniere’s sex life, might be included in the appeal.
We even learned of Keith’s declarations about his penis length and the taste of his semen, things that some readers might wish to forget.
Unsightly, hair raising image of a beast ahead
Readers have complained that seeing the picture below without advance warning was a form of abuse akin to the human fright experiments of Dr. Brandon Porter. Consequently Frank Report now issues a warning prior to showing it:
In the event of a successful appeal, Raniere is not likely to be freed. A successful appeal will likely lead to a new trial.
If there is a new trial, Raniere will not likely go free on bail. The trial judge heard several applications for bail and denied them on the grounds that he is a flight risk and potential menace to society.
During the trial there was ample evidence to confirm the judge’s decision to deny bail. There was evidence that the smartest man in the world unwisely fled the jurisdiction after he found out he was under FBI investigation, going off to hide in Mexico and using burner phones, running from one city to another when the FBI learned of his residence [Frank Report published his actual address in San Pedro Garza Garcia].
He won’t likely get bail even if he gets a new trial.
But appellate judges are practical too. This is a high profile case. Another trial will be costly and create a shitstorm of media scrutiny for the judges and the system alike and could, depending on their ruling, make Garaufis look foolish.
Judges don’t like to make fellow judges look foolish.
There are emotions at play and considerations that possibly will trump due process, if in reality Raniere’s due process rights were violated.
Chief of which is that, after a full six weeks of trial, the jury nailed the lordly rascal in less than four hours and that included a leisurely farewell luncheon.
If there had been no free lunch, I am convinced that the jury would have convicted Raniere in no more than 14 minutes, the maximum time it took for the eager jurors to fill out their verdict forms with a string of check marks in the guilty boxes.
The jurors had decided long before the trial ended that this was the guiltiest mother fucker they had ever seen.
You could see it from their eyes, and their facial expressions, that they were just waiting to cook this goose. There was no debate, no discussion, no need to review any evidence. There was the verdict and there was lunch.
Whether Lauren Salzman’s testimony had been stopped, or not, or even if she had not testified, would have made no difference.
Whether Dani or others said they were going to try to make a fortune off the asshole, would not have made the slightest difference.
This punk was going down. He was toast somewhere around the first day of testimony and it only got worse.
A second trial will not change a thing.
He will get convicted by a jury just as quickly and the only real thing that will be deliberated by the jurors is what each one is having for lunch.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I wonder how many of the 58 Jane Does were in Girls By Design?
Probably none, otherwise deep pocketed GBD leader Kristin Kreuk would be a defendant.
What does that tell you?
There isn’t a lawyer anywhere who could get Raniere’s convictions overturned.
His guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt in every instance.
After he is sentenced – no matter what sentence he receives, there will be an appeal, but regardless of the result, he’ll serve what is effectively a life sentence.
Agnifilo will make some money, but he can’t raise the dead.
Plus potential perjury for 2 of the witnesses (one of them being a major one)…
Not only it will help him there but also on the MAJOR witnesses like Allison and Lauren…
The sentencing hasn’t happened yet and there is already an absurd civil lawsuit that will go nowhere (too many facts ignored)
Well done, Mr. Glazer!! well done…
Chance that Allison will still witness against Raniere is great (as it can only help her case…When facts are shown at the appeal, Glazer will have a hard time to defend any position against Allison) but why would the others cooperate now?
Glazer is just a money-starving idiot…he obviously ignores major points for the sake of suing.
Once again, I’m frustrated because Allison is preparing for her healing (she is a huge victim, like it or not, and it’s not debatable (enough people witness the abuse) and the pseudo victim, who supposedly know nothing about the details go after her…
Raniere is the sole responsible party ere and should be the sole défendant.
If anything, Allison should be on the victim/plaintiff side.
She showed she is done with Nxivm and those idiots will push her to be guided in court by Raniere as she is stripped from cash…
She is undeniably one of the victims and this is shown by the many things she had to endure (I don’t expect to see an article showing what Allison had to go through and if Frank had more interest on HER side of the story, he would learn that she suffered from WAY more than what is publicly known…but it’s not like Frank ever cared about being fair)
Lets list what Allison was a subject of experiment:
E.M. (Something Glazer says to be having an impact on the psychology and decision making of the subject)
Semi starvation (Something that is shown to be of huge impact on the brain and decision making (scientifical fact)
Sleep deprivation (Something that is shown to be of huge impact on the brain and decision making (scientifical fact))
Battery (while the branding is not (or it is by the victim to the victim…Allison wasn’t there), A pseudo karateka beaten Allison to the blood…for Raniere’s pleasure!)
Ridicule (Allison was, at least once, caged for making a decision that Raniere didn’t like
Coercion (Allison is definitely coerced, collateral were written enough so people know by now)
Sexual abuse (I’ll only talk about the official case (not what I was told) but the threesome mail shows she was not willingly having sex with him (“fight with my viscera” is hardly a sign of free will)
I could list the rest but some are not recognized (yet) …like the fact that she was drugged (I remind that not that long ago, Parlato said that Allison could be poisoned too)
You can either ignore the facts expecting the trial to go for the victim or accept that Allison is a victim too and have another victim witnessing of Raniere’s gruesome behavior…
Those who are SANE enough to know who is the real culprit would like admit the proven fact that Allison is just another victim and think about the guarantee of a life in jail for Raniere…
I maintain that I’m not worried, Allison will have the opportunity to FINALLY tell her side of the story (Something that justice and pseudo victim tried to deprive her from)…I doubt a jury will go against her after she speaks.
This lawsuit will not be able to acknowledge that the first line masters are somewhere in between victim and perpetrator. It can’t, because it would weaken the case that they should compensate those below them in the pyramid.
Judge Garaufis to Agnifilo, “I have a right and an obligation to control the extent to which you can do this. I was watching this witness.” (Agnifilo says he didn’t raise his voice.)
Judge Garaufis said, ” I’m not saying you didn’t maintain composure. I’m worried about her composure. [Lauren Salzman] You asked her about legal judgments. I took her guilty plea. I thought it was extremely excruciating. You went back to the line of questioning.”
And then Judge Garaufis said, “I might not get everything right; I’m human. Before I’m a judge I’m a human being. I’m not going to allow this to continue.”
Also Garaufis to Agnifilo, “your’re done. You went way over the line. You kept coming back.”
This was after the prosecution had objected to Agnifilo’s line of questioning to Lauren Salzman, saying “you cannot ask a witness to render a legal judgment.” Agnifilo kept going.
Agnifilo did step over the line, and it was the Judge’s line, which Judge Garaufis has ALREADY defined to Agnifilo, but he kept on pushing. As well, this wasn’t the first time during Raniere’s trial when Agnifilo could be said to have been “reprimanded.”
Agnifilo’s all bluster, but we all know that. Don’t be mad at him, it’s his job. This suit will in no way affect Raniere’s appeal. The witnesses were not caught lying in their testimony regarding the relevant facts. They merely changed their minds, huge difference.
The halting of Lauren’s testimony is probably the biggest chance for appeal he has, and even that is a looooooong shot.
I do take issue with this rather patriarchal comment, though: ‘In short, “before there were laws, there were women” and man’s need to protect them.’
Really, Frank? You didn’t need to go there. The judge never indicated he was stopping Lauren’s testimony because he was some old-school man’s man. He did it because of the humanity, not the sexes involved. I bet you know that, but it’s probably hard to completely repress all that ‘manmaking’ from your past. 😉
I wonder if the judge would have stopped the testimony if a man was blubbering in the witness stand?
And I wonder if he would have stopped it if a woman Teny Geragos for instance) was cross-examining Lauren.
Marc Agnifilo may have been too aggressive.
But I honestly think due process was abridged by the halting of the cross-examination of Lauren Salzman. Not that it would have made much difference in the verdict. But the judge stopped it cold. It was the end of the day. He could have permitted it to be resumed in the morning.
But on the other hand, Agnifilo did not ask to resume cross-examination. As I recall he made a motion for mistrial.
Sorry dummy, but due process would only be abridged IF the judge stopped Agnifilo from asking relevant, non-repetitive, non-badgering questions which actually sought to shed light on new information which had not already been asked of Lauren.
The judge warned him to stop badgering her with the same questions being asked in different ways, which the judge deemed to be badgering the witness, which is not allowed. Agnifilo didn’t heed that warning.
The fact that Lauren was a woman who cried more easily than a man would have (while being badgered) is not a relevant issue for appeal — the only relevant issue is whether the judge stopped Agnifilo from asking legit questions which sought to reveal new information, and whether or not his questions were designed to badger the witness by rehashing old questions that had already been asked and answered, by merely using different phrasing.
Your analysis is SHIT, Frank.
Due process was given.
In fact, the judge probably let Agnifilo badger Lauren for TOO LONG and should have stopped it sooner, as Agnifilo’s goal was not to reveal new information for the jury, it was to harass the witness and bring her to tears. Grow a brain, Frank.
Have a nice day.
Sorry dummy, you didn’t answer Frank’s question. Non-responsive answer. LOL
Scott, you are going to make Bangkok cry. You called him a plagiarist and a dummy. Plus you keep correcting lil Bing-bong’s mistakes. “Boohoo!” I think you hurt his feelings! You should apologize! 😉
Okay, I’m sorry. I’m sorry Bangkok is a plagiarist and dummy. LOL I’m also sorry that Bing-bong is so stupid. LOL
Bangkok,
Your position is not only solidly argued but irrefutable, although you may have administered one too many slaps to Frank’s face :-)).
I take my hat off nevertheless…
Bangkok don’t listen to Alex! He is only trying to get a date with you!
I agree the interruption of Salzman’s testimony is a much bigger deal than Dani changing her mind. I wouldn’t put it past Marky-Mark for knowing he should have requested to continue cross-examination in the morning but decided not to, so he had a solid reason for an appeal. He’s no dummy.
Sorry dipshit, but it won’t work like that on appeal.
The fact that he purposely elected not to make a motion (to continue cross examination) will not give him an automatical appeal issue that’s winnable.
It’ll be viewed by the appellate court as a strategic decision to accept the judge’s decision and move on.
“Regret” (over failing to do something) is not a winnable issue that carries any extra weight over the initial appeal issue.
If that weren’t true, every defense attorney could appeal anything they failed to do (strategically) simply because his client may ‘regret’ choosing that type of trial strategy.
Grow a brain, Scooter boy.
It’s no different than electing not to put Keith on the witness stand — but then regretting it later and trying to appeal by saying that Keith should have testified.
Trial decisions made by defense attorneys — such as choosing NOT to make a motion to continue cross examination of Lauren — are simply part of a defense team’s ‘trial strategy’.
Sure, they can appeal this issue as a Hail Mary Pass —– but when the government points out that they failed to make a motion to continue cross examination, the appellate judges will have all the ammunition they need to reject the issue right there.
The only way that Keith could actually WIN that issue on appeal would be to argue that his attorney was incompetent for not making the motion to continue cross examination. However, “ineffective counsel” is a post-conviction issue that can’t be raised during the 1st direct appeal.
Also, Keith ain’t gonna win a post conviction appeal for having incompetent counsel, since Agnifilo (as a whole) was quite good and performed way above the threshold for being ‘ineffective’.
Thus, this whole thing is a non-issue and will easily fail on appeal, Scooter boy.
Just watch what happens.
Have a nice day. 🙂
I didn’t say the Salzman crying routine/interruption was winnable, I said it was a much bigger deal than Dani changing her mind. Nice try taking me out of context, dummy. Go back to banging your c@ck. LOL
Scott is making Bangkok throw a hissy fit! Do I hear a little girlie-man, wearing Louis Vuitton sneakers, crying in SoCal?
Only black men and gay men wear Louis Vuitton sneakers; and Bangkok baby ain’t black.
No dipshit, Scooter boy got schooled on his ignorance yet once again.
That’s a fair question, which deserves a fair answer. I endeavored to look a little into Judge Garaufis’ other cases and rulings to see if that would help inform my response. Short answer – yes. Yes, he would stop a hysterical, blubbering man on the stand. His rulings in the big cases indicate he has a compassionate side for those often considered victims of society. Most notably is his 11 year involvement in a 16 year old case involving mentally ill people and the NY State Dept. of Health.
This gives a good background of case starting in 2003 (Judge G didn’t get involved until 2009)
https://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins/2013/mhw-housing-agreement-ends-10-year-battle-for-nyc-adult-home-residents-with-smi
There were editorials written about Judge Garaufis that said he should have recused himself because his wife is on the board of Fountain House, a self-help group for the mentally ill. Regardless of whether or not he should recuse himself (he didn’t), he likely is sensitive to mental health issues because of his spouse. Perhaps seeing Lauren on the brink of a break invoked thoughts of his wife’s work and his involvement in the Dept. of Health case, and made him put a halt to the testimony.
After doing this research, I earnestly believe Judge Garaufis would have ended Loren’s (male version of Lauren) testimony, all things the same minus the sex of the witness. Also, sorry for the ‘manliness’ potshot. I was cold (like temperature wise, not hearted; the place I was in didn’t have heat) and am surly when I’m cold.
Finally, if anyone’s interested in a rabbit hole, here are a bunch of in depth articles on the Dept. of Health case and Judge Garaufis involvement.
ProPublica series:
2017
https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-judge-sees-new-york-state-conspiracy-to-thwart-care-mentally-ill
2018
https://www.propublica.org/article/judge-calls-for-examination-of-quality-controls-in-new-york-supported-housing-system
2019
https://www.propublica.org/article/mentally-ill-new-yorkers-seeking-independence-find-safety-net-has-holes-report-finds
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-alliance-on-mental-illness-mental-health-urges-supported-housing-reforms
Le’ Gal -You are one of my favorite commentators, but there is no way the judge would have ever stopped the cross-examination of a man. The judge should have called for a break , to give the witness a chance to compose herself.
The male vs female dynamic was at play.
The defendant’s life was/is on the line for 15-20 years or more. What the judge did was unprofessional and robbed the defendant of his constitutional rights.
Aww shucks, you’re one of my favs, too, Anon…I think… 😉
I researched this and earnestly believe the judge would have stopped a blubbering man on the stand too (see my response to Frank above).
Once the appellate court reviews the case and sees the indefensible nude photo of Camila “Cami” Fernandez at age 15 with her legs spread open; the court will not grant an appeal to Keith Raniere.
The only way the case gets appealed is if Agnifilo can show the “photo” was illegally obtained by the FBI.
“Was the digital photo I obtained within the legal scope of the search warrant?” The photo is the linchpin of the case.
Message to Marc Agnifilo:
People are always free to change their minds, particularly as new facts about the NXIVM Flying Monkeys emerge.
Message top Marc Agnifilo:
People are always free to change their minds, particularly as new facts about the NXIVM Flying Monkeys come out.
If I recall correctly, Judge Garaufis said “I’m a human being before I’m a judge.” I don’t recall him saying, “I’m a man.”
You might be right Dianne. I’ll look it up in the transcripts.
Dani should testify during the civil trial that Marky-Mark gave her the idea of suing and after she thought about it, she changed her mind. It is not lying when one changes one’s mind. What a stupid question to ask her.
I think the judge bailing out Salzman is a much better foundation for a new trial. As Frank has demonstrated over the past couple of weeks, if not previously, Salzman deserves ZERO sympathy.
Frank, your writing humor cracks me up, and that’s not easy to do. You have an amazing site, and reading it makes my day.
My opinion:
Harmless error at most.
In addition, there’s no proof anyone lied under oath. Perhaps a civil suit at the time of trial was not yet contemplated.