Raniere’s Hail Mary Pass Gets Batted Down – Time For Sentencing Draws Nearer if He Survives Coronavirus Crisis

Marie White's Portrayal of Keith Raniere

Keith Raniere has always loved to gamble – and the higher the stakes the more joy he got out of it.

But, despite being a self-described mathematical genius, Raniere was not a very good gambler because, as it turns out, almost all his forays into the world of chance turned out badly.

His casino sessions with Toni Natalie usually ended up with all his chips on the other side of the table – even when he followed the sage advice of experts. They did, however, get absolutely killer comped rooms.

Keith even studied up on how to gamble [Photo Credit: T. Natalie]
His attempt to outsmart the commodities market also turned out badly – especially for those who had to pony up millions of dollars to cover his losses: Barbara Bouchey, Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, and Michael Sutton.

Keith Raniere’s Bible for Options Trading

And his ill-fated venture into the high-end real estate market in Los Angeles turned out to be another costly misadventure.

But Keith loved to make high-risk bets – to go against the odds and the advice of others.

Like making huge bets in the commodities market when he had no experience or expertise in such “investments”.

Or undertaking a huge real estate development project when he had no experience or expertise in such projects.

Or branding a bunch of women with his initials because what could possibly go wrong with that?

KAR brands


Raniere’s Motion for a New Trial Was a Hail Mary Pass

There’s not very much for convicted defendants in federal criminal cases to do while they await sentencing.

Maybe one or two interviews with the Probation Officer who will be writing up their “Pre-Sentencing Report”.

Perhaps a review of the trial transcripts to identify potential issues that can be brought up on appeal (A convicted defendant cannot file an appeal until after he’s been sentenced).

MDC animated mk10art

And for those defendants who still have money to waste on long-shot legal motions, working on a Rule 33 motion for a new trial.

Which is exactly what the former Vanguard decided to do while he sat in his cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) – and tried to avoid getting contaminated with the coronavirus that is reportedly running rampant throughout the facility.

Rule 33 Motions – which are a convicted defendant’s request for a new trial – are rarely granted.

Indeed, the Second Circuit – which is where Raniere’s trial took place – has instructed its district courts that such motions should be granted only under “the most extraordinary circumstances”.

In one of its more recent appellate decisions on the topic, the Second Circuit ruled that “For a trial judge to grant a Rule 33 motion, he must harbor a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted”.


Raniere’s Motion Is Based on What He Claims Is  “Newly Discovered Evidence”

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires”.

The Rule further provides that such a motion for a new trial must be filed “within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty” unless it is “grounded on newly discovered evidence.”

When a Rule 33 motion is based on “newly discovered evidence” – which is what  Raniere has asserted in his case – it must be filed within three years of the verdict.

So, what exactly, is this “newly discovered evidence” that Raniere hopes will entitle him to a new trial.

Did he find out that he had a previously unknown twin brother who had been doing evil deeds in his name throughout Upstate New York?

Did Nancy Salzman admit that she had hypnotized him when they first met – and that he had simply been carrying out her orders for the past 20 years?

Another superb sketch by MK10ART – of Vanguard and Prefect

Did the crack medical staff at MDC discover a brain tumor that had been causing Raniere to act like a sociopath – and, having removed the malignancy, determined that he was now a true renunciate and ethicist?

Nope, nothing quite so dramatic.

Instead, what happened is that some of the witnesses in his criminal trial decided to join with other victims of the NXIVM cult/criminal enterprise – and filed a civil lawsuit against Raniere and some of his fellow deviants.

And, according to the assertion set forth in Raniere’s motion for a new trial, two of those witnesses  (Daniela and Nicole) perjured themselves during his trial when they said, under cross-examination by Raniere’s attorney, that they were not intending – at that point in time – to file any civil claims against him.

And so it is that the outcome of Raniere’s pending Rule 33 motion will hinge on whether he can persuade U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis that:

  • Daniela and Nicole did, in fact, perjure themselves during his trial;
  • The government knew that Daniela and Nicole had perjured themselves during their testimony; and
  • He would have been acquitted except for the perjured testimony.


Government Filing Exposes the Weaknesses in Keith’s Case

In its response to Raniere’s motion for a new trial, the government resoundingly blew up all three of Raniere’s arguments in its latest filing.

To begin, it noted that his argument that Daniele and Nicole had committed perjury during the trial is based on the following exchanges:

RE: Daniela

AGNIFILO: You have a lawyer named Neil Glazer, correct?


Neil Glazer

AGNIFILO: Because you are going to bring a civil lawsuit, aren’t you?



AGNIFILO: You have no intention of bringing a civil lawsuit against Keith Raniere or NXIVM 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?



AGNIFILO: So as you sit here today, you have no intention of bringing a civil lawsuit?

DANIELA: That’s right.


RE: Nicole

AGNIFILO: And your lawyer, Mr. Glazer is here today, right? He is the gentleman, my colleague here to my left, right?



AGNIFILO: Are you intending to bring a civil suit?






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?



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?



AGNIFILO: Have you discussed with anybody else the prospect of bringing a class-action lawsuit against NXIVM?



AGNIFILO: You haven’t discussed with Jay, for instance?



If you were expecting Raniere’s Rule 33 motion to be accompanied by several affidavits of people who are asserting that they talked with Daniela and Nicole about such a lawsuit, you’re going to be very disappointed.

All that’s in it is his barebones assertion that since they did sue him several months after he had been convicted on all charges, they must have been lying when, under oath, they testified they were not thinking about doing so.

As the government pointed out in its response: “Daniela’s and Nicole’s alleged involvement in the Civil Suit at most demonstrates that they changed their mind at some point between answering his counsel’s questions on cross-examination and the filing of the complaint in January 2020. That does not entitle Raniere to a new trial”.

And as the government went on to note: Moreover, Raniere’s assertion that Daniela and Nicole lied about their intentions to sue Raniere defies common sense. Raniere urges this Court to conclude that, although Daniela and Nicole testified at length and in great detail about the most intimate details of their lives, the often embarrassing circumstances of their relationship with Raniere, and the anger they felt as a result, they were nevertheless unwilling to acknowledge that they intended to sue Raniere civilly — an admission that the jury would hardly have found surprising if it had been true. Indeed, as Raniere acknowledges in his motion, another government witness, Mark Vicente, testified that he had retained Glazer in connection with ‘potential civil matters’, and, unsurprisingly, that concession was of no consequence in the trial. Raniere’s counsel did not ask Vicente any questions on the subject, and Raniere’s counsel said nothing about Vicente’s plans in summation”.


Similarly, the government points out that Raniere has offered no proof whatsoever that the prosecution attorneys knew – or should have known – at the time of the trial that Daniela and Nicole planned to sue him for civil damages.

“In pre-trial proffer sessions, the government did not ask Daniela or Nicole (or any other government witness) to describe their privileged conversations with their counsel about potential civil claims. Nor did the government inquire about the scope of Daniela’s and Nicole’s (or any other government witness’s) representation by Neil Glazer, beyond the information the government disclosed to Raniere pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. It would have been improper for the government to have done otherwise. Accordingly, at the time of Daniela’s and Nicole’s trial testimony, the government had precisely the same information Raniere and his counsel had, i.e., Daniela’s and Nicole’s testimony under oath that they did not, at that time, intend to file suit against Raniere. The government had at the time of trial, and has now, no reason to doubt the veracity of that sworn testimony”.

And then the government delivers the final punch that illustrates just how flawed Raniere’s argument is when it comes to the prosecution attorneys being aware of a planned civil lawsuit: “Raniere’s reasoning is, in any event, flawed. Contrary to Raniere’s repeated assertions, Glazer’s representation of Daniela and Nicole provides no insight into their intentions at the time of their testimony. Indeed, Raniere was forced to acknowledge as much after he filed his Rule 33 motion, when he learned that several witnesses who were also represented by Glazer during their pretrial meetings with the government — Crystal, Rebecca, Kristin and James — have at this time not joined the Civil Suit against Raniere”.


Lastly, the government points out that the purported perjured testimony is not relevant in terms of Raniere’s conviction.

“Finally, it is inconceivable that Raniere ‘would most likely not have been convicted’ if Daniela or Nicole had testified that they were planning to sue Raniere civilly… At trial, Raniere essentially conceded that testimony on this point was irrelevant to his defense. Raniere’s motion acknowledges that the government’s Jencks Act disclosures reflected Glazer’s representation of some of the witnesses interviewed by the government”.


Decision Should Be Forthcoming Soon

A ruling on Raniere’s motion is expected within the next few days.

A bit of free advice for Keith: You should focus more on trying to avoid all your fellow inmates who are coughing all the time rather than worrying about what outfit to wear when you walk out of MDC.

Keith Raniere has always loved to gamble…He’s just not very good at it.



About the author

K.R. Claviger


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional. To leave a name, click on the email icon)

  • Claviger, great piece – with some nice humorous twists 🙂

    I’ve long followed scams and gurus with a certain interest, as I think there are valuable lessons to learn – as an investor, for instance, it’s helped me to be very wary of various sorts of pitches, and to realize that some of those who are good at sounding the most convincing are actually the least trustworthy socio- and psycho-pathic types.

    The gambler mentality is very typical among scammers, which in Raniere’s case ties in because of his origins with MLMs. One thing that is typical of those types is that tend to bet the farm, and then when they get in trouble they always think that another roll of the dice is going to come up snake eyes and put them back on a winning streak, so they almost never do the things that we might expect someone cunning would – like having a backup plan for what do when things fall apart, including say a bunch of money stashed somewhere safe. I think that gambler mentality probably applies at least in part to gurus and cult leaders in general, as they are also people essentially trying to get followers to invest their human resources in dubious propositions based on wishful hype.

    I really appreciate the ongoing good analyses. I read them all, and wish I could comment more, but right now I’m saving my time and energy to focus more on what seems to be potentially dangerous crank theories and misinformation being circulated.

    • AnonyMaker,

      Thanks for the kudos. Not everyone really understands the “gambler mentality” because it is so contrary to how normal people behave in the same situation. What I really find odd about Raniere is that for a guy who was supposedly good at math – actually “great” if you believe him – he lacked a fundamental understanding of probability and statistics.

      Keep on doing what you’re doing on the COVID-19 front. Providing facts won’t silence the ass-clowns who get their jollies by feeding people misinformation but it will, hopefully, cause at least a few to dig deeper into what’s really going on.

      I think one of the biggest problems we’re facing right now is that many people do not understand what the phrase “flattening the curve” means: i.e., it does NOT mean that we’ll reduce the number of people who will get infected but rather that we’ll stretch out the period of time when those infections take place. While the ass-clowns are trying to convince everyone that all is well now, you and I both know that the second and third waves of the coronavirus may be even more deadly than the first – precisely because we did somewhat “flatten the curve”.

  • First, what a joy it is to read your posts, Clav! Love your subtle jokes delivered with a genuine, heartfelt understanding and respect of the law.


    You wrote rule 33 applies on appeal if filed: “within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty” — Ooops! Guess that means we can rule out 33 and the possibility of appeal off the top, right?

    But, noooooo, this thing is gonna go round and round until Clare Bear’s payout cupboard is bare, I suppose…like, until the end of the world? Er…Lol!

    Good news is long as they keep this story and their billing spinning there’s a small chance ALL the m’fers to blame here, GOD WILLING, WILL be exposed and those like we who dared to oppose them ALL — ALL those who continue to mock and deny justice (or closure) for all — in their abject, utter failure to mete it fairly and lawfully — will be finally vindicated AND made safe from further persecution and injustice — our own hero, Frank Parlato, especially whose head is on the block.

    (Um, no Salinas and y’all down South there in poppy land, I don’t mean you, I swear.

    In fact, you know, High dose CBD taken internally and externally smeared on the skin in a makeshift, private, hella hot steam room while reading FR and laughing, imagining Vanguard in hell as Satan’s bitch, Moloch, is the CURE!

    …Right Ken? Right Peterson? Right Slim or Lopez or Duran or Betancourt or whoever’s in charge now. Obrador?

    That wasn’t really POTUS or anyone he knows on here the other day, was it? Just started wondering, just now!

    • There are two appeals under Rule 33.

      The first type – which can be based on a variety of claimed issues – has to be filed within 14 days of the conviction. Raniere did not file one of these.

      The second type – which can only be based on “the discovery of new evidence” – has to be filed within 3 years of the conviction. This is the type that Raniere filed (The claimed “new evidence” that he claimed to have discovered was the alleged perjury of two women who testified against him).

  • KR,

    As always excellent reporting!!!!

    It’s been well over a year that I’ve been reading your column and every article is excellent.

    Thank you!!!!

    Stay safe!

  • CLAVIGER and the DOJ are not telling the truth here.

    Dani was a heroic witness. But Dani did lie about the lawsuit on the witness stand.

    However, this lie was so minor that it would not have resulted in an acquittal had she told the truth — so no reversal.

    The government is being silly (and possibly even being untruthful) by claiming that Dani may have ‘changed her mind’ after her testimony and never lied.

    This defies common sense. It’s like saying ‘up is down’ or ‘north is south’.

    Frank Parlato has proof of this lie.

    …Because Dani testified that she felt pressured by Frank Parlato to join in Glazer’s future civil lawsuit.

    Yet she then hired Glazer as her attorney and wound up joining that same lawsuit (which Frank was pressuring her to join).

    Just a coincidence?

    You should be disbarred for incompetence, Claviger, if you really believe that nonsense.

    She should have simply said:

    “I haven’t decided yet about joining his civil lawsuit, but it’s something I’m considering doing”.

    That would have been the truth.

    But instead she LIED and said “Nope, not planning on it”.

    A good lawyer (which Claviger isn’t) would acknowledge these facts.

    Dani is a hero who gave great testimony —- but she still lied.

    I challenge Claviger or Frank to refute these allegations in a credible manner.

    • Bangkok,

      —Yet she then hired Glazer as her attorney and wound up joining that same lawsuit (which Frank was pressuring her to join).
      Just a coincidence?

      Bravo, Bravo my precocious child; You are such an astute observer. I believe every adult on the Frank Report believed Dani was telling the truth to the court including me.
      Thank you so much for enlightening us with your genius. You have such an acumen for deduction and reasoning.

      Have you figured out yet when mommy showers with her male suitors they’re not really trying to conserve(save) water?

      Oh BTW, those white balloons filled with Elmer’s Glue™️ in the bathroom trash can aren’t balloons.

      …And yeah, as you may now be guessing the balloons aren’t really filled with glue.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com