Keith Raniere after his arrest in Mexico,

NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Raniere Supporters Release ‘First Evidence’ of Alleged Misconduct — ‘Raniere Bail Denied Through Lies’

Introduction by Frank Parlato:

To begin with, I would like to remind readers that neither I nor the Frank Report is advocating for Keith Alan Raniere or his innocence. Just the opposite. I think he is a criminal.

What I have chosen to do, however, after careful consideration, is to give supporters of Raniere an opportunity to present evidence they say they have of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during his trial and during pretrial motions.

The decision to publish is not a judgment on my part as to whether Raniere is innocent or guilty of his crimes of conviction – sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, forced labor, etc..

I will repeat: I think Raniere is a criminal.

On Monday, Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, is expected to file a motion asking for a new trial based on what he will allege is prosecutorial misconduct.  He will include affidavits from followers alleging certain things. More than likely some of what Agnifilo presents will be similar to what Raniere’s supporters wish to present to the Frank Report.

The Frank Report is, therefore, reporting what is being alleged and presented to the Court.

There are five people who collectively refer to themselves as Make Justice Blind. They are Marc Elliot, who is the author of the presentation of evidence below, Nicki Clyne, Eduardo Asunsolo, Michele Hatchette, and Suneel Chakravorty.

The presentation concerns Raniere’s application for bail. Because he was charged with sex trafficking, the law states that the presumption for detention is warranted. However, by law, the defense is permitted to show evidence that the defendant should be allowed to post a bail bond if they can establish he is not a menace to society and does not pose a flight risk.

If these conditions can be established, a defendant charged with sex trafficking can be granted bail, usually with conditions, such as house arrest and an ankle monitor.

Raniere’s attorneys offered evidence in their bail motion. The government replied with arguments. The judge ruled against bail for Raniere, which kept him confined in prison – the majority of time at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center. He spent about a year and three months in custody prior to his trial.

What is being argued by Raniere’s supporters is that prosecutors told a false narrative to the judge to persuade him to deny Raniere bail.

As you examine the evidence Raniere’s supporters present, remember, we are not looking at Raniere’s innocence or guilt. Even his supporters are not asking the readers to believe he is innocent. They are looking into the prosecution’s innocence or guilt.

Even a prosecutor should be judged, though none of them would ever admit it.

As the jurist Robert Jackson said, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous… While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

It is never wrong, therefore, to insist that prosecutors – even in the case of the worst defendants in our of society and even in the case of our enemies – be held to the highest standard.

In that spirit, Frank Report is allowing his supporters, people with a clear bias to help their friend Raniere, present what they hope people will believe to be evidence of prosecutorial misconduct – in this instance misconduct that denied Raniere bail, which, in turn, may have denied him the fullest opportunity to mount a defense.

It probably goes without saying that a defendant in detention is disadvantaged in mounting a defense. He cannot see his attorneys without making them trek down to the prison and going through the cumbersome machinations to get admittance into a special room to meet with the defendant, which some have said is not necessarily even private. In addition, the defendant cannot actively work in his own defense. He has no access to documents or a computer and has the additional disadvantage of the health-depriving factors associated with prison life.

I know there are people who will be upset by my decision to publish this. Others will be surprised considering Raniere sought to deprive me of my due process rights – and that I see him as a criminal who has not likely been charged with the worst of his crimes.

However, I want to ensure the due process rights of even my enemy. If his due process rights were violated, the prosecutors should be admonished. If they were not, then the prosecutors should be given a clean bill of health and applauded.

Any due process violation is horrid, but if the violation is, in the opinion of the judge or the appeals court, such that it would not have changed the outcome at trial, then nothing more than bringing it to the public’s attention will occur, if it occurred.

However, if serious misconduct occurred where the outcome of the trial might have been different had prosecutors not committed offenses, then the specter of a new trial has to be considered by the judge or the appellate court.

None of this means that Raniere is innocent. If he is guilty, the prosecution should be able to prove it without any violation of due process.

A free society would want an outcome such as that – no one convicted without due process.

As I write this, I am, to repeat, not saying there was prosecutorial misconduct. I am merely sharing with Frank Report readers, exclusively, what the Make Justice Blind group is presenting.

I urge readers to judge for themselves. I will be doing likewise. At the very least, readers will find some interesting new information about Raniere, Nxivm, and the case against him.

Evidence Shows Prosecution Made False Statements to Deem Raniere a Flight Risk and Deny Him Bail

Marc Elliot

By Marc Elliot,

Make Justice Blind

Upon review of the evidence in the case against Keith Raniere, it is clear that prosecutors lied to the court to make him appear he was trying to flee the country and evade the justice system.

The government misrepresented many significant facts, painting a false picture of Raniere’s travel patterns and his intent to avoid prosecution in the U.S. These lies were used to deprive him of his right to a Grand Jury and to deceive the Court so that Raniere and his co-defendants would be treated with extreme harshness.

The prosecution succeeded in this endeavor.

On Page 1 of the  Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, US Attorney Richard Donoghue – and Assistant US Attorneys Moira Kim Penza and Tanya Hajjar – argued that Mr. Raniere was a “flight risk”: writing to Magistrate Judge Stephan Gold, “the defendant, who was living in Mexico prior to his arrest and has access to vast resources, poses a significant risk of flight.”

By casting Raniere as a flight risk, the government bypassed a Grand Jury indictment and obtained a sealed information, out of the public’s view. The prosecution repeated its lies, which will be exposed in detail below, at least two more times to the Court in order to deny Raniere bail. Raniere was indeed denied bail, and the prosecution was able to get extraordinarily high bails set for his co-defendants, even though their charges did not include any violence or weapons, and none of them had a prior criminal record. The government used inaccurate statements to thwart due process. Their lies had tremendously adverse consequences for Raniere and his co-defendants’ prospects of getting a fair trial.

While accusing Raniere of “fleeing to Mexico” to avoid prosecution, the government possessed detailed information about Raniere’s travel and whereabouts prior to his arrest. They even used some of this information in their court filings.

As detailed below, the prosecution undeniably knew their statements to the Court were false. 

Prosecutors should never lie, but this criminal behavior has become commonplace in our country. This misconduct erodes justice and the rights of all citizens and is at the root of the mass incarceration that currently plagues the United States.

Below are seven lies (Lies A through G) which will be shown to be lies with ample evidence to show how the prosecution made false statements, thereby thwarting due process. This analysis will show that Raniere was not a flight risk and should not have been denied bail because:

  • Raniere did not flee the country to avoid authorities

  • He was not in hiding and was not in a concealed location

  • After learning there was an investigation involving NXIVM, Raniere hired an attorney who proactively reached out to multiple jurisdictions to check on his legal status

Lie A: Prosecutors falsely said Raniere hadn’t left the country between 2015 until after the NYT article was published

The prosecution repeatedly lied about Raniere’s travel history. They contended, multiple times, that Raniere had not left the country since a 2015 trip to Fiji.

In Docket #1 (18-cr-204) below in a red box, see the sworn affidavit statement by FBI Special Agent Michael Lever that “Prior to [the trip to Mexico he took after the New York Times article was published], RANIERE had not flown out of the country since 2015, when he visited the Heiress’s private island in Fiji.” This is shown to be untrue, based on Raniere’s passport and visa records that the government possessed and recited from.

Lie A: False travel statements

 

This same passage is repeated by the government in Docket #1 (18-cv-03041), a parallel case to seize property related to defendants in the criminal case.

Truth A: Raniere had left the country before the NYT article was written, subsequent to his 2015 trip to Fiji

The prosecution had evidence disproving the lie that Raniere had “not flown out of the country since 2015”, in Docket #43 (18-cr-204) Exhibit 5, in a motion for bail submitted by Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo.

This evidence shows Raniere’s initial trip to Mexico [which the prosecution failed to mention] was NOT related to an investigation, as he didn’t know about the investigation when he initially traveled there since there was not investigation at this time.

 Truth Evidence A.1.1.: Raniere’s passport 

Truth Evidence A.1.1: Mexican stamp on his passport shows Raniere arrived in Mexico on October 14, 2017, three days before the New York Times article was published on October 17, 2017.

This directly contradicts the prosecution’s sworn statement that Raniere flew out of the country several weeks AFTER the NY Times article as published and that “RANIERE had not flown out of the country since 2015, when he visited the Heiress’s private island in Fiji.”

The passport shows that he flew out of the country prior to the New York Times article.

Truth Evidence A.1.2.: Proximity of passport stamp

In the same Exhibit of Docket #43 (18-cr-204), it is important to note that the stamp to Fiji in Raniere’s passport is only one inch from the stamp that clearly indicates his initial entry to Mexico was before he could have known there was an investigation against him.

The prosecution can in no way claim they did not see the stamp or date of Raniere’s first trip to Mexico. They were in possession of his passport.

Truth Evidence A.1.2: Stamp of first entrance to Mexico is one inch from Raniere’s Fiji stamp.

 

Lie B: Mr. Raniere was a flight risk

The prosecution made a false portrayal that Raniere left the country and went into hiding after the New York Times article was published. The Times article DID NOT mention Raniere was under investigation, so the prosecution inaccurately portrayed him as trying to avoid law enforcement instead of the truth that he went to Mexico to rejoin his newborn son and the mother, a Mexican citizen. 

Lie B: What the Government presented

In the statement referenced above in Lie A, in Docket #1 (18-cr-204) and in on Page 6 in Docket #4 (18-cr-204) below, the prosecution falsely suggests Raniere fled to Mexico to avoid being arrested.

Lie B: Raniere posed a flight risk

 

Truth B: Raniere was not a flight risk  

Truth B.1: Rather Than Fleeing, Raniere Traveled Back to the US

The government failed to mention that Raniere traveled back to Albany, after his first trip to Mexico, on the exact same day the New York Times article revealing the existence of DOS was published, on October 17, 2017.

Truth Evidence B.1: Raniere’s return on October 17, 2017

 

Truth Evidence B.1.1: Screenshot of Raniere’s Flight Info on 10/17/17

 

Truth Evidence B.2: NYT article published on same day

Truth Evidence B.1.2: Screenshot of NYT article date

The fact that the prosecution swore that he made his first trip outside the USA since Fiji in 2015 is not an insignificant lie.

He went to Mexico with his partner, Marianna, and his son before the New York Times article came out, which then was absolutely before there was any active FBI investigation, which the prosecution admits began after the Times story was published.

He came back to the US alone and remained in Albany for several weeks before rejoining his family in Mexico several weeks later.

By failing to mention his previous trip, which occasioned his second trip, the government created a false narrative that he only went to Mexico to flee jurisdiction and not to rejoin his son and his mother, who is a citizen of Mexico and because of her visa had to remain outside the USA for a period of time.

Raniere’s two trips to Mexico, which were based on his desire to be with his newborn son, were described as only one trip to flee jurisdiction. The problem with this lie is that the omission of the first trip by the prosecution is a vital lie by omission.

Truth B.2: Raniere was actively participating in life in Albany

In between the two family-based trips, Raniere was in Albany. While there, Raniere was living openly and without any attempt at concealment in the community he lived in for years. He remained in Albany for more than three weeks, even though the NYT article had been published and many other articles were published about him and DOS.

Nevertheless, Raniere went about his normal life for weeks after the NY Times article was published, playing volleyball with friends and sending normal communications to members of the NXIVM community in Albany. Playing volleyball with multiple other people, multiple times is not a normal pattern of behavior for someone preparing to flee the country.

 Truth B.2.1:  Raniere was engaged in normal conversations and activities after the NYT article was published

Below, Raniere is seen in a thread planning volleyball games and wishing someone happy birthday. Note, the holder of the phone who provided these texts had Raniere in their phone under the name “Autoshield” (see contact record for Mr. Raniere). The text from “Autoshield” below was from Raniere.

Truth Evidence B.2.1: Texts about volleyball

Truth Evidence Caption: Truth Evidence B.2.1: A volleyball thread with Keith Raniere and other players while he was back in the U.S.

Truth B.2.2:  Raniere was actively involved in developing new curriculum in Albany after the NYT article was published

New trainings in NXIVM were scheduled around Raniere’s availability while he was in Albany. A new course –The Jness Track Training #11 — took place from October 19-26, 2017. Raniere was actively working with Nxivm community members in Albany to put on the new training.

Truth Evidence B.2: Jness Intensive dates

Truth Evidence B.2: Advertisement that the Jness Track 11 Intensive was taking place October 19-26, 2017

Truth B.2.3: Raniere was openly working with leaders of Jness after the NYT article was published 

While Raniere was in Albany, he was actively participating in the community and the classes taking place. As Raniere did with all his new trainings, he was working closely with leaders in the Jness company to create the curriculum and monitor the progress of the training.

Truth Evidence B.3: Raniere involvement in Jness Intensive

Truth Evidence B.3: The video is of Nancy Salzman. It demonstrates Raniere’s involvement in developing the Jness 11 intensive while he was in Albany after the NYT article was written. Salzman answers a question about whether there is a name for the new Jness track yet and she says she asked ‘him” referring to Raniere, who names all the courses, and she quotes him as saying he has not decided on a name yet.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lie C: Raniere fled and went into hiding

The government made multiple false statements to the Court that Raniere had fled the country after the New York Times article and actively was avoiding contact with U.S. authorities. The government falsely paints a picture that Raniere chose to go to Mexico to thwart due process, even though they had information to the contrary.

On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “…Shortly after the government began interviewing witnesses and victims in November 2017, the defendant flew to Mexico. For over a month and a half, since the arrest warrant in this case was issued, the government has actively worked with Mexican immigration officials to locate the defendant.

Truth C: Raniere left the U.S. to obey immigration law 

In a Bail Release Memo submitted to the Court on 6/5/18 Raniere’s attorney, Agnifilo, explains how  Raniere’s leaving the U.S. was specifically intended as travel with the mother of his son so that she could comply with U.S. immigration law. In this memo, Agnifilo clearly shows that:

  • The mother of Raniere’s newborn son was advised by counsel to leave the U.S. by 10/14/17 to comply with her visa

  • Originally, Raniere and his partner planned on going to Montreal, Canada to be closer to Albany while they sorted out her visa issues

  • When they were denied entry at the Canadian border, Raniere and his partner booked tickets to Monterrey, Mexico

These facts, outlined, starting on page 16 of the Bail Memo with ten supporting exhibits, were in possession of the government. These facts were minimized by the prosecution in a Memorandum and Order filed on 6/20/18, where they acknowledged the veracity of the documents. However, they also tried to cast doubt on the veracity of Raniere’s claimed intent for his travel patterns, even though the evidence for them fully supported his claims.

Truth Evidence C.1: Expiring Visa of Mother of Raneiere’s son

Truth Evidence C.1: Exhibit 1 from Bail Memo showing Raniere’s partner was required to leave U.S. on or before October 14, 2017

Truth Evidence C.2: AirBnb rental in Canada

Truth Evidence C.2: Exhibit 2 from Bail Memo showing Raniere’s original 62 night AirBnb reservation was in Montreal

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lie D: Mr. Raniere was concealing his location

On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “Finding the defendant was difficult because the defendant purposely concealed his location.” 

Lie D: Raniere concealed his location

 

On page 7 of a memo filed by the prosecution on June 6, 2018, the government suggests Raniere was hard to find in Mexico. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security visited the NXIVM Center in Monterrey, Mexico. According to the document, “[the agents] asked to speak with the defendant, but were told he was unavailable. The agents’ telephone numbers were left for the defendant but neither he nor an attorney ever contacted them.” 

 Truth D: Raniere’s location was far from secret   

Truth D.1: Raniere was living openly and without any attempt at concealment in Mexico

While living in Mexico, Raniere was not hiding or hunkering down. As seen in the photos and videos below, while in Puerto Vallarta, Raniere was frequently in public, oftentimes with his son, and surely very noticeable in Mexico. These photos and videos were taken during the period when the government contended Raniere was concealing his whereabouts.

Truth Evidence D.1.1, D.1.2, and D.1.3: Photos of Raniere in public

Truth Evidence D.1:1 Raniere in a town outside the Punta Mita resort around New Years’ Eve 2018. Note: Photo of the child is blurred so as not to designate him as a public figure. His son is being held by the child’s grandfather. This is not the mark of a man in hiding to drive around town in a golf cart.

 

Truth Evidence D.1:2 Raniere and his son at a beach restaurant in Chacala. Note: Photo of the child is blurred so as not to designate him as a public figure.

 

Truth Evidence D.1.2: Raniere at an AirBnb in Chacala with friends. None of these friends were told to conceal the fact that Raniere was living in Mexico or asked to hide his whereabouts.

The truth is Raniere hosted dozens of friends while he was in Mexico, including numerous visitors from the USA and none of them were told to keep his whereabouts or the fact that he was in Mexico a secret.

 

Truth Evidence D.1.4.: Video of Raniere driving into town 

Truth Evidence D.1.4: Raniere driving on a public road in Chacala in February 2018. No one in hiding – accompanied as he was with American friends – ever yet rode around in a golf cart – if he wanted to keep his whereabouts secret.

Truth D.2: Raniere gave the NYT Magazine permission to publish that he was in Mexico before his arrest

Raniere did not know he was going to be arrested when he was interviewing with New York Times Magazine writer Vanessa Grigoriadis.

The photos and interviews published in the story took place in Mexico. Raniere consented to share that he was living in Mexico when he was interviewed for this widely read article. As Clare Bronfman indicated below, due to safety reasons, they did not disclose their exact location. While that’s understandable, someone fearing arrest or “running from the law” would not so much confirm let alone publicize the country in which they are residing in such an obvious way. In fact, someone on the run and hiding from authorities would not consent to an interview at all.

Truth Evidence D.2: NYT Magazine

Truth Evidence D.2: Article from NYT magazine, in which interviews took place before Mr. Raniere’s arrest

Truth D.3: Raniere visited a notary to submit a document to a NY court

After leaving Monterrey, Raniere was primarily staying in Jalisco, Mexico. Raniere submitted a notarized document to a Saratoga Surrogate Court, filed on January 17, 2018. A Notario Publico (a type of notary that has an esteemed role in Mexico) included his own name and address on the document. The Court was made aware of this in a bail motion filed 6/5/18. Anyone interested in finding Raniere could have followed up with this Notario Publico to get information on Raniere’s whereabouts or contact information.

People in hiding generally do not visit notaries.

Truth Evidence D.3: Notario Publico’s address shared with Court

Truth Evidence D.3: Evidence of appearance before a Mexican legal official submitted in bail motion submitted to the Court

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Lie E: Raniere stopped using his phone

On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “Finding the defendant was difficult because the defendant… stopped using his phone.” Ostensibly, the government was referring to his longtime US phone number, 1-518-810-7890.

 

Lie C.2: Phone usage ended

 

Truth E: Raniere continued using his phone in Mexico

Raniere not only kept his phone while in Mexico, he actively used it. Those who were in contact with Raniere have corroborated that he had bad reception at places where he was staying, but when he did have reception, he would frequently text. Text messages sent from Mexico, during the time the prosecution falsely stated that Raniere stopped using his phone, are pictured below. 

Truth Evidence E.1: Screenshots of texts sent to Marc Elliot while in Mexico from Raniere’s US phone

Truth Evidence E.1: Texts between Marc Elliot and Raniere show Raniere was using his U.S. phone will in Mexico

Truth Evidence E.2: Screenshots of texts sent to Marc Elliot while in Mexico from Raniere’s US phone

Truth Evidence E.2: Texts between Edgar Boone and Raniere show Raniere using his U.S. phone while in Mexico

The point of this is that the prosecution said he stopped using his phone and that was the reason he was hard to find. This was an unequivocal statement. It was not true. He did use his phone.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lie F: Raniere essentially lived in a “fortress”

In a memo (Docket #44) filed by the prosecution on 6/8/18 in response to Mr. Raniere’s bail memo, the prosecution writes, “[The Defendant] was hiding in a luxury beach resort that was essentially a fortress with armed guards stationed at all entry and exit points.”

 

Truth F: Raniere actually stayed in an AirBnb

When Raniere would visit friends or the mother of his son, he would occasionally stay at an AirBnb in Puerto Vallarta. Since Raniere would only go to Puerto Vallarta occasionally, he stayed at various rental homes. When Raniere was arrested, the so-called “hideaway,” he was staying was an AirBnb. It was hardly a “fortress.”  The house where he was arrested was a 6-bedroom vacation home, open to the public for booking. Raniere was staying there for about 10 days. Given security issues in Mexico, it is highly common for tourist areas with vacation homes or AirBnbs to be located in gated communities with armed security guards. This AirBnb was no exception. 

However, these guards were not hired by Raniere or assigned for his protection. They were there as part of their assigned duties for the gated communities. There are gated communities in the USA that also have armed guards to protect the security of all the residents of that gated community. But the government makes it look like he is El Chapo in a fortress with guards to prevent the FBI from finding and then arresting him. It is totally untrue and the government knew this.

 Truth Evidence F.1:  Pictures of Raniere’s Puerto Vallarta AirBnb

Truth Evidence F.1: The AirBnb Raniere was staying at that the government called “essentially a fortress” is a beachside vacation rental

Truth Evidence F.2: Armed guards are commonplace at Mexican tourist areas in Puerto Vallarta

Truth Evidence F.2.1: Travel Warning article from popular PV resort

 

Truth Evidence F.2.2: TripAdvisor’s TravelMarketReport.com article explaining the prevalence of security guards in Puerto Vallarta

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lie G: Mr. Raniere actively evaded authorities

According to a prosecution memo filed with the Court on 6/8/18, “Despite active surveillance efforts, [Raniere] eluded law enforcement for over two months.” Notwithstanding the information provided above, this statement could not be further from the truth. 

Lie G: Raniere actively eluded law enforcement for 2+ months

Truth G: Raniere proactively sought to work with authorities if necessary

Raniere’s bail memo submitted to the Court showed he proactively checked to confirm he was not under investigation. Below is an excerpt of the memo, starting on Page 14, with the most relevant portions highlighted.

To summarize, after Raniere heard of a federal investigation, he retained an attorney with expertise in federal law, Michael Sullivan (who was formerly a US attorney), to proactively reach out to government agencies. This started in the Fall of 2017 and then again several times in March 2018, Sullivan contacted the Northern District of NY’s (NDNY) to inquire about any investigations relating to Raniere.

This type of behavior is the opposite of hiding from an investigation.

By contacting the federal authorities in the federal district [the Northern District of NY] where he lived, Raniere and his attorney had assumed that the agencies would be cross-referenced in responding to his inquiry.

Raniere was given no indication that he was a target of an active investigation from the US Attorney for the NDNY’s office. Even if it was an oversight to contact only the NDNY (which was the jurisdiction that oversaw Albany) and not the Eastern District of NY directly, it nevertheless shows that Raniere was conscientious of the law.

It was his impression that when the Albany US Attorney said they knew of no investigation. that they would be aware of any federal investigation concerning a person and his company Nxivm that operated primarily in that district.

In other words, if there was an investigation into Raniere and others of Nxivm, it would be conducted largely in Albany since they and all the potential witnesses lived in Albany. Any outside FBI agents from another district would hardly sneak into Albany – outside their district – without coordinating with the local district, or at least one could reasonably assume this.

Truth G.1:  Raniere hired counsel to confirm there was no investigation

Truth Evidence G.1: Bail memo shows Raniere’s proactivity

Excerpt from Docket #43 (cr-00204-NG)

Truth Evidence G.1: Raniere bail memo outlines how his attorney proactively checked with multiple agencies to determine if there was a federal investigation and was told there was not.

Truth G.2:  Raniere offers his attorney, Sullivan, to the Court to verify he took proactive steps to try to confirm whether he was under investigation 

 Truth Evidence G.2: Footnote to bail memo offers Raniere’s attorney as a resource

Truth Evidence G.2: Footnote to bail memo proactively offers that Raniere’s attorney, former US Attorney Michael Sullivan, can confirm he checked to ensure Raniere was not under investigation.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

The degree to which the prosecution falsely characterized facts in order to arrest Raniere and deny him bail extends beyond what the average citizen would consider believable. We like to think that our prosecutors don’t cheat to win.

The actual facts of the situation show that:

  • Raniere left first to go to Canada and then to Mexico for immigration and family reasons, not to evade authorities. The prosecution misrepresented Keith’s travel.

  • Once in Mexico, Raniere was hardly in hiding or concealing his location, as he was going about his everyday life.

  • Raniere proactively took steps to ensure he was obeying the law to meet immigration standards with his son’s mother, and to confirm his own legal status once he became aware of an investigation related to DOS.

Because the above-mentioned lies of the prosecution were believed over the truth, Raniere was denied bail.

It is well-known among the legal community that getting denied bail, and particularly when imprisoned at Metropolitan Detention Center, makes it incredibly difficult to mount a proper defense.

A lawsuit mounted in 2019 from inmates at MDC alleged that their right to legal counsel had been violated by their inability to contact their attorneys, particularly when the heat went out during the polar vortex of Winter 2019.

Further, according to David Patton, Executive Director of Federal Defenders of New York, “[MDC is] an awful place to do time . . . Until you get to something like a super [maximum security prison], there’s nothing worse than MDC.”

Raniere’s inability to communicate with his lawyers most certainly made it nearly impossible to assemble a proper case for a fair trial and to adequately refute the lies that the prosecution levied against him.

End of Marc Elliot article

*****

Editor’s Postface:

I should not have to supplement my preface for careful readers, but for those who think I should not publish the arguments of his supporters, because it supports Keith Raniere, I will end with this:

I think it must be published.  Not only because I gave my word, but because everyone deserves due process. If anyone, even Keith Raniere, is alleged to have been deprived of it, I want to explore this.

I am not prepared to say misconduct happened. Even if it did, that does not mean Raniere is innocent. Prosecutorial misconduct, which is another way of saying the government cheated or lied to win, has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of a defendant.

It has to do with how we want our government to function – honestly or dishonestly.

The principle is not about Keith Raniere. This is about holding our government accountable through freedom of the press. I can’t think of a finer way to start review of prosecutors than to review allegations of misconduct perpetrated against my enemy.

If I will fight to ensure due process for my enemy, a man I helped put in prison, then I know, inside myself, [I don’t care what others think] I can be depended on to fight for due process for my friends, myself, for others. I can be depended on to value due process more than seeing a man put into prison who tried to do the same to me and who I believe would have been glad to deprive me of due process and let prosecutors run amok in order to destroy me.

Let us let his supporters say everything, present everything. The truth of this matter will prevail sooner or later.


About the author

Guest View

108 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • VACATIONING/LIVING/HIDING??
    Everybody knows that to live in Mexico you would need a “TEMPORARY RESIDENCY VISA”. If he claims to be the person he is with high morals, honest, and well intended man, then Keith this is your opportunity to prove it, show your temporary residency visa!
    There is no doubt he’s an intelligent narcissist individual, that thought that by traveling to Mexico he would bribe Mexican authorities, and keep what was left of his ESPians.

  • O that totally convince me that you are not cult members. I mean he rape some kids, tried to control the politics, ecconomy torturing people, he let children , woman and man participate in his sadistic games, he rpobably kill some people , yeah he stay on and rnb you are totally right. You are a such a gross person asunsolo, elliot, clyne etc the rest of you crazy blind people.imhope.that the universe shows you what you bring to him , and that by some miracle you have the capacity of.see (something) It. If you want to defend ppeoole of the Justice system , why not start with someone inoccent? Why start with a pedophile that probably kill? I mean he is a killer, right now he make people abort right? These is fault of the media and the Justice system, beacsue they didnt report all.his countless crimes , Nxivm Is a luciferian , pedophile cult. Not a fucking sex club. I hope.that happens the same.that happened with esptein and the vow makes people ask for a trial. Not becasue he is going to find rehab in jail, not becasue he deserves It. Because if you put a baby Next to yourmaster , he Will probably cannot stop himslef from.rappping the poor creatures that has to endure his fucking face, or makes as much damage posible

  • B,C,D,F, and G are reasonable, logical inferences about the defendant’s state of mind. They’re either correct or they aren’t, but to call them “lies” is disingenuous. Certainly there’s nothing unethical in refusing to take this defendant’s word for anything.

    Only A and E are themselves factual. But they have little probative value when considered in conjunction with all of the other evidence of flight risk *and* they’re trivially easy to falsify.

    Bottom line: none of that was even a little bit convincing.

  • Give ’em the old razzle dazzle
    Razzle-dazzle ’em
    Give ’em an act with lots of flash in it
    And the reaction will be passionate

    Give ’em the old hocus-pocus
    Bead and feather ’em
    How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

    What if your hinges all are rusting?
    What if, in fact, you’re just disgusting?

    Razzle-dazzle ’em
    And they’ll never catch wise!

  • Hmmmm… I remember so well the example KR gave about the jJws in the basement. You are hiding Jews in your basement during WWII, German soldiers knock at your door and ask if you are hiding Jews, the ETHICAL MORAL answer is to lie, to uphold a higher principle which, in that case, I agree. But his example is used to justify lying, as we know KR is the ultimate liar and cheater. I remember Nancy S. saying that when you deal with cheaters, it is OK to lie and act the same way they do, otherwise, they win. Don´t forget Frank, they accused you as well as the prosecution to be liars and cheaters. They feel entitled to lie. And believe to be upholding a higher principle. Just saying.

    • Don’t forget cult survivor, they not only accused Raniere but convicted him and he is facing life in prison, so you can stop being so f*cking scared of Raniere and NXIVM. LOL

      Nobody is under Raniere and his flying monkeys (most of them women) any longer, welcome to reality. LOL

      Just saying. lol

  • If a new trial occurs, so what? Other than the huge costs involved, the verdict will remain the same: guilty. Prosecutors should always be truthful; so should self-anointed “gurus.” Prosecutors should never abuse the law; self-anointed gurus and their backers should do the same. Prosecutors should always be ethical; so should self-anointed “gurus.” And, self-anointed “gurus” should not allegedly have sex with children. Followers of self-anointed guru should state publicly their revulsion of the crimes their self-anointed guru allegedly did. Crickets.

  • Who cares? These are just the desperate, predictable machinations of Vanguard et al.

    It will be poetic justice for Vanguard aka Keith, who weaponized the court/legal system for years as a strategy to perpetuate his evil and to intimidate and terrorize whistleblowers and defectors, to be rendered impotent and invisible by being sent to the Super Max by the judicial system. He has earned his seat there. He can use his “tech” to cope with his consequence/penance of serving life in Super Max.

    Tick tock. Tick tock. That is the sound of Vanguard’s futile machinations grinding down to the ground. Game over.

  • Do we know what time the NYT article hit on the 17th? I did not become aware until 6:12pm EDT. It was in print on the 18th. Quite possible that Keith didn’t know it hit until he was already stateside.

    Although Barry did reach out for comment, so they knew the story was coming.

    • Raniere got spooked soon after Frank published the news of the blackmail cauterizing of Raniere’s initials on the women’s pubic areas and people starting leaving in droves. LOL

      Raniere needed an excuse to leave the country and so he used the Mexican woman that he knocked up visa status as a “reason” to leave, then realized it wasn’t a good look to leave the country, he came back, then got spooked again when the NYT story came out. LOL

      Raniere couldn’t show fear to his loyal followers, then they would have realized the entire NXIVM operation was a facade they had spent years, some decades, supporting. LOL

  • The record supports that he flew to Mexico on 10/14/17, three days before the New York Times article was published on 10/17/17 and flew back to the US on 10/17/17, the day the article went live. (He may have in fact been in the air the same time the article went live.)

    This trip back to the US is substantiated by Lauren Salzman’s testimony: “Q: Prior to you meeting with the reporter [Vanessa Grigoriadis], had the defendant [Raniere] traveled to Mexico? A: Yes. He traveled to Mexico in October 2017, returned back to Mexico in November 2017 and never came back to the States until he was arrested.”

    Some data points worth considering here: Raniere would have likely been aware of the first New York Times article prior to publication. It is public record that the story was complete for some time before it went to print. It would have been highly improbable that word hadn’t gotten back to him about the article at some point.

    More importantly, consider these dates. On 10/5/17, the Weinstein story broke in the New York Times. On 10/10/17, the New Yorker article on Weinstein was published. On 10/12/17, allegations surfaced about Roy Price, head of Amazon Studios. Raniere flew to Mexico on 10/14/17. On 10/16/17, the Me Too hashtag resurfaced; many people, including Sarah Edmondson, made posts. On 10/17/17, the NXIVM story published at the same time Raniere flew back to the US. Raniere reportedly stayed in Albany for 3 weeks. During that time: Allegations were made against Larry Nassar, Terry Richardson, Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore, Louis CK, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, Russell Simmons, and Al Franken, amongst others. During that same time, while he was in Clifton Park, his phone alias is, curiously, “Autoshield” on Marc Eliot’s phone. He’s also observed by Lauren Salzman performing tasks indicative of planning to return to Mexico for a significant amount of time.

    According to Lauren Salzman’s testimony: “A: I went to see him at 21 Oregon where he was living at the time and he — or he had lived, and he was backing up his devices. And he left some things behind, some money and some letters and some — possibly other things, but I knew specifically about the money and the letters. […] Q: The fact that the defendant did these things, does that give you any particular impression? A: It gave me the impression he wasn’t coming back or coming back anytime soon. If this is money that he had saved over a number of years for Dawn or for whatever reason, why now all of a sudden not keep that.”

    From Marc Elliot: “Raniere did not know he was going to be arrested when he was interviewing with New York Times Magazine writer Vanessa Grigoriadis.”

    He likely knew the FBI visited the Monterrey Center asking to speak to him. NXIVM also asked that Grigoriadis not disclose the city in Mexico where he was located. This is a little like saying “I’m not hiding, I’m living somewhere in the U.S.”

    From Marc Elliot: “Raniere not only kept his phone while in Mexico, he actively used it.”

    The screenshots shown of texts between Edgar Boone and Raniere are 10/24/17-12/31/17. The latest date on a text was Marc Eliot to Raniere in January 2018. There is no response from Raniere shown. Raniere was arrested in March 2018.

    A quote from Vanessa Grigoriadis in NY Times: “After I interviewed him in Mexico, Raniere stopped using a phone and used an untraceable email account.”

    A quote from Docket #44: “He stopped using his phone, turned to encrypted email and left Monterrey, Mexico, where the mother of his child was living.”

    Further testimony from Lauren Salzman: “A: Keith went back to Mexico like in November, middle November, and within a short period of time, cut communications and I didn’t speak to him for a period of weeks. I can’t recall if it was four or five or six, something like that, but was out of communication for some time. And at one point, he resurfaced and Loreta [Garza] told me that I could get a prepaid phone and that I could communicate with him on the phone and through those communications on the burner phones…he invited me to come and spend New Year’s in Mexico. Q: What was the purpose of you buying a burner phone to communicate with the defendant around that time, November 2017?
    A: Because he wouldn’t communicate with me otherwise. He was communicating on those phones, and I was told if I wanted to communicate with him, I could communicate with him if I were to get a phone like that.”

    Also from Lauren Salzman’s testimony, about conversations with Raniere during her New Year’s trip to Mexico: “A: He told me that I could speak to Clare about getting a Proton mail address. Q: What is a Proton mail address? A: It’s an encrypted email address that also is not linked to you in any way, to your name, to your – anything about you.”

    From Marc Elliot: “The truth [is] that he went to Mexico to rejoin his newborn son and the mother, a Mexican citizen.” Also from Marc Elliot: “When Raniere would visit friends or the mother of his son, he would occasionally stay at an Airbnb in Puerto Vallarta. Since Raniere would only go to Puerto Vallarta occasionally, he stayed at various rental homes.”

    If he returned to Mexico for the sole purpose of being reunited with the mother of his child and his young son, why was he characterized as just “visiting” her? Second question: If he returned to Mexico for the sole purpose of being reunited with the mother of his child and his young son, why was he arrested in a house that did not include either of them, rather it was full of first-line DOS slaves reportedly about to undertake a group sex encounter as a “recommitment ceremony”?

    From Marc Elliot: “He retained an attorney with expertise in federal law […] to proactively reach out to government agencies. This started in the Fall of 2017 and then again several times in March 2018, Sullivan contacted the Northern District of NY’s (NDNY) to inquire about any investigations relating to Raniere. This type of behavior is the opposite of hiding from an investigation.”

    It’s not the opposite of hiding from an investigation if you’re doing it to figure out how to avoid further investigation, or if you are doing it to procure information with which to file counter attacks. From Lauren Salzman’s testimony about what she and Raniere discussed during her New Year’s trip to Mexico: “He told me that there were investigations in three countries into our opposition, the people who were oppositional to us, and making — the allegations – public and private allegations against us, and that we were going to win because the truth was on our side”

    Final question from me: Would Raniere be willing to sign a legally-binding document that he himself never lied, misrepresented, or distorted any facts in regards to his case? For example, would he be willing to sign a legally-binding document that states that he never lied about his involvement in DOS or never lied about having a sexual relationship with Cami while she was still a minor? Just curious.

    • “It is public record that the story was complete for some time before it went to print.” How is that public record – and the HBO Vow show doesn’t count. LOL

    • ‘If he returned to Mexico for the sole purpose of being reunited with the mother of his child and his young son, why was he characterized as just “visiting” her?” Because he was needed back in New York to continue leading his group so they could change the world for the better. LOL

      “Second question: If he returned to Mexico for the sole purpose of being reunited with the mother of his child and his young son, why was he arrested in a house that did not include either of them, rather it was full of first-line DOS slaves reportedly about to undertake a group sex encounter as a “recommitment ceremony”?” Because he got horny and needed some group sex. LOL

      “Final question from me: Would Raniere be willing to sign a legally-binding document that he himself never lied, misrepresented, or distorted any facts in regards to his case? For example, would he be willing to sign a legally-binding document that states that he never lied about his involvement in DOS or never lied about having a sexual relationship with Cami while she was still a minor?” The fact is Raniere did lie about his involvement in DOS, so he either couldn’t sign that document or if he signed it he would be lying. Again. LOL Also, he wasn’t convicted of having sex with Cami, but having a naked picture of her as a minor, so that’s a moot point. LOL

  • “These factors included the seriousness of the charged offenses, Boustani’s lengthy possible sentence, that the evidence against Boustani appeared strong, Boustani’s alleged deceptive actions in the charged offenses, frequent international travel, and lack of connections in the United States compared to his extensive foreign ties.[8] Although some of these factors may exist because of Boustani’s wealth, viewing the “totality of the circumstances,” the Circuit determined that the district court did not err in determining that Boustani posed a flight risk as it did not rely primarily on wealth, such that “a similarly situated defendant of lesser means” would not have been granted bail.[9]

    • That’s why this first supposed “lie” from the prosecutors is largely meaningless, the judge has lots of latitude in making a bail decision, so let’s move onto another supposed “lie” they made. LOL

  • Keith and Clares practice for decades was to tie up court proceedings for years, through an endless budget of legal fees and false charges. This is their hobby for their own amusement. They lived their lives above the law, why wouldn’t he assume that no matter what charges were brought against him, Clares money would mean endless appeals while he’s on bail. Epstein went to work and committed further crimes while on “house arrest”, why wouldn’t that scenario be applied to himself? He thought of himself in those leagues.

    Keith wouldn’t be the first little white guy to hide in plain site in Mexico. I don’t believe he is so attached to the notion of family, as his treatment of KK and GK show he is more than willing to be separated from, and to separate mother and child. This particular scenario served his purposes, as previous adherence to US immigration law shows. This behavior towards US immigration compliance is more unusual, given the other immigration and trafficking charges as proof. He hides behind women and children as a matter of habit, his entire existence is based on that practice.

    I think it’s incredible that he’s still alive, frankly. It’s amazing a parent of a victim has not seen to his suicide. The longer he stays in Brooklyn, the more likely that is.

    PIE is always looking for good legal and media help, at least these folks have a future afterwards.

    • PIE really is about it for them. Not even One Touch, or whatever that upper-quadrant-clit-stroking group was called, would find them edifying. Not even the horse mutilator, forget her name.. (I’ve definitely encountered some strange stuff on the FR over the years!)

  • So Raniere got a case of suddenly “wanting to see the family blues” right around the time whole stink about DOS just happened to be going down, eh? A desire he never had before in the thirty or more years of his life prior, eh? How many abortions did he coerce women into having again, eh? Was his son from Kristen Keeffe too busy with his baby schedule and not available on the many days of his young life to have a similarly concocted picture of this great family man pretending to play with his son from Maria done like the one shown in the article above? Surely, there must be hundreds of pictures available of this loving father adoring his first conceived son? Well, actually first born son considering the pregnancy was hidden from the father of the year so that it wouldn’t be aborted. Oh, that’s right. I almost forgot. The great family man wanted Kristen to pretend that her and his son was adopted. Couldn’t expose the great family man’s con as an ethical monk of an ethical organization and ruin his chances for some future punani.

  • How impossible to fight from jail. He was not a flight risk. The government made up the whole story ignoring the facts.

    Maybe he would have won the case except for the fact he was locked away.

    I say give him a new trial and convict him fair and square. The cost to taxpayers of a new trial is nothing compared to the life or freedom of one man

    OK, I’m not saying he is innocent. He just needs a fair trial.

    • Jeez did you read the transcripts? You seem to be talking as someone who has no clue about what happened at the trial and about the evidence that was used to convict him.

    • Horse crap. Were the trials fair he put others through? You know, the ones where he financially ruined others? Or destroyed their lives with jail time? Some on Keith’s bad side lost their lives. Karma is a bitch and so are……….I refuse to feel sorry for him or his financial enabler Clare, no matter HOW they got there! Keep dancing outside the prison, too bad you’re not dancing inside permanently.

  • If everyone was not so prejudiced against him, this argument is persuasive. But it’s Keith, so it’s a bad argument. When will you learn that due process means you apply it evenly to everyone? Even someone hated like Keith. Marc makes a good argument.

    • It’s not. Because the evidence presented doesn’t prove what they are claim it proves. There is no prejudice against Keith. If you see someone murder another person, calling him a murderer is not called prejudice, even though that person should be tried using due process. Keith was tried using due process. Most of the arguments above were presented at the time of motions for bail and rejected, because they were deemed flimsy. You are making a decision based on only one part of the story, because you haven’t followed the whole thing. The new evidence they have presented above, tickets and WhatsApp messages, doesn’t prove what they are claiming it to prove.

  • I thought the primary reason KAR was denied bail was because he was unable to put up any of his “own” money. There were proposals that others be allowed to put up a bond on his behalf. The Judge felt that KAR would then have no skin in the game, so would be more likely to default. Remember, at the border, he said he had nothing other than half a townhouse.

    I still think he would have gotten bail and house arrest had he not played games with the money Pam left him, and had it rightfully in his name.

    As to the problems of preparing a defense while being detained, as I recall he put up NO defense of any kind at trial. I don’t think that was because of poor preparation.

    So I’m not sure where this argument is going.

  • Truth D.2: Raniere gave the NYT Magazine permission to publish that he was in Mexico before his arrest

    This is again bullshit, and proves nothing. Just knowing that he was in Mexico doesn’t mean anything. If he had given his exact location in Mexico, then it would count. He did not do that. This is kinda like someone saying it was known that he was on planet earth, and hence he was not hiding. Sorry, that doesn’t work.

  • Truth B.2.3: Raniere was openly working with leaders of Jness after the NYT article was published

    This is bullshit. It just implies that he was working to keep the facade on, for his own protection, end he likely wanted to be able to continue conducting his business once the heat went down, as he likely believed he would be able to evade justice.

    Nancy being able to talk to him, proves nothing about his location or intentions. Where was Raniere during v-week 2017? Why did he not give conduct any forums during this v-week, even though he was around for his birthday celebration? Simple, he was around only to keep the facade on, else he was in hiding way before even the NYT article came out.

  • This is all rather trivial. The defense had their opportunity to characterize Ranier’s time in Mexico in the manner that they thought reflected best on him. It’s up to the judge to decide which version of events is closer to the truth. Much of this is simply a difference of opinion on how each side characterized Raniere’s trip to Mexico, the prosecution negatively and the defense positively.

    This is routine courtroom rhetoric. Have his supporters ever been party to or witnessed an adversarial proceeding? You’d think they would have, what with their organization’s endless harassment suits against dissenters.

  • So far the charges for the conviction have not been addressed. I imagine there is a lot more material going to be published.

    • — I imagine there is a lot more material going to be published.

      Alex- One would think so…..I believe our shared skepticism will be validated.

  • From the evidence presented, it appears Raniere was not a flight risk and was unfairly characterized as one by the DOJ. Furthermore, this characterization distorted the public image of Raniere as a criminal avoiding prosecution, thus making it harder to gain bail and properly prepare for trial.

    Whether this action by the DOJ is significant enough to be grounds for a mistrial is another matter and beyond my scope of knowledge. Whether this distorts the facts presented at the trial is another question. While I have no knowledge about this, it is has been generally shown that being treated like a criminal creates public perception of criminality.

    On a personal note, I do not feel safe disclosing my personal information on the Frank Report. I do not fear a personal attack from Frank himself but many of his followers are enabled by him to threaten abuse and violence, It goes without saying I have no interest to subject myself and family to threats.

  • So Raniere got a case of suddenly “wanting to see the family blues” right around the time the whole stink about DOS just happened to be going down, eh? A desire he never had before in the thirty or more years of his life prior, eh? How many abortions did he coerce women into having again, eh? Was his son from Kristen Keeffe too busy with his baby schedule and not available on the many days of his young life to have a similarly concocted picture of this great family man pretending to play with his son from Maria done like the one shown in the article above? Surely, there must be hundreds of pictures available of this loving father adoring his first conceived son? Well, actually firstborn son considering the pregnancy was hidden from the father of the year so that it wouldn’t be aborted. Oh, that’s right. I almost forgot. The great family man wanted Kristen to pretend that her and his son was adopted. Couldn’t expose the great family man’s con as an ethical monk of an ethical organization and ruin his chances for some future punani.

  • Regarding issue A: To be fair, we should also point out lies Raniere’s lawyers made in the documents presented, as what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and it is the overall balance of inaccurate information that should be weighed, and keep in mind this was very early in the process, which makes confusion likely, not to mention government incompetence. LOL

    For example, Docket 43 (https://frankreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/43-Raniere-Motion-for-Bond-2018.06.05.pdf) page 8, footnote 3 states, “To the extent that one or more former DOS members have made public statements that this branding was not knowing and voluntary, such statements are provably false. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond contention that these brandings were knowing, voluntary and products of each woman’s free will. Any statements to the contrary will be readily disproven.” The blackmail, which NXIVM euphemistically called collateral, proved that the “branding” was far from voluntary, it was done under the duress of pubic [Freudian slip, I meant public] disclosure. LOL

    I believe Raniere left because he found out about the NYT article before it was published, he may have even been contacted by the NYT for comment on the upcoming story. LOL

    Raniere also felt the pressure of several months of the DOS cauterizing (i.e., branding) being exposed from this website. LOL

    My opinion is the government made an honest, albeit incompetent mistake between the NYT article and this website disclosing the DOS cauterizing (the several weeks later comment) and Raniere’s lawyers missed a chance to point this out in order to keep Raniere out of jail pending trial, so this looks like incompetent legal representation to me. LOL

    We also don’t know when the FBI started their investigation, the common belief is that it was after the NYT article was published, but it could have been before, and this should be determined. LOL

  • Bottom line is KR had Bronfman multi millions and was a flight risk no matter what holes they pick and even if we find statements that do not matter were made that were not verified properly.

    Point A – 3 days before the NY times article KR knew it was coming out. It is not material whether he flew 3 days before or after it came out in practice. The flight just before or after could have been in response to the jib being up and the heat being on. It is silly to say he would not fear an investigation at that date of his flight to Mexico. He will have known for a year or two things were coming to a head.
    I don’t know if the passport shown stamped is faked too as they have reported hacked into IT including the Bronfman father’s email before now.

    Volleyball chat – the fact someone uses Autoshield not Keith R when chatting to friends about volleyball is hardly going to fill readers with comfort that this was a happy chap who had done nothing wrong and did not fear arrest.

    • “The mother of Raniere’s newborn son was advised by counsel to leave the U.S. by 10/14/17 to comply with her visa
    • Originally, Raniere and his partner planned on going to Montreal, Canada to be closer to Albany while they sorted out her visa issues
    • When they were denied entry at the Canadian border, Raniere and his partner booked tickets to Monterrey, Mexico”
    The above does not really help them. I shows this was a man flitting around all over the place i.e. flight risk.
    Also it does not prove this statement is a lie. It seems an accurate statement to me:

    “Shortly after the government began interviewing witnesses and victims in November 2017, the defendant flew to Mexico. For over a month and a half, since the arrest warrant in this case was issued, the government has actively worked with Mexican immigration officials to locate the defendant.”

    The 61 night Airbnb cancellation for Canada could also show this is someone with a variety of plans to fool those tracking him down as much as prove the prosecutors were liars. Also it shows he was rich and could afford bit cancellation charges too which adds to the flight risk chances.

    On the not using his phone point presumably the authorities tried to find him via the phone but it kept not being on. The fact it just had bad signal instead does not seem such a huge mistake as they make out. The bottom line is even if things were not 100% accurate, it seems nit picking. He was a flight risk. He had loads of money available and he was in Mexico. The court has discretion over bail and they rightly exercised it in refusing the bail. Also women were being hurt and the crimes are serious so a lot of people may well have been a lot safer with him locked up.

    They use the NY Times being told he is in Mexico but the location not being revealed to support them but it also indicates the contrary – hiding in Mexico, location not to be revealed so I am not sure that is a very helpful bit of evidence that he was not hiding.
    The statement about the place having armed guards is true. As is common in Mexico and some other countries just to ensure safety in dangerous places. They say he did not hire the guards. The prosecutor’s statements do not say he hired the guards. It just says the guards were there and they were.
    Okay so I have read it all now. … I am a lawyer but not in the US and have no skin in this game – I am just a random reader. I always have an open mind. I don’t want anyone prosecuted anywhere unfairly and never want prosecutors to lie. I just cannot see major problems here with the refusal of bail. It will not help KR to try to turn on the prosecutors and the court. This is not a finding of a major breach of justice. He was a flight risk and he was found in time and denied bail. Even if he went to Mexico a few days before the NY Times article rather than after is irrelevant and if prosecutors working under pressure to keep a criminal off the streets who had run off to the lawless place that was Mexico even if to stay in an Airbnb and let the baby see its grandfather and the mother had to leave the US because of immigration issues (not that he had to travel with her of course particularly given how many other women he had – they were hardly married for life and monogamous). He would have known there were risks from the forthcoming NY Times article. The fact it was an Airbnb is neither here nor there.

    I was pleased to read it that there is nothing much in it, not much more than a few typos or minor mistakes at most. If they think this is disclosing a huge breach of US law and abuse of the system I think they will damage KR and annoy those who genuinely fight against the system getting things wrong by doing this.

    However I support FR publishing it and am always in favour of open justice so let them have a go.

  • Just send this guy away for a long time. This guy deserves what he gets for psychologically “jailing” and abusing the legal system against others for so many years, so now it’s Karma’s turn to return the favor in the right way.

    • I being intellectually lazy, as usual, and i wish that I would stop it, because this is how people get scammed by MLM scams. LOL

      • LOL-DUDE

        It’s incredible how much effort the NXIVM 5 are putting into absolving Keith of his crimes. Imagine the success they would find in life; if they applied their zeal to other more worthy ventures. I bet the 5 could rise to the level of Founders Executive Diamond.

        • It all depends on whether they want to become scam artist. LOL

          I bet they wouldn’t have a chance if they refused to [redacted]. LOL

  • First of all, none of this has anything to do with the crimes. Just whether he should have gotten out on bail. Whether he was a flight risk is a non-starter… he was. Any judge in his right mind would have denied bail.

    As far as the exact wording of the prosecutor’s request for denying bail, we would have to see all the documents. That he left the country 2 days before the NY Times article… well, wasn’t it known the NY Times article was coming out days before it hit the stands? We all knew that and Keith did too… so, in essence, he left the country in response to the NYT article.

    Did Keith know that police investigations were going on in Albany and wanted to avoid that? It looks like it. It’s not like he was going back and forth to Mexico in the previous two years… just in response to the investigation.

    What was his intention? Did the prosecutors lie about his intentions?
    Only he knows what his intentions were… the prosecutor’s just had to make a call based on what they knew.

    What did they know?
    He left the country in response to the investigation instead of staying and voluntarily trying to clear the situation up.

    What does a normal person do when the police decide to investigate you?
    1. Stay and answer all questions?
    2. Get on a plane to a foreign country?

    While it is true that some prosecutors lie all the time and it is an awful truth of our system, this is just not something that gets a new trial.
    It would be much more productive to tell us how he did not do all of the horrible crimes he was accused of.

  • I am beginning to think he should have gotten bail. The second trip thing. The driving round in golf cart. Meeting with all his followers. Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. He wasn’t hiding. He might have been wanting to get out of Albany with the bullshit publicity he was getting in the US press with the branding and all. But he was not hiding from the law.

  • I think one thing is clear – Raniere wasn’t hiding in Mexico. That blows up the whole thing about him being a flight risk.

    That’s not enough in my book to have a retrial. I would need to see more. Is this all they have? Or is there more?

    • No one in Albany knew of his whereabouts in Mexico. If he was not hiding, wouldn’t anyone in the community know of his exact location? They didn’t. They thought he was in Mexico because he received death threats. Raniere plays the confidence game, so even though people in Mexico may not have been directly told to hide his whereabouts, I am certain they didn’t share it with anyone else, for reasons like privacy, not using his information without his permission, etc. because that would mean they are dishonorable, etc.

  • None of the above mitigates KR’s perceived flight risk. Nor do the ‘family’ snapshots ‘prove’ KR was NOT on the lam. All Hotels resorts etc in Mexico are fortress-like in their security measures. Who cares if he was staying in an air b-nb. What so no criminal ever tried to go on the lam in an airb-n-b? Doubt that. One’s landlord, at the time of one’s apprehension for criminal activities, matters not one whit (unless they were directly involved). This stinks regardless of how much lipstick is applied.

  • To be honest, I just did a cursory glance through Marc’s list. The thing that immediately stuck out in my mind, however, is the argument about not knowing about an FBI investigation and, therefore, supposedly not purposely fleeing from it. Would an FBI investigation necessarily start with the FBI first, or wouldn’t there likely have been a police investigation/private investigation/media interest occurring first to which Keith was tipped off about (and got organized and fled)…an investigation that eventually ended up proceeding to the FBI? I just find it very unlikely considering how paranoid and secretive Keith is, that he and his inner circle didn’t start freaking out once the heat was turning up amid all of these revelations about NXIVM. So, in that sense, Marc’s list just feels like he’s grabbing at straws.

  • Detention for sex trafficking is warranted. But if there’s no flight risk, bail can be sought.

    Judge Garaufis did not grant bail, which shows that he takes the gravity of the facts and the acts of committing them seriously.

    If the things the US Attorney’s office actually did turn out to be distorted etc., then in our country, [Hungary] Keith would have a chance to defend himself at large. He would have bail, tracking, house arrest.

    Prosecutors do the same for us in cases of this scale. But I don’t agree with them. They make white – dark gray just to make sure.

    On Keith’s part, I don’t think the goal is to be in a “situation” again, to influence witnesses in a possible second, new procedure.

    In our country, when new proceedings are launched, it will be legally required that, in view of the passage of time, the defendant receives a lighter sentence. That was always the precedent in Mafia lawsuits, and this move by the defendants was successful every time. Except for one case.

    And yes, I think Frank you did the right thing by investigating the prosecution’s conduct, because everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. And let the prosecutor’s office set an example of etiquette, character, strict compliance with the law and compliance. Because if that’s not the case, they’ll be as dishonest as Keith.

    If he’s guilty, which I think he is, he will receive the severe judgment that is right for him.

    And you, Frank, who busted him and processed him, deserve to be seen by everyone, not for hatred, malice, for “pushing” him up to the authorities, but because he’s a real criminal. That’s how you’re fair and just, an authentic person and a journalist.

  • I think the basis of authentic journalism is that, as much as we love or don’t love someone, we consider them guilty or innocent, to uncover the whole truth and facts we know. If we didn’t do that, we’d be like Keith. That’s what you did, Frank. Few would, I know, because we hate rogue criminals. But a fair process is for everyone alive.

  • This all sucks. Being an irrefutable fact that “justice” in the USA does not exist, I still think that behind all this matter is the most radical feminism that has been installed in the Department of Justice. Just as the anti-whites speak of the existence of a “white privilege”, the anti-masculine movement, which is feminism, speaks of the existence of a “masculine privilege” to name supposed “social, economic and political advantages available to men solely on the basis of their gender. ” This concept, manufactured during the 1970s and that since then it has been tried to present as an “academic” concept like the rest of the concepts of Marxist Critical Theory, is used in conjunction with the distorted concept of patriarchy which they define as a “male privilege system”. Access to this privilege would depend, according to feminist delusions, on how closely they match the ideal “hetero-patriarchal” norm of their society.

    • Mr. Torres,

      America is in the midst of a cultural war. It’s not that liberals and conservatives don’t have good intentions, it’s that both sides want to subjugate regular Americans.

      Nothing in America is that bad presently relatively speaking. Imagine living through a World War when literally the whole world is at war. Sadly both sides are delusional.

      ….Let me guess you are a Liberal Arts Major with a conservative outlook.

      What do think of the Basque Separatists?
      I have only heard the Liberalized sensationalist opined. Please respond.

      • The separatism of a part (the extreme left) of Vascongadas and Catalonia is a real threat to the unity of the Nation, since it defends the separation of a part of the nation to later make the separated region independent and thus try to destroy unity national and hence national identity. These separatisms are financed by foreign globalist elements in order to divide and confront the population and never have peace, and therefore, that the Nation does not recover the greatness it once had. I do not want to extend more because the subject is very long.

        • Thanks for responding.

          I understand the Basques have their own language and culture, but it’s a little late in the ballgame to start their own nation-state.

          It’s the 21st century and they want to start a new country……Ridiculous

  • Marc Elliot needs an EM on his reaction to the government’s usage of the words fortress. The government clearly stated he was living in a luxury beach resort. They didn’t call him El Chapo. Marc Elliot is the one comparing Raniere to El Chapo. The government was truthful in stating that he living in a place that was well guarded like a fortress. I believe the Beach resort owner would likely be happy to have the security in his compound compared to that of a fortress.

  • “By casting Raniere as a flight risk, the government bypassed a Grand Jury indictment and obtained a sealed information, out of the public’s view.” What does “…a sealed information….” mean? LOL

  • If this was a “family-based trip” to Mexico, as Marc purports, why was he arrested while with his haram of women who were preparing for a sexual “recommitment” ceremony/orgy???

    • Ha, Ha, Ha…Hey, don’t judge the lifestyle of the Vanguard! He had the family life AND he had his harem with TV movie stars 🍿…..

  • —Raniere hired counsel to confirm there was no investigation.

    The DOJ/ FBI are not under any obligation to answer that question truthfully.

    • Yes, that’s true but wouldn’t it possibly suggest that Keith was at least willing to cooperate with an investigation? I think that was their point.

      I have not verified that it is true. I would like to speak to Michael Sullivan and ask him a few questions about this. What did his client instruct him to do?

      • Even if Keith Alan Raniere hires a lawyer, neither Keith Alan Raniere nor his lawyer has a right to know whether or not there is a criminal investigation. He also has no right to know if there is an arrest warrant or if there is a sealed grand jury indictment. All this is subject to secrecy. And if someone tries to get this information illegally, it is a criminal offence.

      • So you think KR hired counsel so he could cooperate with an investigation against him and his organization? Fair enough.

        I mean that would be in keeping with his overall honesty, with his lifetime of goodness and accountable citizenry. Yes, it’s all making sense now.

        So, what was the point of the Frank Report again?

      • —but wouldn’t it possibly suggest that Keith was at least willing to cooperate with an investigation?

        Well, if I were debating whether or not to flee the country [and happen to be an amateur criminal]; I’d instruct my attorney to ask the DOJ if I am under investigation.

        The FBI was already in the process of interviewing people to gather evidence for a Grand Jury. I have no proof but I’m sure Raniere heard about the FBI questioning people. So he most likely decided Mexico
        was a good place to lie low.

        If he had simple chosen a country without extradition Keith would still be living his life. Boohoo.

  • Of course he was evading. When the police arrived, he ran and hid in the closet lmfao. Great hiding spot! They’ll never think to look in there! My 11 year old niece hides in the closet too.

    Meanwhile, multiple machine guns were pointed at Lauren’s head. I might add that that must have been one of the most stunning examples of bravery and courage for the Society of Protectors.

  • My first thought when he brought up the Mexican stamp on his passport was “Who has strong connections to high placed people in Mexico who could falsify a passport stamp if they wanted to?”

    • Whoever has connections in Mexico also has access to a genuine passport stamp, the stamp imprint does not have to be fake. One stamps the desired date into the passport afterwards with a real passport stamp.

      • So easy. I had a nice man in the Cuban Embassy in Nicaragua do that very thing for me so I could get out before the next state of emergency.

  • Wow. These have to be the weakest excuses for a mistrial. If these issues were known, why didn’t KR’s lawyers bring them up during the trial instead of remaining silent? They better have something better than this as this sounds like a desperate…

    • Why would they have to lie and do all this stupid stuff if he’s guilty? Makes no sense… Prosecutors here in the US are just incompetent, we see this over and over. No need to do any of this to get someone who’s guilty and they just compromised the whole thing.

    • Yes and if they had a few days error on dates nothing at all they show is some kind of huge major bad practice of prosecutors. If they think this exonerates him or shows the prosecutors are corrupt and telling major lies to ensure KR does not get bail, then they have drunk far too much of the kool-aid.

  • Who cares? He is still guilty AF of all of the crimes he was charged with (and SO much more). Can’t be sentenced soon enough.

  • I thought that Keith didn’t drive? 😆 Wow, those check-ins for volley ball smelled just like readiness drills for DOS. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was commanding SOP from Mexico. This whole thing reeks of horse shit. Viva Executive Success !!!

    • What investigators either knew or understood about Raniere’s circumstsnces, or even when investigators knew what they found out, is an unprovable and moot point. Investigation is an ongoing process with multiple facets. When LE seeks a warrant, that’s backed by enough reasons for pursuit.

      The postcards from the edge don’t matter. Raniere, to all appearances, saw his own way into getting busted in Puerto Vallarta and into being denied bail in the United States. Plus, five cohorts entered guilty pleas. Who has sung? Ready for that?

  • I still think, Frank, that you are doing Raniere’s homework. Your audience will comment on his evidence and provide him exactly with what Keith wanted: a crowd analyzing his evidence. Maybe we can do this for other criminals who are innocent? Let’s all collaborate for the innocence project.
    I am not providing any feedback to Keith Raniere.

    The only feedback I will say: Mexico is, of course, beautiful. I am glad they got that slime ball out of my beautiful country. Dani and Mariana’s dad looks so weak. I had never seen his photo.

    Anyway…I will give some feedback: for me, the evidence speaks that Raniere was stupid and thought he would not get caught. He thought he could pay his way out. That was why he did not go into hiding well. He left the USA and thought that was sufficient. But he really thought he could buy himself out of any trouble. He made mistakes and that was his downfall.

    I really want to visit Puerto Vallarta and enjoy the sea 🙂 🌊🦑

    • I loved the Airbnb that they rented. As for the article, it was written by Marc Elliot. I have agreed to publish it and after I review more evidence, I will comment on it.

      • It’s interesting how they don’t seem to notice that some of the things they are bringing up do not make Raniere look good, from the point of view of the judge…

      • Frank, Before disclosing further “evidence” or articles by the Nxivm-5, they should be asked to take an oath to be speaking the truth, and nothing but the truth, and that if any truth they disclose is proven to be a lie, they would be held liable for perjury. There is no formal court system here, be that they agree in advance to call themselves as liars, if they are proved wrong on any of the supposed “truths”.

        • While I can’t enforce any penalty for lying, the group has promised to tell the truth. I believe they are sincere, though we totally disagree about Keith.

          • The screenshot of the ticket purchased, which shows Raniere’s name on it, is not proof that he travelled back on that day. It only proves that he had bought a ticket. Raniere’s boarding pass, passport stamp or some other document proving he went through immigration upon return, would be required to prove he actually made the travel, and had not simply purchased the ticket and never used it or cancelled it afterwards.

          • I am sure they are sincere. So was the prosecution. What counts is the accuracy of the facts and conclusions. The standard to which they want prosecutors to be held accountable, they should themselves be willing to be accountable to such a standard, regardless of whether any penalty can be imposed on them or not. For instance, it’s clear from the text message screenshots, that these are not proof of Raniere using his phone, but only of using the WhatsApp or telegram application on a phone, they are claiming it’s truth when it’s falsehood. Are they willing to accept being deemed liars for making incorrect conclusions on their evidence? Or do they want to be held to a lower standard than they want others to be held accountable for?

      • The screenshots of the text messages, do not prove anything. All they prove is that he was texting with some people. They do not prove he was in Albany, or on Mars. They also do not prove he was texting from the phone which had his number assigned to it. All the text messages are from WhatsApp or telegram. These apps treat the phone number as an account number, and it’s possible to activate WhatsApp or telegram on a phone which has a different number, using the number from another phone.in order to prove these texts were sent from Raniere’s phone, they would need to show screenshots from Raniere’s phone, along with the number on that phone, and the number on the WhatsApp application on that phone.

        • Wow, that would be really cool! I would 100% watch. I bet people would watch with the added interviews of the Nxvim 5 actually. It is interesting to see how they think.

          I am starting to better see how this could benefit Frank Report.

          Go Frank + Team!

    • There are flaws in the reasoning used by Marc Elliot, and the conclusions he has drawn. You can simply work to expose those.

    • Mexican Lady, many people, myself included, want to visit Mexico, maybe even own a home there, but we are TERRIFIED of crime/drugs. You should write an article on how to stay safe…pretty please!?

      • It is safe. I think it can serve some people to create fear of other countries.

        I do think it is important to not arrive in Mexico wanting to colonize. Like Rainere’s movie of “saving Mexico” or people who go into rural America trying to get them to follow Silicon Valley. Let’s respect each other’s cultures.

        Thanks for your consideration regarding my writing. I also like your writing style 🙂

        Viva Frank Report!

    • Good point and now I feel for having gone through and given my off the cuff comments I did that too but the gist of what most people will say will be the same – they found just about nothing wrong, not $50,000 paid in cash to a prosecutor or any major mistakes at all and I don’t think what any of us have said is doing their homework really as anyone with half a brain can see this attempt is pointless sour grapes with nothing much in it which is not going to help KR at all.

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato Investigates

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, many others in all five continents.

His work helping 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 featured prominently on HBO’s documentary “The Vow” and acted as lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.”

Parlato will be featured in an upcoming episode of American Greed.

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

%d bloggers like this: