Keith Alan Raniere has made a motion for a new trial based on allegations of perjury of two critical witnesses, Daniella and Nicole, during his 2019 trial.
His lead attorney, Marc A. Agnifilo, filed papers with United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, moving to vacate the results of Raniere’s conviction at trial.
Agnifilo’s argument is that Nicole and Daniella committed perjury when they said they had no plans to sue Raniere civilly.
Agnifilo filed a memorandum in support of the motion.
Here are important excerpts from the memorandum:Â
…. On January 28, 2020, seven months after the guilty verdict in this case, four key witnesses [in the criminal trial]… among many other plaintiffs, filed a civil suit against Raniere seeking monetary damages…
This [civil] Complaint shows that two of these witnesses, Daniela (Jane Doe I in the lawsuit), and Nicole (Jane Doe 4 in the lawsuit) committed perjury at the [criminal] trial by knowingly lying about their intention, plan and role in bringing a civil lawsuit against Raniere and others for monetary damages.
Moreover… the government knew or should have known that these witnesses committed perjury at the trial, and…the government not only permitted perjured testimony to be elicited to the jury, but also obstructed counsel’s efforts to reveal the motivations of these witnesses who have brought suit against Raniere…..
Witness perjury can alone be sufficient to warrant a new trial.
However, where, as here, the government had either actual knowledge of the perjury, or, at a minimum, should have known of it, reversal is virtually automatic…..
This perjury is all the more significant given the other errors defense counsel already raised during the course of this trial….
[including]
(a) the Court allowed several witnesses deemed victims by the government to testify under nicknames or partial names;
(b) the Court terminated defendant’s cross-examination of the sole cooperating witness [Lauren Salzman]….
(c) the Court permitted evidence of numerous abortions although the defense offered to stipulate to sex between Raniere and these women.
…. the government knew or should have known that … [Nicole, Daniella, Jaye] … with Neil Glazer, as their lawyer, were intending to bring a civil lawsuit because…. Glazer attended at least thirty-three government proffer sessions with at least fifteen different witnesses and potential witnesses interviewed by the prosecutors and agents assigned to this case….
This number does not include the number of preparation sessions that Glazer attended with his clients….
.[T]he government’s second witness, Mark Vicente, testified that he had retained Glazer as a civil lawyer for a potential future lawsuit… putting the prosecutors on actual notice that Vicente at least was contemplating a civil suit against Raniere….
…. By the time Daniela testified commencing on May 23, 2019, the government was well aware that she was contemplating a civil suit, along with Mark Vicente and Nicole and Jay.
…. the prosecution obstructed the defense line of questioning to develop collusion among the witnesses – and instead the jury and counsel were left with the witnesses’ false and misleading answers that they had no plans to file suit, when the government knew, or should have known, that was not the case.
If the jury had known about the perjury, demonstrating the witnesses’ bias to testify against Raniere, their collusion with each other and their willingness to lie under oath, there is a significant chance that this would have undermined the credibility of these witnesses and permitted, together with other evidence elicited by the defense, the jury to disregard or doubt their critical testimony in whole or in part.
This would have significantly undermined the strength of the government’s case, which rested entirely on these witnesses’ corroborative testimony in the charges of
Racketeering Act 1 (Daniela),
Racketeering Act 5 (Daniela),
Racketeering Act 7 (Daniela),
Racketeering Act 8 (Daniela),
Racketeering Act 9 (Nicole and Jay),
Racketeering Act 10 (Nicole),
Count 5 (Nicole)
Count 6 (Nicole)
Count 7 (Jay).
Given the essential role Daniela, Nicole and Jay’s testimony played in this case, the evidence of Daniela and Nicole’s collective perjury (with their lawyer approving of it) and the government’s failure to correct it or meaningfully investigate it warrants a new trial.
…. Neil Glazer works for the firm Kohn Swift & Graf in Philadelphia, PA, which according to their website, practices in the following areas: Antitrust, Human Rights/Anti-Terrorism, Consumer Protection, Intellectual Property and Securities…. there is no mention of representation of in individuals in a criminal investigation….
Beginning on November 11, 2017 – when the DOJ’s investigation began – Glazer brought in “numerous individuals” into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for interviews or proffers…
Counsel was unaware of the sheer amount of witnesses he represented until counsel began receiving [discovery] materials… on April 2, 2019.
This material made clear that Glazer represented at least fifteen individuals and was expending countless hours of time on this matter – which included travel to New York City from Philadelphia, PA – over two years despite representing to this Court that his clients became “impoverished” by Bronfman and Raniere….
…. Glazer represented at least 16 witnesses interviewed by the government.
1. Mark Vicente (Named Plaintiff in the lawsuit)
2. Toni Natalie (Named Plaintiff in the lawsuit)
3. Sarah [Edmondson]
4. Daniela (Jane Doe I)
5. Nicole (Jane Doe 4)
6. Jay (Jane Doe 2)
7. Audrey (Jane Doe 5)
8. Jennifer Kobelt (Jane Doe 19)
9. Adrienne (Jane Doe 16)
10. Sallie Brink (Jane Doe 51)
11. Hector (John Doe 8)
12. Carly (Jane Doe 10)
13. redacted
14. redacted
15. redacted
16. redacted
…. From the 3500 [discovery] material that the government produced, Glazer was present for at least thirty-three interviews with potential witnesses from the government…. It appears that many witnesses were contemplating a lawsuit….
Glazer and typically one of his associates, were present for the testimony of the following clients – Daniela, Nicole and Jay….
…. as of May 22, 2019, the Court, the government and their agents and the defense were well aware that … Glazer represented Mark Vicente in “potential civil matters”….
The very next day, on May 23, 2019, the prosecution called Daniela as a witness. Daniela was on direct examination until May 30th, when counsel began cross-examination in the afternoon.
…. On May 31, 2019, counsel questioned Daniela on her connection to Glazer, Glazer’s representation of her, and whether she was introduced to Glazer through Vicente.
The witness either lied or her answers were cut short by the government’s objections, which the Court sustained.
The relevant questioning is as follows:
AGNIFILO: How many times have you spoken to Mark Vicente in the last three years?
DANIELA: About. I would say two or three times.
AGNIFILO: And did you call him or did he call you?
DANIELA: I don ‘t remember exactly.
AGNIFILO: You have a lawyer named Neil Glazer, correct?
DANIELA: Yes.
AGNIFILO: Because you are going to bring a civil lawsuit, aren’t you?
DANIELA: No.
AGNIFILO: You have no intention of bringing a civil lawsuit against Keith Raniere or NXTVM or anyone else?
DANIELA: That’s not something that I have done or decided, no.
AGNIFILO: I know you haven’t done it but you plan on doing it, don’t you?
DANIELA: No.
AGNIFILO: Why do you have Neil Glazer as your lawyer?
DANIELA: I, initially — I needed counsel to handle the precarious situation with my little sister Camila and after that, I needed counsel to interact with officials from the government.
AGNIFILO: Mr. Glazer is not a criminal lawyer, right?
DANIELA: I don’t know.
AGNIFILO: Do you know that he’s Mark Vicente’s lawyer too?
PENZA: Objection.
COURT: Sustained.
AGNIFILO: Did you get Mr. Glazer from Mark Vicente?
PENZA: Objection.
COURT: Sustained.
… This is a lie. Daniela did not need Glazer’s services to interact with the government concerning a “precarious situation with [her] little sister Camila” for the simple reason that Daniela did not inform the government that she created a false identification card to get Camila into Mexico until she admitted this for the first time on cross examination…..
[She] testifyi[ied] that she didn’t “remember exactly” when she thinks she told the government about this fake identification card)…
Notably, Camila is not even one of Glazer’s … clients. The truth is that Daniela got Glazer from Vicente to sue Raniere….
In light of the fact that Vicente had previously testified that he had hired Glazer for potential civiI matters against Raniere, challenging Daniela’s false testimony by reference to how she came to hire Glazer, an absolutely appropriate, non-privileged question, would have put the lie to her testimony.
However, the government actively assisted Daniela in concealing the truth from the jury by objecting to this question and having that objection sustained….
AGNIFILO: How did you find Mr. Glazer as your lawyer?
PENZA: Objection, Your Honor.
COURT: Sustained.
AGNIFILO: So as you sit here today, you have no intention of bringing a civil lawsuit?
DANIELA: That’s right.
AGNIFILO: And you haven’t had any discussions with anyone about bringing a civil lawsuit?
PENZA: Objection.
COURT: Sustained.
… Counsel was forced to accept her lies as the truth, and the jury had been misled….
On June 7, 2019, Glazer returned to court again, this time with his testifying client, Nicole.
Just as during Daniela’s testimony, Glazer was present behind counsel during direct and cross examination of Nicole. Like Daniela, Nicole repeatedly denied any intention to bring a civil lawsuit.
Counsel first asked:
AGNIFILO: Was there talk about a civil lawsuit against NXIVM and Keith Raniere?
NICOLE: No.
….
AGNIFILO: And did he [Parlato] pressure you to be involved in a lawsuit?
NICOLE: In like a civil lawsuit?
AGNIFILO: Yes.
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: Do you remember telling that to the FBI?
PENZA: Objection.
NICOLE: No.
COURT: You may answer that.
NICOLE: Can you repeat the question?
AGNIFILO: Sure, do you remember telling the FBI that Frank Parlato pressured you to join a lawsuit against NXIVM?
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: Okay, I’m just going to show you something. l’m just going to show you one page and have you read it to yourself. This is 3500-N, number one, its page 4 of that document.
COURT: All right.
AGNIFILO: I’m just going to have you read this to yourself.
NICOLE: Okay.
AGNIFILO: Do you remember telling the FBI – this is your first interview with them, so it would have been on November 9, 2017, that Frank Parlato was pressuring you to join a lawsuit against NXIVM and also speak with law enforcement regarding NXIVM?
PENZA: Objection, Your Honor.
COURT: I will allow it.
NICOLE: Yeah, he was…..
AGNIFILO: And your lawyer, Mr. Glazer is here today, right? He is the gentleman, my colleague here to my left, right?
NICOLE: Yes.
AGNIFILO: Are you intending to bring a civil suit?
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: No?
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: You have no intentions of bringing a civil suit?
NICOLE: Like me, personally?
AGNIFILO: You and other people.
NICOLE: Not me, personally.
AGNIFILO: Do you intend to be part of a class-action lawsuit?
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: I’m not — I am going to ask you the question, I’m not asking you for anything that you and Mr. Glazer discussed, okay, so when I ask you this question, it is not conversations between you and Mr. Glazer, okay?
NICOLE: Okay.
AGNIFILO: Have you discussed with anybody else the prospect of bringing a class-action lawsuit against NXIVM?
NICOLE: No.
AGNIFILO: You haven’t discussed with Jay, for instance?
NICOLE: No. No.
… Glazer was present for Nicole’s three days of testimony, which ended on June 10th.
He returned to Court on June 11 for Jay’s testimony. On direct examination, the government brought out that Jay retained Glazer.
LESKO:Â Did you end up retaining an attorney?
JAY:Yes.
LESKO: And is that the attorney referenced on the e-mail, Neil Glazer?
JAY: Correct.
…Â Counsel did not address Jay’s plans to file a lawsuit during cross examination. By this point, it was apparent that the Court would not permit the defendant to explore whether Jay found Glazer from one of the other witnesses or ask probing questions tending to unearth the clear collusion among the witnesses or their intention to bring a civil suit.
… On January 28, 2020, seven months after the jury rendered their verdict, Glazer, on behalf of [80 plaintiffs] …. filed suit against Keith Raniere…
… Glazer’s lead plaintiff…. is Jane Doe I, Daniela.  …. Jane Doe 2 is ….Jay….. Jane Doe 4 is …Nicole….
… When a new trial is sought based on perjury by the government’s witnesses, the defendant must “first demonstrate that the witness in fact committed perjury”…. To carry that burden, the defendant need only prove perjury by a preponderance of the evidence… . Second Circuit case law holds that the introduction of perjured testimony requires a new trial if the perjured testimony was material to the jury’s verdict and the prosecution was aware of the perjury….
It is material for the jury to know that a witness’ testimony was motivated or influenced by expectation or hope of monetary damages….
Indeed, if it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is “virtually automatic.”….
Daniela (Jane Doe 1) and Nicole (Jane Doe 4), were under oath and they both knowingly gave false testimony on a matter related to their bias toward the defendant, namely whether they were planning to sue him.
Both witnesses testified that they were not planning on bringing civil lawsuits, yet both women are front and center in the lawsuit filed just seven months after the verdict. The same lawyer who represented Daniela during at least ten meetings with the government, during all five days of her testimony and represented Nicole during at least three meetings with the government and during all two days of her testimony is the attorney representing the Plaintiffs.
This is clearly intentional false testimony….
The Government Knew or Should Have Known of the Perjury
…. Yet, the government succeeded in preventing counsel from challenging Daniela’s false testimony…. And counsel was forced to accept her lies as the truth. The truth, of course, is that she absolutely had an intention of bringing a civil lawsuit. The truth is that she, like Vicente, retained Glazer as her lawyer for the same purpose: to bring a civil lawsuit against Raniere.
The same is true for Nicole…
The government should have known that Glazer, who appeared for at least 33 other interviews-despite maintaining an office in Philadelphia and servicing “impoverished” clients was likely representing Daniela and Nicole in “potential civil matters” as well.
D. The Perjury Was Material
Because the government knew or should have known of the perjury, “the conviction must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”…. This element is easily met. Daniela, Nicole and Jay ‘s testimony were “to say the least, critical to the government.”
…. Simply put, Daniela and Nicole lied to the jury, the Court and the parties. The lie was material because it directly went to both witnesses’ bias to testify falsely against Raniere. The truth was that they were motivated by money the whole time, motivated by the prospect of a pay-day following the conviction of Raniere and how such a conviction would greatly increase the chances of a civil recovery…..
Daniela was the only witness the government called to support Racketeering Act 1 (conspiracy to commit identity theft, conspiracy to unlawfully possess identification document), Racketeering Act 5 (conspiracy to commit identity theft), and Racketeering Act 7 (conspiracy to commit identity theft)…
In Nicole’s case, her testimony alone supports the sex trafficking count, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. She and Jay’s testimony support Count Three, the Forced Labor Conspiracy….
…. Here, given that the government relied solely on these witnesses for charges that carry mandatory minimum potential life-sentences, “it was fundamentally obvious that the [witness’] credibility and motive for testifying would be a crucial issue.” ….
Indeed, these witnesses’ testimony alone served to convict the defendant on counts which ensure he serves at least fifteen years in prison….
Not only did the prosecutors sit idly by while key government witnesses committed perjury, but the prosecution also actively assisted their perjury…
The government’s failure to correct Daniela and Nicole’s testimony (indeed objecting to questions about the impending suit) and its refusal to conduct a meaningful investigation here thus amounts to a violation of due process and requires a new trial….
Here are the filings
*********************************************************************************************************************
What are the chances of a new trial being granted? I would say, “Not good.” Judges do not like to overturn their own cases. If he did rule that Raniere could have a new trial, it might be accompanied by a directive to investigate whether Daniella and Nicole committed perjury and if so, to bring criminal charges against them.
I don’t see this as very likely.
The argument the defense is making is that Glazer is not a criminal attorney – and that he was not just representing Nicole, Jaye and Daniella with respectepct to their role as witnesses in the criminal matter.
Their prominence in the civil case suggests they were contemplating the civil suit before the trial commenced.
Whether this can be proven by a preponderance of evidence remains to be seen. A hearing may be held before the judge where Raniere can call witnesses to determine whether the government knew or to discover if there is any evidence that establishes Daniella and Nicole retained Glazer to represent them in a civil suit before the trial.
Whether this will impact Raniere’s sentencing on April 16th is unclear.
The judge ordered the prosecution to respond to the defense’s motion by March 24th. This would give the judge time to rule on the motion and if he decides not to grant a new trial [which is my guess], then Raniere’s sentencing can take place as scheduled.
Should he need more time to decide the issue, he could postpone the sentencing.
It would not prejudice Raniere since he is earning time served as he awaits sentencing. He is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center where he already has logged nearly two years of time served.
If the judge does not grant a new trial, he will likely sentence Raniere to decades or possibly life in prison.
Agnifilo will appeal using the perjury argument – and several other issues that he has identified – in an attempt to overturn the conviction.
One curious issue is why Glazer chose to file his complaint in January instead of waiting for sentencing to be completed. This opened the door for Raniere’s lawyers to seek a new trial prior to sentencing rather than simply making an appeal after he was sentenced.
There may have been very good reasons for this, but the timing of the filing of the lawsuit prior to sentencing gives the defense this opportunity to get two bites at the apple – a pre-sentencing motion for a new trial and a post-sentencing appeal based on the same allegations of perjury.
In sorting this out, the three crucial questions are:
- Did Daniella and Nicole plan to take part in a civil lawsuit, when they said at trial they were not?
- Did their lawyer advise them to deny their plans?
- Did the DOJ suborn perjury by knowing that Daniella and Nicole were going to sue Raniere but worked to prevent any testimony that would lead the jury to rightfully conclude that they were planning to sue?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, Raniere does deserve a new trial.
However, I do not think a new trial will result in an acquittal for Raniere.  I would go a step further and say that had Daniella and Nicole admitted they were planning to be involved in a civil suit, I don’t think it would have altered the results of the criminal case.
That jury was ready to damn Raniere by about the end of day one – and took only a couple of hours to convict him on all counts.
Assuming that Nicole and Daniella were contemplating bringing suit against Raniere at the time they were cross-examined, I would have advised them to say, when asked if they were, “Yes, I do plan to sue him. After what he did to me, I think I am entitled to something to offset the pain he caused me. But suit or no suit, that does not alter the truth of what he did to me.”
On the other hand, it may well be that they did not lie.
At the time, they were glad to be represented by Glazer, who volunteered his services, as they bravely testified against Raniere. Their only goal then may have been to stop Raniere. They may have known about the lawsuit but not planned to be part of it at the time. They may have only decided to get involved in the civil lawsuit after Raniere was convicted.
That might be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They were scared but bravely went forward with the motivation of stopping Raniere.
Then afterward, while everyone else was getting on the bandwagon, joining in a lawsuit against Raniere [and more importantly the deep pockets of the Bronfman sisters], Nicole and Daniella, possibly even urged by their attorney Glazer, decided to join in.
They did the absolutely necessary task – testifying in the criminal case. They suffered as much or more than anyone and they came forward and exposed themselves in court.
They might have decided later “Why should everyone else get money, victims who suffered far less?” to join the civil case.
I would also not rule out that their attorney Glazer persuaded them to join after advising them that they could change their minds and, hence, they relied on the advice of counsel to shield them from any criminal liability.
The argument that defeats the defense is that Nicole and Daniella weren’t planning on joining the civil lawsuit at the time of trial but later changed their minds.
If there is no direct evidence to the contrary, I don’t think the defense can make their argument stick.
However, even if Raniere gets a new trial, I doubt much will change. He will remain in custody as he awaits a new trial since the judge has already refused him bail on several occasions.
Then he will be tried again and convicted.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Nut job, what does PC stand for please?
Politically Correct. 🙂
Politically correct
What’s PC mean, Nutjob?
This can’t be a class action. Damages are too individual and, therefore, lack commonality and topicality. My hunch is, the trials get bifurcated.
Damages are one thing that need not be common to the class to have a class action. If liability is common, there can even be separate trials as to damages. This still results in a huge saving of judicial resources rather than having separate case for each plaintiff. Also avoids inconsistency of results.
True– but courts dont like classes with fraud, because of the typicality requirements. It was not brought as so and so, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated . I don’t think there’s class allegations.
These were individually named plaintiffs.
Now, that would be interesting. Keith Raniere walking free and his inner circle incarcerated.
I can’t begin to imagine the irony.
Maybe because you ended up on the wrong side of the civil suit?
Mr. Parlato, so that I’m clear, aren’t there 2 Adrians? One male, which is Dani’s video-taping brother and then a female Adriene?
yes
Likewise, there are two Danis.
A woman who was confined to a room for over 18 months and Dani Padilla.
And there is a “Nicole” and Nicki Clyne.
Hector is named as John Doe 8. I am assuming this is Dani’s father. Does this mean he finally figured his shit out? And couldn’t that be argued as a reason why Dani changed her mind: she now had the support of her father?
A Hector may be named. But the Hector who is Dani’s father has been reported to still be a diehard loyalist. So is it really the same Hector?
A search turns up that among several possibilities, the full name of Dani’s brother known as “Fluffy,” is actually Hector Adrian.
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out
Just substitute Jack Nicholson for Raniere and pick your witches and Eastwick is obviously Clifton Park.
https://youtu.be/mLs1y_KSTKk
This sounds like a total waste of time in that it sounds like an attempt at a loophole that has nothing to do with the charges in the case.
Look at the corrected memorandum. Oops! Those four additional people aren’t even plaintiffs in the Edmonson case.
Make it as messy as possible – New hearings, potential new trial, more billable hours. The lawyers always win. LOL
People are always free to change their minds.
One might decide one day to not sue and then, with further reflection, decide that the abuse was so bad that a lawsuit is the only proper remedy.
As long as the Statute of Limitations has not run out, their decisions are lawful and proper.
And since when did Keith Pervert Raniere become such a staunch defender of the Truth?
Raniere taught his followers that it was proper to lie to advance the Mission, whatever that Mission was.
And the members of NXIVM lied through their teeth about EVERYTHING.
To this day, NXIVM is an organization of pathological liars.
The NXIVM defendants only pleaded guilty because their leader was exposed as a pervert and pedophile and they did not want to be tarred with his pedophilia.
If anyone decides to sue the NXIVM defendants, Attorney Neil Glazer will keep you anonymous and you can join the ongoing lawsuit.
Here is a PDF of the lawsuit.
https://kohnswift.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/EdmondsonComplaintFiled.pdf
And here is the contact information for Attorney Neil Glazer.
For information about this lawsuit, please call Neil Glazer at 215-238-1700 or email him at nglazer@kohnswift.com
Don’t let these NXIVM Ghouls get away with their Criminal Behavior.
Oh yeah, Mr. Agnifilo? Where’s the proof regarding the exact point when anyone decided to join the civil suit? So far, this motion for a new trial sounds too nebulous to be given consideration. Could it be some jimmied-up “nanny- nanny boo-boo” schoolyard stuff, merely clothed in legalese?
That sounds about like Raniere’s speed.
Raniere and his mouthpiece, Agnifilo, have been grasping at straws for months.
When all else fails, you throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
“…. Neil Glazer works for the firm Kohn Swift & Graf in Philadelphia, PA, which according to their website, practices in the following areas: Antitrust, Human Rights/Anti-Terrorism, Consumer Protection, Intellectual Property and Securities….”
It doesn’t make sense that a member of the Kohn Swift firm would be contacted when this type of litigation is not on their website or part of their practice areas.
So I ask: How would it come about that Mark Vicente hired Glazer in a civil case in the first place? Did Glazer “ambulance chase” him and then others (Daniella, Nicole, Jaye, et al) followed suit? It only takes one person to be on board for that to be used as leverage (i.e., “Mark trusts me enough to use me for a civil suit, so you should too. And there is more power in numbers, so we can do a class action suit..”).
“It doesn’t make sense that a member of the Kohn Swift firm would be contacted when this type of litigation is not on their website or part of their practice areas.” Clifton Parker
As a matter of fact, it is on their website.
Sex Trafficking and Human Trafficking are considered Human Rights issues.
And the Kohn, Swift Graf law firm recently handled a case at the University of Southern California where a Doctor at the Student Health Center sexually molested numerous co-eds over the years.
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. is pleased to announce that the settlement in the class-action lawsuit against the University of Southern California and former gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall has reached final approval by the court.
On February 14, 2020, United States District for the Central District of California Judge Stephen V. Wilson orally approved of the settlement and the final approval order. With the Judge’s approval, the claims administration process is allowed to proceed.
https://kohnswift.com/2020/02/21/class-action-lawsuit-against-usc-receives-final-approval/
Glazer the ambulance chaser? Hmmm, remember that one lady named Toni Natalie? Definitely, a woman scorned. I would call them paper chasers. Remember that all of these women are consenting adults? I’ve always had an issue with Dani being in that room for 2 years with the door unlocked. Now that she’s lied on the stand and we know how bat shit crazy all Nxians are, I think it’s only fair Raniere get another trial. Put your self in his shoes and consider some of the accusers. These are scornful women. Plus by actions alone, even Rhiannon, a fifteen-year-old, so-called victim of Raniere kept going back to him. I wonder if the women who were “raped” by Raniere know what that means. I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t a huge massive plan to totally kill Raniere because these women are women scorned. For whatever reason, Raniere was a Rico Suave and these women wanted a piece of the Hobbit. I’m all in for a re-trial. Truth should be heard loud and clear. It’s the ethical thing to do and a human life is on the line. A man is dying. He is drowning in his sorrow. Truth be told, at least one person should try and save him. If he’s been wrongfully imprisoned and he dies in jail under violence, I’m going to feel a little bad for talking so much crap about him. Yes, he’s obviously a complete asshole but being an asshole isn’t illegal. What the prosecution did was wrong. The ladies should have told the truth. Period.
And the fraud exposes itself.
One of these days it would be nice if Peaches gets rid of her filter and types what’s really on her mind.
That’s dangerous territory, Nutjob. I’ll take it into consideration though.
And if you’re joking with me it went over my head.
It was a joke. It’s pretty ballsy to defend Raniere on FR and call for another trial. Not that I agree with you – but I was entertained by your comments, and appreciate the alternate view. Maybe I’m off base, but I don’t believe you care about being PC.
“Plus by actions alone, even Rhiannon, a fifteen-year-old, so-called victim of Raniere kept going back to him.”
You do know that force is not required in a statutory rape case and consent is not a defense. Under the law, children cannot legally consent to having sex, so any form of sexual activity with them violates the law. Adults are deemed to know better. So, she was a victim. And properly so.
Cal lawyer – No, I didn’t know the real meaning of statutory rape. Thank you for clarifying. Does anyone understand how Raniere raped her 60 times and nobody heard her screaming for help? Was it because of people like Toni Natalie and Raniere’s other Hench Women that he was able to hurt this child over and over and over again?
To answer your question…
Although it was statutory rape even if she consented and said ‘yes’ —- I’m ‘guessing’ that Rhiannon probably didn’t resist Keith or attempt to scream.
I kinda find it odd that 60 rapes could happen (some in public places allegedly) without her at least screaming or scratching him or trying to make a scene.
But her young age could explain why she just let him do it.
However, I agree that it’s odd that she didn’t ever scream during 60 rapes. 60 is a lot. It does seem fishy to me just a little bit. You raise an interesting point.
But most people here will likely clobber you for even talking about it, as these are the Salem Witch Trials.
These are not sane people who can tolerate honest debate. 🙂
Roman Polanski boned a 13 year old girl after plying her with alcohol and quaaludes, which makes him just as guilty and even more ‘evil’ than Keith —- since he took away her mental awareness too.
Yet liberal idiots like you don’t seem to view him to be as ‘evil’ as Keith is. LOL.
I don’t think you’re clamoring for Polanski to do much jail time, are you sir?
In fact, you probably think he’s a victim. LOL.
Most of Hollywood does.
Even if you do advocate for Polanski to do jail time, I don’t think you’re nearly as offended when Polanski bones a young girl. You don’t have the same ‘anger’ as when Keith did it.
You hypocritical DUMB FUCK.
You’re no more of a virtuous person than Keith is.
Now do the world a favor and GET CANCER. 🙂
“Rhiannon, a fifteen-year-old, so-called victim of Raniere kept going back to him.”
Rhiannon was 12-years-old, twelve, not fifteen. This comment is pitiful, Peaches. You have no knowledge of the circumstances to make it and I only hope, suspect you’re not serious. Trolluping?
Thanks, I actually remembered after I posted that she was 12. Honestly, what I don’t understand is 60 times of rape. Surely this is crazy. For example, I’m very familiar with rape. One time and my rapist never laid eyes on me again. Of course, being 12 has its disadvantages. But how does he rape her 60 times? Heidi, I give no fucks if you think my comment is pitiful. But thanks for correcting the 3 years I was off.
You were lucky, Peaches, as was I with my one experience of rape by a near stranger who I never had to set eyes on again. He wasn’t left for dead, just tapped a little across the kneecaps as Belfast justice demands. I know of two cases from my home town though, whose rapes were committed over time, because in the case of both girls the rape was happening in their homes and by people, at least in one case, that the victim felt a lot of love for.
He was her father after all and her reasoning was his – “You have food, a roof over your head, school, clothing, anything you ask for, and this is natural, I’m just preparing you for your future husband”. It’s easy to fuck over the vulnerable. I see these girls’ cases as being a million miles away from my own experience. Even if I was barely thirteen at the time.
He mind-fucked his victims first. Then he did whatever he wanted with them – typically, for as long as he wanted. Some of his victims were underage. Rhiannon is one of the few brave ones who stood up and spoke out. Raniere’s rape against her was statutory.
You are not understanding. If he had sex with her 60 times, he raped her 60 times.
My God, she was 12. It doesn’t matter if she initiated sex; he is an adult and she is not. She can’t consent. Society doesn’t want adults having sex with children.
No worries, Peaches. We all need some fact checks now and then. Bit shocked that as an alleged rape victim yourself, you appear insensitive to the reality that many victims who report are raped again by the ‘blame the victim’ mentality rife within the judicial system and society.
IDK why but I’m reminded of something Kristin Snyder reportedly said during an EM group session that got her booted out. Kristin reportedly challenged the men in the group who were propagating Keith’s philosophy on the Joy of rape that they could not possibly know what rape was like for a woman.
And while Kristin and my sister, Gina, aren’t around to be raped any further, there are some perhaps more sensitive survivors than yourself who may be reading here. If you’re blaming yourself so harshly maybe you need to seek some help.
I love your thoughts, Heidi. Thank you for sharing.
OK, so THATS where YOU are coming from. Often wondered.
Get ready to feel bad for Keith. Period.
Women scorned? oh hahahaha. And Rhiannon a ‘so-called victim of Raniere’ ? Not so hahaha. Did Raniere’s spirit come and do a Pea Onyu in the night? with his special sauce? Peaches were you seeing a blue light as you wrote this?
Does anyone else consider the women scorned because Raniere didn’t give these women what they wanted? I’ve definitely been thinking outside of the box lately. One reason is the Glazer civil suit. Another is the fact that Agnifilo asked the accusers about it and they lied. The girls’ actions are suspicious, to say the least. I’m not an insider to the cult like some of you on here. I’ve been following for only approximately 3 years on FR. I’ve have not seen any blue light. Thanks for asking.
I think the entire nxivm enterprise was scornful: derisory and contemptuous of the feelings and circumstances of everyone brought in as a mark. Were the women scorned:i.e., derided and held in contempt? Yes. Do they feel the same way toward their tormentors? Most likely, yes.
I partially agree with you.
Yes, some of these women clearly gave themselves to Keith (sexually) with the ‘expectation’ of receiving something in return — such as jobs, money, status within NXIVM or some other career-related benefits.
When these women didn’t receive any such benefits after their Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma’am sessions, some of them became bitter/scorned lovers with an axe to grind against Keith.
This obviously doesn’t apply to Rhiannon who was only 12, but she’s not even a part of this trial.
The reason nobody else here will agree with you is because of the #metoo movement and the influx of liberal idiots (like Heidi Apple) who just can’t go against the current Salem Witch Trials mentality.
As for Rhiannon, she never even pressed charges against Keith so I don’t see why it’s even relevant for people to advocate that Keith raped her. Keith is not convicted or charged with that crime.
No one must or will answer that question, even in court, when Raniere’s defense attorney asks such a question of Mark Vicente, Dani and others. The choice of their lawyer is at their personal discretion. The prosecution objects and the judge grants the objection. That settles the matter.
What shocks me about this motion is that alleged witness perjury is the sole ground. I would have thought we would see alternate grounds encompassing some of the pretrial rulings or rulings during trial. It is very unusual to put all of your eggs in one basket like this.
And as for the alleged perjury, I think the evidence is very weak that the witnesses were not telling the truth at the time they testified. One reasonable possibility is that neither decided to bring suit until the jury came back with such a strong verdict for the prosecution. In fairness to the defense, however, there are a lot of redactions that may include some evidence we can not see.
I don’t understand appeals, so if this is a stupid question, I apologize. But in a case such as this where there were so many charges and the verdict came back in just a few hours, would the judge take the length of jury deliberation into consideration when considering the impact of something like this alleged perjury?
I can’t think of any reason why that would be relevant. The verdict is the verdict, whether it was reached in 3 hours or 3 weeks.
Agreed about the weakness of evidence suggesting the witnesses were not telling the truth at the time they testified. State of mind changes frequently in scenarios such as those set forth by this case. I would add it is difficult to believe these witnesses would be held to a high standard for consistency.
It looks like Frank Parlato may have unfairly pressured Dani into joining a civil lawsuit, which strikes me as odd since Frank likes to portray himself as a non-pressuring kind of guy.
We’re learning that Frank may have fucked up Dani’s testimony.
Does Frank feel any responsibility for his SELFISH and MANIPULATIVE actions which may have compromised Dani’s testimony?
Does Frank have the COURAGE to tell us about the extent of the pressure he applied to Dani? I’m not talking about disclosing confidential info, I’m just talking about disclosing the level of pressure he applied to poor, innocent Dani.
Was Frank JUST USING DANI to further his own anti-NXIVM agenda?
Did Frank view Dani as merely a ‘weapon’ to use against Keith?
Or did he truly care for Dani’s well being?
Did Frank cross the line from ‘assistance’ to MANIPULATION of Dani?
If Dani told the FBI that Frank was pressuring her, does that mean Frank has crossed the line?
Was Frank’s behavior ETHICAL here?
Or was Frank just doing what Keith often does ——- by citing ‘ethics’ to manipulate people into doing what he wants them to do?
I think we need to explore this topic until Frank can explain himself better.
If not, then Frank’s credibility is forever tainted. I want answers. I want the truth.
This is just my opinion… But I think it’s possible that Frank was in collusion with Neil Glazer to help recruit a ‘team’ of plaintiffs for a future civil suit against NXIVM.
Therefore, it’s possible that Frank was using his own hatred of NXIVM to manipulate & pressure victims into joining Glazer’s future lawsuit against NXIVM.
It’s possible that Frank wasn’t really concerned with the well being of Dani.
It’s possible that Frank simply wanted to PUNISH Keith with a civil suit —– thus, it’s possible he was manipulating Dani to accomplish this selfish goal.
I’m not sure if Frank really stopped to think what might be in the best interests of the victims.
Question for Frank:
Why the fuck would you pressure Dani into joining Glazer’s team of plaintiffs WHEN SHE HADN’T YET EVEN TALKED TO THE FUCKEN FBI????
What the fuck is happening here?
Why wouldn’t you first ask her to visit the FBI ‘before’ talking to her about Glazer’s future lawsuit?
I want answers, Frank.
Well, at least you didn’t delete these comments, Frank.
But you did delay approving them for over 24 hours until fewer people would seem them.
You cowardly piece of shit. Stop delaying my comments on purpose just because you’re too chickenshit to have people debate these things.
Grow a pair of balls. Dani testified to what I said. I’m not making it up. It’s fair game to discuss. So stop using your delay tactics, you wimpy Sicilian.
Have a nice day. 🙂