In a last minute motion for a new trial, just a week before sentencing, Keith Raniere’s attorney, Marc Aginfilo included two affidavits, one by Nicki Clyne and the other by Michelle Hatchette, to try to persuade Judge Nicholas Garaufis that the prosecution intimidated these two potential Raniere witnesses. Both women swore under oath that they would have testified on behalf of Raniere had prosecutors not threatened them with criminal charges.
Below is Michele Hatchette’s complete affidavit. She not only describes her experiences with prosecutors during two meetings with them but provides us with a look at her experiences with DOS.
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHELE HATCHETTE
MICHELE HATCHETTE, duly swears and affirms as follows:
1 I am 33 years old. I grew up in Harlem, New York City; I graduated from Pitzer College in 2009. I live in Brooklyn, New York. I am represented by counsel, specifically Justin Greenblum, Esq, and I affirm that this affidavit is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
2 I took my first 5-day introductory intensive in Executive Success Programs (ESP) in June 2013 in New York City, New York. I completed the remaining 11 days of the introductory intensive course in November 2013 in Albany, New York. Following the completion of this first course, between 2013 and 2018, I took intensives/curriculum with The Source, Jness, and Society of Protectors (SOP) and was a Multicultural Development Specialist (MDS)/ teacher for Rainbow Cultural Garden which was an early childhood education program. I became a coach in ESP in 2015 and in October 2015, I knowingly and enthusiastically accepted Allison Mack’s invitation to join the sorority which is now known as DOS.
3 At its core, I experienced DOS to be an organization for women who wanted to overcome their greatest fears to accomplish their goals. For me, it was a profound experience whereby I gained more confidence and trust in myself. There were several practices I took on that helped me strengthen my character, expand my awareness of how my decisions impact others, and I became more disciplined – all of which I’d been seeking to build within myself prior to my invitation into the group because I knew growth in these areas would help me become a more compassionate human and effective leader in several areas of my life.
4 I believe I would have been a critical defense witness at the trial in the matter of United States v. Keith Raniere as I was in a unique position to speak of my experience in DOS as another woman whom Ms. Mack invited into and mentored within the organization.
However, as will be explained in detail later, I was threatened by the prosecution and feared an unfounded indictment if I did testify. Given that there was only one woman who testified that was mentored by Ms. Mack in DOS who testified at Mr. Raniere’s trial (Nicole, one of the government’s key witnesses related to the Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor charges), I believe my experiences of Ms. Mack’s mentorship and my time within DOS would have offered an important perspective in the jury’s understanding of the positive nature of the group which I received.
Additionally, my close proximity and consistent communication with Nicole throughout the approximate nine months we were in DOS together made me privy to the practices Nicole experienced and an eye-witness to how Nicole reacted and interacted with others in the group, which were markedly different from Nicole’s trial testimony.
5 At Mr. Raniere’s trial, Nicole was asked by the prosecutor if there were things, had she known prior to joining DOS, that would have affected her decision to join the group, to which she replied, “Yea, I guess the first one would be that apparently I was giving up my free will and that I couldn’t make my own decisions. But that eventually there would have to be more collateral added on and that I would have no say in whether or not I gave it, like it would be demanded. I mean there were so many things that were added on later once you were, like, sealed into this situation.” (Tr. 3863)
6 Though Nicole’s statement about DOS supports the governments theory that women were giving up their free will, I would have testified that my experience of the reality was, in fact, the opposite. I experienced all of the practices within DOS as an opportunity to build the character and discipline I needed to achieve my goals. For example, prior to DOS I struggled at times to follow through on commitments I would make both professionally and within personal relationships. After communicating this to Ms. Mack, she recommended I journal for a few weeks on how my lack of follow through impacted those who were counting on me to deliver on my promises which motivated me to figure out how I could be more reliable such situations. As I worked towards this goal, I found more freedom and trust within myself and that I had a greater capacity to manage the increasing complexity of my career and personal responsibilities, which was exactly what I was hoping to gain from DOS.
7 On the subject of collateral, Nicole testified that the process of submitting and offering collateral was problematic for her. In contrast, I would have testified that my experience of gathering and submitting collateral was not problematic for me as it was explained to me that the collateral was simply a way to demonstrate my commitment to keep the confidentiality of the group private while also affirming my voluntary membership into the group. Prior to my first conversation with Ms. Mack about DOS, I was already seeking opportunities that could help me challenge my fears and limitations that I perceived as roadblocks standing between me and my goals, so the arrangement of this mentorship was a welcomed invitation that I considered with great care over the course of a few weeks.
My final decision to accept this invitation was ultimately driven by my desire to prioritize my personal growth and development and I knowingly joined DOS because I trusted that Ms. Mack would do her best to guide and mentor me in the achievement of my goals, for life. Ms. Mack certainly followed through on this promise and commitment to me and I benefited greatly from her care and leadership during the entirety of my time in DOS. I can say with absolute certainty that I was provided with all the necessary information I needed to make such an informed choice and commitment and am grateful I did as I continue to see the positive impacts of the training and mentorship I received during that time.
8 At the time Ms. Mack invited me to join DOS, she informed me that if I accepted this invitation, I would be agreeing to have her as my master and I her slave. After asking Ms. Mack what the nature of our relationship would be under titles, I understood that within this context, as stated above, that Ms. Mack would be committing her life to help me achieve my greatest goals and that someday I would mentor other women in the same way. Therefore, I felt comfortable enough with that arrangement to move forward.
9 At Mr. Raniere’s trial, the prosecutor asked Nicole to explain what her understanding of DOS was prior to joining, to which she replied, “A woman’s mentorship where Allison would mentor me in life and that was going to like push me into my fears…” (Tr. 3862) She then added, “So, then I was told that, like, the way the mentorship was communicated, it was a master-slave relationship.” (Tr. 3863)
Nicole’s testimony that she was told of the master/slave relationship within DOS only after joining is, I believe, false. I was enrolled into DOS before Nicole and as just mentioned above, was informed prior to joining that the relationship would have this “master/slave” dynamic. Additionally, Ms. Mack explained to me, Nicole and the two other women she’d invited into DOS, in several group conversations when we discussed the process of inviting women we knew into the group, that all women must be informed that they would be entering into a master/slave relationship, that there will be a brand, that they must wear some type of jewelry as a symbol of their commitment to their growth, and that it would be a lifetime vow sealed with collateral.
My account of Ms. Mack’s leadership within our group would have shown the unliklihood that Ms. Mack would have withheld the master/slave dynamic from Nicole. My testimony regarding the enrollment process into DOS would have stood in stark contrast to the government’s theory, supported by Nicole’s referenced statement, that women were somehow misinformed and deceived into joining the group. Again, my experience was that I was presented with all the necessary information to evaluate whether or not I wanted to join DOS before making the decision and I made sure to communicate these same critical points to women I later invited into the group so they too had this information.
It was my desire to share this testimony with the courts because I believed it would help clarify what I perceived as the inaccurate theory purported by the government that women were deceived and forced into joining DOS. However, after being threatened by the prosecutors on this case, which I will explain in further detail below, I feared they would follow through on their stated threat to punish me for my simple desire to share my experiences with the jury.
10 The invitation process into DOS is further supported by Lauren Salzman’s testimony when she explained the enrollment protocol that all women were supposed to follow when inviting others to learn about and potentially join the group. Ms. Salzman stated, “They were given basically the pitch, you know, come to learn about lifetime vow of obedience master/slave concepts, the collar and the brand. Then they had agreed to join after learning those things and then they were fully collateralized. So they were not considered completely enrolled until they were fully collateralized.” (Tr. 1621)
11 It is also important to note that many women who were invited to DOS and chose not to join. For example, I would have testified that there were several women I invited into DOS, who voluntarily gave collateral to learn about it, yet once they learned about the organization and what it entailed, they declined. They all remained friends with me and some expressed gratitude for the invitation, even though they felt it was not for them.
12 When I accepted the invitation to join DOS, I was mostly focused on using the process to achieve my goals. However, I also had an opportunity to build deep, meaningful friendships with other women, especially the additional three (Nicole, India and Danielle) who were also being mentored by Ms. Mack in DOS (note: the four of us referred to ourselves as a “circle” and I will use this term moving forward in reference to this group). Within our circle, we formed a unique bond with one another and over time, I considered these women to be both dear friends and sisters.
While Ms. Mack was still mentoring each of us individually, the four of us built a trust and reliability with one another which at times inspired us to mentor each other and even initiate the development of practices that were unique to our circle because we were inspired by the process and training we were experiencing in DOS. For example, there was a series of practices that Nicole, India and Ms. Mack created together that involved things like walking meditation and watching or reading something inspirational each day. After doing the practices for over a month, Nicole, India and Ms. Mack shared their experience with me and Nicole, in particular, expressed great enthusiasm for how meaningful and beneficial the practices were.
13 At some point, Nicole, India, Danielle and myself, independent from Ms. Mack, decided to create a special written commitment with one another in what we called our “creed.” In the process of carefully crafting this document over a period of weeks, Nicole sent an unsolicited email to the group describing her thoughts, feelings, and ambitions (See Exhibit A).
14 This email flatly contradicts Nicole’s claim that she was motivated throughout her time in DOS solely out of fear of her collateral being released. This was an unsolicited email expressing her unfiltered thoughts about the nature and benefit of the “readiness” practice and her choice to join DOS, “I chose to join the vow to push through my fears and live the life experience that I want to. To live a full life. I chose to join the vow to understand and experience that freedom and joy come from the inside, from the internal and not from the external.” Nicole demonstrates her understanding of the purpose and intent of DOS and speaks very positively, which is in stark contrast to her testimony where she paints a negative picture of the same subjects.
15 It is important to note that this email was sent on January 3, 2017. On January 4, 2017, Nicole, Danielle and myself received an email from India (forwarded from Sylvie) asking for help transcribing audios for Ms. Cafritz’s memorial (See Exhibit D). According to her testimony, Nicole spent about five hours transcribing these audios and the government used this to substantiate the Forced Labor charge against Mr. Raniere.
16 I would have also been able to provide the jury with a comprehensive account of the relationship between the women in my circle and our relationship with Ms. Mack. The four of us were in regular communication with each other via text and email, co-mentoring one another in the pursuit of our personal goals. As well, India, Danielle and I all lived in the Albany area and often spent time with one another socially to grab coffee, go for walks, attend events, etc. Although Nicole lived in Brooklyn, she would meet with us and Ms. Mack each week via video chat for our weekly check-in. Nicole also visited Albany at times and we would make an effort to all get together in person while she was in town.
17 Our weekly check-in was a time for us to share whatever was on our minds, our struggles, our wins, and ask for guidance and help from everyone present. We shared openly and vulnerably about anything we wished and began to hold each other accountable to the standards each woman wanted for herself, all of this without the direction of Ms. Mack. These check-ins built a foundation for the four of us to continue to take initiative in ways that had nothing to do with Ms. Mack or Mr. Raniere, and we did so because we were inspired by how much we were benefiting from our shared commitment to these practices.
18 At trial, Nicole testified that her relationship with India was used against her to make Allison “happy” for the “benefit” of Mr. Raniere (p.3951: 18-25 & p.3952: 1-5). I would have been able to offer a critical perspective on Nicole’s claim, as it was not my experience that Ms. Mack “used” the women against each other as Nicole described. On the contrary, I remember several times that Ms. Mack shared her excitement when someone achieved a goal and that Ms. Mack was always contemplating how she could be of more support to us.
My experience of Ms. Mack is that she would do anything to help us achieve our goals and I cannot recall a single moment in the three years I was in DOS that Ms. Mack did anything to compromise the well-being of me, Nicole, Danielle, or India. Similarly, not once in three years did Nicole, Danielle or India ever indicate to me that they felt used against one of the others. If India, Danielle or Nicole had at any point expressed to me that they were feeling forced or coerced in some way, I would have taken action immediately to cease its continuation.
19 Furthermore, had I not been threatened and intimidated by the prosecution, I would have explained to the jury how and why DOS members would sometimes take on some act of discomfort, like a cold shower, when one of us would fail at a commitment we’d set for ourselves. For example, I could have referenced a WhatsApp conversation I had with India which demonstrates my offering to take on a consequence for India if she thought it would help her move through a failure she was consistently struggling to overcome (See Exhibit B). It is evident in this chat that India and I, on our own, initiated and created an action plan together and Ms. Mack did not force this upon us because she was not involved.
20 Nicole’s testimony gave, in my opinion, a false and misrepresented perspective of what DOS was like for all the women who were mentored by Ms. Mack because her description of several events and the nature of DOS in general, do not match my experience.
I believe this was undoubtedly influenced by the government, which advanced a theory that the women who Ms. Mack mentored, in particular, were there only to serve as “sex slaves” for Mr. Raniere. This is absolutely false based on my experience. I would have been able to testify to an experience in DOS that would have been the opposite of being sex trafficked. Me and the other women in my circle, including Nicole, were adults with our own financial resources who lived independently, and had all the liberties and privileges that any educated woman from a supportive family would have.
Most importantly membership into DOS was voluntary and any woman at any point in her process of evaluating her decision to join, was free to decline the invitation. I was never asked or “commanded” by Ms. Mack to have sex with Mr. Raniere or any person for that matter as a requirement of my membership in DOS.
Furthermore, I firmly attest that I never advised, encouraged, nor required women I later mentored in DOS, to have sex with Mr. Raniere or anyone else as a requirement of their membership in DOS. The government took Nicole’s accounts of her experiences in DOS as though that was the universal experience of DOS. But Nicole’s description of DOS could not be more opposite to my time spent in the group where I learned to become more grounded and confident which has helped me succeed in my career and flourish in my personal relationships. My account of my time in DOS is shared among several other women who were in DOS who still feel they benefited greatly from their experience.
21 It was a central tenet of the government’s theory that the collateral was an ever-present factor that compelled women in DOS to do certain things they did not want to do. This is absolutely false based on my experience. In the almost two years that I was in communication with the other women in my circle in DOS, we failed several times (individually and collectively) at different practices and our collateral was never released, threatened to be released nor was this even a fear of mine, or a fear anyone in our circle, including Nicole, ever expressed.
Within DOS, my experience was that consequences were created and agreed-upon by the women in the circle and were not imposed by Ms. Mack or Mr. Raniere. The only time I ever felt coerced or threatened, as it related to my involvement in DOS, was by the government when they were conducting their investigation and tried to persuade me to adopt their understanding of the situation and their theories (more on this later).
22 Moreover, the exposure of collateral, as I recall, was never factored into our group activities or practices. Although Nicole testified at trial that she was in constant fear of her collateral being released and stated that, “[I]f we didn’t obey, then the fist collateral would be released,” (4017: 23-24) I witnessed on a several occasions Nicole freely “disobey” as she states and opt out of activities or conversations which never resulted in the exposure of her collateral.
23 Furthermore, and in connection with the Forced Labor charges, 18 U.S. Code 1589 defines one aspect of Forced Labor as “knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. One of the acts qualified as forced labor, according to the government, as supported by Nicole’s testimony, was when she read and reviewed a series of articles written by Mr. Raniere. I also read and reviewed these articles and did not fear I would “suffer serious harm or physical restraint”. I would have been able to provide testimony that Nicole expressed that she enjoyed reading the articles and wanted to re-read some of the articles when she had more time (See Exhibit F). This information, I believe, would have dismantled and rendered incredible Nicole’s claims on this point, ultimately serving to drastically undermine the government’s presented evidence of forced labor.
24 The government also claimed that Nicole was a victim of Forced Labor when she transcribed audios for Pamela Cafritz’s. However, I also transcribed some of the audios for the service and attest that doing so was completely voluntary and driven by my desire to support memorializing Ms. Cafritz. I would have provided testimony that the memorial service was coordinated by a small group of people, including Sylvie and India, who reached out to several other people within the community for help in the planning process.
Nicole and I were asked by India to transcribe these videos so it was not a directive from Mr. Raniere or Ms. Mack. Contrary to the government’s claims, this effort was not part of DOS and if I or Nicole felt we did not have enough time to complete the transcriptions of the audios (provided by Sylvie), there were several people within the community we could have reached out to as replacements for the task.
25 Additionally, I would have offered insight into the testimony of Sylvie, another one of the government’s witnesses at the trial of Keith Raniere. Sylvie was my coach in ESP for approximately three years. As my coach, she and I checked in weekly on the progress of my goals and she would often reach out and check in with me outside of those standing meetings. Throughout the three years she coached me, we also became close friends and she was a positive support in my life and helped me achieve many things I wanted to accomplish, most notably in helping me train for my third half marathon where I finally broke my fastest time.
26 Given that much of Sylvie’s direct testimony focused on the alleged emotional damages Sylvie claims she incurred as a result of her time in Jness, my relationship with Sylvie would have been critical information for the jury to show that my experience of Sylvie was that she was an enthusiastic leader within ESP and Jness who helped many men and women, including myself.
27 In 2015, Sylvie invited me to join a social media/marketing company and our first client was Jness. Through working together on a Jness marketing campaign, I was inspired by Sylvie’s leadership and her ability to communicate the humanitarian values and goals of the company. Sylvie’s enthusiasm about Jness is further evidenced by an email Sylvie sent on September 8, 2015 where she expresses her excitement about a proposal for a social media campaign (See Exhibit E).
28 Additionally, a year later, on September 20, 2016, Sylvie wrote a description of her skills and why they demonstrated that she was a good fit to lead social media and marketing initiatives for Jness (See Exhibit C). As the project manager and leader of the rebranding strategy for Jness, Sylvie demonstrated to me that she had a deep understanding of the concepts taught in Jness and was thus entrusted to convey the values of the company publicly, through their online presence. Sylvie, to me, embodied so much of the great aspects of Jness. My experience of Sylvie’s enthusiasm for Jness and being a leader in the social media company that helped celebrate women, would have been important as a contrast to Sylvie’s description of Jness as the reason she began to feel negatively about herself and other women (p.291: 15-25 & 292: 1-3).
29 When the prosecution asked Sylvie how the Jness curriculum impacted the way she made decisions, Sylvie replied, “I just felt like I couldn’t trust myself in what I thought was going on and what was right and wrong.” (Tr. 307-308) Had I not been intimidated and threatened by the prosecution, I would have offered testimony that I believed Sylvie was a strong coach and I trusted Sylvie’s ability to guide me in making decisions because I’d witnessed her grow and become more seemingly confident in herself in the three years she coached me. Moreover, she was compassionate, consistent, and confident in coaching me.
30 In sum, my trial testimony would have seriously undermined the testimony of Nicole, and would have been wholly inconsistent with the government’s core premise of the Forced Labor and the Sex Trafficking charges. My testimony would have been significant to this case: I was identically situated to Nicole within DOS and would have provided critical information to the jury about the nature of the events and many of the experiences to which Nicole and Sylvie testified. Additionally, I would have provided critically important information about the genuine nature and goals of DOS from as I understood them based on my perspective lived experience. However, Mr. Raniere and the jury were denied this perspective through the actions of the government who demonstrated to me that they were not open to my account of what did and did not happen.
31 I was approached by the FBI on or about March of 2018, at which time I declined to speak with the agents in the absence of an attorney. I hired an attorney named Justin Greenblum, Esq., who at the time was a partner at Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP in New York City. The prosecution explained to me, through my attorney, that I was a witness. The government never identified me as a target or a subject, rather as merely a witness. As a result, Mr. Greenblum and I decided to accept the government’s proposal for a proffer interview.
The May 22, 2018 Proffer
32 On May 22, 2018, my attorney and I appeared for a proffer interview at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, attended by, among others, AUSA Moira Kim Penza and FBI Special Agents Michael Weniger and Michael Lever. Based on the actions and statements of the government representatives, it was apparent to me that the prosecution was not interested in hearing or accepting my account of the relevant events. Instead, the prosecution attempted to convince me to agree with the government’s view of the events.
33 For instance, the prosecution told me that the only reason I engaged with assignments in DOS was because I feared my collateral would be released. I disagreed with the government’s assertion because I was fully aware from the moment I joined DOS that my collateral was for the purpose of solidifying my commitment to myself to push into my fears as a means to achieve my goals. The collateral I chose and offered willingly did not extend nor apply in any situations where I may have failed to uphold a commitment or complete an assignments. I had to reiterate this truth several times to the prosecutors and agents, but they were not open to the truth.
The government maintained that I felt pressured, threatened or coerced into completing assignments and that collateral was “held over my head” throughout my time in DOS. The government repeatedly told this to me, as if they knew something about my own life that I did not know. I countered multiple times that based on my experience the collateral was not intended to be used as force or coercion, that it was never used in this way, and that I was not afraid, concerned or worried that it would be used this way. Had any woman shared with me that she felt the collateral was being used in this way or had I felt that it was being used against me personally, I would have addressed it with Ms. Mack because it would have been of great concern to me.
34 I had believed the government sought to speak to me so they could hear my perspective, but instead it seemed their goal was to tell me my perspective. I explained repeatedly that the purpose of the collateral was to strengthen my commitment to my growth through my lifetime vow within DOS. I further explained that I had a very positive experience when I gathered and submitted my first batch of collateral to learn about the existence of DOS as a guarantee that I would keep the existence of the group confidential (whether I joined the group after learning about it, or not).
The collateral I gave to Ms. Mack during this time and in the years following were all of my choosing. I expressed to the government that this first step, which took almost two weeks to complete, was a fluid process which I embarked upon with the consistent support of and communication with Ms. Mack. Once I learned about DOS from Ms. Mack and expressed I wanted to join the group, Ms. Mack explained that additional collateral would be required to make my voluntary membership official. Given my desire to prioritize my growth under the guidance of Ms. Mack, and whom I trusted implicitly, I knowingly, willingly and enthusiastically accepted her invitation into the sisterhood and solidified my commitment and word to uphold my lifetime vow with further collateral.
The prosecutor, however, continued to display incredulity to what I was explaining. At one point, the prosecutor raised her voice in disbelief of my ownership of my decisions, insisting instead that I only acted out of fear because I felt threatened. The prosecutor even went to the extent of saying things to me that I felt were accusatory, sexually graphic and out of line to try to further persuade me. It seemed clear to me that the government was trying to manipulate me into saying that my decision to join DOS and anything I did thereafter, including any contact I had with Mr. Raniere, was without my consent and I was in constant fear that Ms. Mack would expose my collateral.
What the government continually refused to acknowledge or allow was that I actively and voluntarily accepted my invitation to DOS because it was in full alignment with my aspirations to grow and become the best version of myself. As the prosecutor continued to push me to adopt her/the government’s narrative that I felt coerced by Ms. Mack and Mr. Raniere, I felt this prosecutor, Moira Kim Penza, was the one in fact trying to coerce me into adapting my experience for her/their benefit and gain. I was unwilling to state anything outside of the truth as far as I understood it and that did not seem to satisfy Ms. Penza.
35 When I refused to adopt the government’s view of my experience with Mr. Raniere and my time in DOS, the government continued to press me to change my account of events by showing me communications that Mr. Raniere appeared to have with another person. The prosecutor said there was something they wanted me to see because they thought it might “help” me and stated “this isn’t something we normally do.” The government then brought into the interview room a number of pages of written communications purportedly between Mr. Raniere and Camila.
36 In particular, the government asked me to read the passages where Mr. Raniere makes reference to a “fuck toy.” As directed, I read the portions of these passages. It is worth highlighting that these communications had nothing to do with me, and that the government had no purpose in showing me these communications other than to, I believe, to compel me to change my mind.
I believe the only purpose the government had in showing these communications to me was to cause me to view Mr. Raniere in an unfavorable light and my interactions with him to have been crimes committed against me without my consent. After I read the communications, the prosecutor asked what I thought of reading them and I responded in substance that they were interesting. This prompted one of them to state, “that’s all you thought after reading that?” Ms. Penza and the agents seemed surprised and disappointed that the effort to manipulate me into changing my account was unsuccessful. At one point, an agent asked me, “aren’t you angry about this?”
37 It was apparent to me that the point of this proffer interview was not to investigate nor seek the truth about the actual nature of DOS, NXIVM, and the events that occurred. Rather, the prosecution’s point was clearly to recruit me to the side of the prosecution and to manipulate my view of my relationship with Mr. Raniere as well as my view of DOS and my involvement in
it.
June 4, 2018 Meeting
38 On June 4, 2018, my attorney and I sat for another proffer at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The interview, which was attended by two prosecutors and several agents, was shorter than the first meeting and focused on my relationship with my DOS “slave” Souki. At the end of this second meeting, there was no indication that the government intended to call me as a government witness, nor was there an interest expressed in continuing to meet with me, as it was readily apparent that my truthful account of my experience was wholly inconsistent with the government’s view, preconceived notions and limited understanding of NXIVM and DOS.
The government’s Demand for a Third Meeting
39 Shortly before the trial, the prosecutors contacted my lawyer, Justin Greenblum, to attempt to interview me for a third time. Because almost ten months had passed since the second interview and because it was apparent that I had refused to adopt the government’s inaccurate views and the false narrative it had imposed upon me, I did not see a reason to spend more time meeting with the government, as I believed I had already told them everything about my experience. By this point, the government had shown that it was not interested in hearing my authentic account.
40 When my attorney told Ms. Penza it was unlikely that I would meet with them again, Ms. Penza told Mr. Greenblum that they were interested in having me prep with them for trial because they were planning to call me as one of their witnesses and were prepared to subpoena me to testify if I declined their request.
Ms. Penza advised Mr. Greenblum to encourage me to meet with them prior to taking the stand or else they would be likely to charge me with perjury. Given that I had met with the government twice and stated the truth as far as I knew it, based on my experience, it didn’t make sense that they would pre-meditate such a charge before I even took the stand. This threat of perjury only came after my attorney informed them that I would most likely refuse to meet with them again or willing testify on their behalf. Again, I was unwilling to adhere to the wants of the government and in response, they tried to manipulate me into doing what they wanted for their own gain and agenda.
41 This was a clear threat, understood as such by both myself and my attorney, Mr. Greenblum, that if I took the stand as a defense or government witness, without first coming into the U.S. Attorney’s Office a third time and further proffering with the prosecution, the government would charge me with perjury. The threat of such an unjust, unsubstantiated, and retaliatory indictment was a great weight in my consideration of testifying for the defense or not. Despite believing that testifying for the defense would be the right thing to do, I faced enormous risks, based on Ms. Penza’s threat, to not only myself, but to my family as well. Therefore, by the government threatening me with a perjury indictment, it was seeking to frighten me so that I would not provide truthful testimony to the jury, testimony that was inconsistent with the government’s errant views and, as noted above, inconsistent with at least one critical government
42 Because of the government’s threat to me that if I testified without engaging in a third proffer interview, my potential to be a witness for the defense carried the risk of a baseless indictment which only served to try to manipulate and coerce me into heading to the demands of the government. Had I testified, I would have provided material, relevant testimony about DOS and the fact that the collateral was not meant to be used extortionately or coercively, but rather to give weight to my vow, as the defense maintained in the opening and closing statements and as was reflected in the cross examination of the government’s DOS witnesses. I would have testified also to the means used the government used to try to get me to change my account.
43 However, the government’s threats were both powerful and effective. Although I was available to testify as a defense witness, the risk of arrest and indictment was one I did not want to take and therefore I decided I was unwilling to testify. As a result, the defendant, Mr. Raniere, was deprived of my material, exculpatory witness testimony. Without my testimony, the jury lacked a critical account different from that provided by Nicole. The jury was denied a genuine perspective of DOS that was wholly inconsistent with that provided by the prosecution.
44 I truly believe that the government had two goals in mind. The first was to get me to change my account. It pursued this goal by telling me that I had been coerced, that I was in fact not acting of my free will and that a crime was committed against me. When those tactics did not work, the government showed me the written communications between Mr. Raniere and Camila, evidently hoping that they would cause me to see Mr. Raniere differently and that I would agree to testify against him. But the government’s version of the “facts” were not consistent with my experiences, and I was unwilling to give in to their pressure to change my story just to match theirs.
45- The second goal was that once the government saw that it could not recruit me onto the side of the prosecution, they would threaten and intimidate me to ensure I would not testify for the defense. This is why they threatened to indict me with perjury. The threat worked. Rather than risk indictment, I decided that I would not testify.
I have made this Affidavit knowingly, intentionally and of my own free will.
Dated: October 14, 2020
Respectfully,
Michele Hatchette
[There were some exhibits at the end of the affidavit, which we will publish in a subsequent post.]
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I worked with Michele on and off for 5 years or so during 2011-2017 and I am so shocked that these are her words. I was invited to a handful of events at her house in Sheffield, down the road from the farm we worked at together, and I am so thankful I never attended. I feel like these might’ve been recruiting events. It is so sad, scary, unfortunate that such an intelligent young woman become so deeply entrenched in such madness. I hope that she will find a way to get out of this cult. I can’t believe her family hasn’t been more vocal about this!
Literally my only takeaway from this is that Keith Raniere didn’t want to have sex with her. I understand why she is preaching about not being a victim: she wasn’t. In a murder case, you don’t bring in all the people who*didn’t* get killed to testify on behalf of the murderer’s character.
I’m confused. “For example, I would have testified that there were several women I invited into DOS, who voluntarily gave collateral to learn about it, yet once they learned about the organization and what it entailed, they declined. They all remained friends with me and some expressed gratitude for the invitation, even though they felt it was not for them.”
Is her argument not that they gave collateral knowing full well the vow they were entering?
Hi Frank,
Do you also have the complete support letter from Nicki, and if yes, could you please post it?
I don’t know if anyone noticed how many times the words, “my goals” was used to describe her every action or behavior. I hope her goals list has been check marked and accomplished.
It is not going to help them. I just read it. It is very very late to bring this up and does not ring true. Also, there is no evidence of pressure by the prosecution at all – it is very very weak indeed. The fact they showed her the fuck toy email is not pressure. Also wanting to see her 9 months after the last time is wise as it can take a while, as with India, for the scales to come off your eyes in these cults and to realize what you were in.
The fact she says some of them might have said vows – so what? If you are in a cult, you agree. If you are in North Korea, you always agree with the state. Just because someone writes this thing is wonderful does not mean it is lawful and is not wonderful.
They seem to think N was a voice in the wilderness and everyone else thought DOS was great but I don’t think that is the case.
There is nothing here. They won’t win.
You wrote it very well.
I remembered a comment about this affidavit before it was published by Mr. Parlato, it was called ‘bombastic’ by K.R.Claviger. I think she likely only contributed to it, and most of it was written as a team with at least 1 other person, possibly the lawyer for Raniere being a large part of it because of all the references, who then inserted her comments. The writing style that the lawyer has could give more indications.
As to what she writes, I’m not going to analyze it all but I will just give this example:
no. 14: “Nicole demonstrates her understanding of the purpose and intent of DOS and speaks very positively, which is in stark contrast to her testimony where she paints a negative picture of the same subjects.”
Hatchette clearly doesn’t understand that people do things and say things that are not the same as what they really want, like, feel, think. When analyzing people, you need to keep in mind, as I stated in one of the pages on my site, that you need to translate what people say and to know how “to extract the truth from what people tell you which is different from what they tell you, and that may be different to what they actually believe even if they tell you their ‘real views’ (which are not their real views but influenced by how they want to portray themselves to the outside).”.
So, someone may be positive while inside feeling something is wrong but not wanting to show others uneasiness or unhappiness. To say it out loud would also mean to more consciously look at the problem, and generally, people prefer to ignore problems until they can no longer be ignored (You can see this everywhere, in personal life, and in business)… herefore there is no contradiction in what ‘Nicole’ wrote and said to people within the group and to the investigators; on the contrary, it shows only that Hatchette didn’t see the problems of and within that group.
The whole structure of the women’s group is preposterously complex, and nonsensical in reversing power (You may want to watch the film “The Offence” (1972/1973), with Sean Connery for a similar reversal of feeling in control when you are not; this type of reasoning is not new, but it is as I thought when I first saw that film, insane). Everything done in that women’s group that was in some way positive could have been done in another way, in a far better manner.
I agree and having just watched The Vow it seems clear people were broken down – you are not worthy, you need to be fixed, etc., etc. deliberately.
Dear Michele Hatchette,
I am not an attorney but I have watched episodes of “Breaking Bad,” and part of a trailer for “Law and Order” on Youtube so I think I can authoritatively comment on your affidavit.
You say you never were under threat that collateral would be released and collateral was just to ensure you keep your word. How would it ensure anything without the threat of it being released?
You say the prosecutor’s lied to you. I have a feeling if we asked them they might remember the conversation more like having told you that if you lie on the stand you will be prosecuted for perjury rather than that you would be prosecuted for perjury if you told the truth. You may need to provide the audio recording on that.
But let’s say they did say that. The police and attorneys are allowed to lie to people in interviews, though not in court. For example, if they pick you up for shoplifting the police will say, “We have it on camera and your friend has already confessed in the other room,” even though they just made that up so you will confess.
They are allowed to do that. Prosecutors can do that too in private interviews. It’s messed up but completely legal. That is why it is incumbent on you to get an attorney who knows the system before you say anything or agree to anything. So, in the end, your complaint is with your attorney for not advising you how the system works.
Sorry, it’s not the best system but with our current laws the average citizen commits about 5 felonies per day and if everyone were to be given a hearing, the courts would be backlogged for 100 years from just one day worth of so-called crimes. So, it’s an attempt to streamline.
“The average citizen commits about 5 felonies per day …”
Since, on average, I do not commit a single felony per day, week, month or year, someone else must be committing the crimes that are being attributed to me as an average citizen.
Sorry, I was wrong about that. According to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the average American commits 3 felonies a day.
https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/
Have you violated a website’s terms of use? Computer fraud.
Have you made a bet with someone? Gambling felony.
Downloaded a song without authorization? Copyright infringement.
Opened someone else’s mail? Mail tampering.
Failed to report food service tips? Federal tax evasion
Failed to report money you’ve gotten anywhere? Federal tax evasion.
Used marijuana?
Been drunk in public?
Called in sick when you weren’t really sick? Yes, even that can be a felony.
In all of your 9 listed examples I have not committed a single crime. And this is my honest answer. And this applies not only to these examples. I have not committed a single crime. I am probably a rare exception. And to make this more credible, I limit myself to a manageable time frame of one year.
Michelle might be a white woman wearing black face.
You know what the nice thing about the inevitable appeal will be? The defense writes a nice long Appellate brief, nicely covering all this stuff, the prosecution rebuts, and we get to wait for the decision of the Appeals Court. No drama or tedious last-minute hijinks like the above.
If all the appeals fail, and the US Supreme Court refuses to hear his case, then the malpractice lawsuits will begin. Mark my words.
Hatchette has no awareness of all of the women around her either pleading guilty or switching sides. LOL
The prosecution wasn’t trying to get her to change her story, but to get her to think about the fact that she wasn’t seeing the whole picture. LOL
This reminds Scott how he tried to convince his downline that everybody but the top 1% were being scammed and they refused to listen to the facts and instead kept buying the uplines’ lies and kept getting scammed. LOL
My main takeaway about Ms. Hachette is that she’s in desperate need of mental health services and deprogramming. The extent to which she’s been compromised is plainly obvious to almost anyone reading this document even if she cannot recognize the depths to which she’s been dragged under herself. As a person of color myself, it’s exceptionally sad and painful to read that she feels that being enslaved to a white woman was a justifiable or acceptable decision on her part.
The intimidation and threats she describes by the government were, in fact, prosecutors attempting to hold the door open for her to save herself. That she failed to recognize this only highlights how compromised she’s become. I liken a lot of this to similar responses and antics displayed by Manson followers who sometimes took years to become more oriented of the reality of their actions and their decisions that aligned them with a person who incited them to commit murder and violence. Maybe Ms. Hachette will see the stark reality of what her life has become in those terms or maybe she never will, but the more she continues to speak in support of Raniere, the closer she comes to her own indictment from crimes committed. Perhaps the only medicine for her is the comeuppance of becoming a convicted felon.
Agree!!
Second that.
She’s probably the saddest of the DOS slaves. Painfully thin. Not a thought of her own left in her head. A husk of a woman. Very sad.
Just because she had a “wonderful” time in DOS does not negate the truth and experience of others. She is completely hung up on technicalities but does not see the big picture. The big picture is that Vanguard is a child abuser and his teachings are bullshit. Even if she found value in what she experienced, how can one defend such monstrosity? The loyalty should have dissolved as soon as it was revealed that he was not “the smartest man in the world”. Michele…there is no “personal growth” if your morality is tied to such a disgusting fraudster. You need to take a whole gander at your life and see how it has been warped by this evil man.
Yes, I was thinking the same as I read it. As if she thinks her experience is definitive. Some people have nothing to lose and could not even care if people see naked pictures of them. Others are terrified.
Also all this talk of character is weird. I don’t see why they just cannot live their lives and not hurt others – why they need all these complex systems just to be a normal nice person.
It seems more likely they were told they were full of faults and once told they were broken and had to be fixed went along with it… whereas if I feel a bit fat I just either eat less or stuff down some lovely food and enjoy it!
Reading her affidavit, immediately pondering if Michele & Nicki are using this opportunity as a vehicle to help Allison Mack and her sentencing.
From reading this blog, watching The Vow and first episode of India’s program on Starz, playing the long-game to help Mack by using Raniere to get information out to cast doubt or lay out information for her to get an appeal is unlikely, but not testifying and these claims seem too little too late.
So, what is their long-game? I would still like to know where all the money went (Nancy and Keith likely hold this secret and likely from each other — though the Bronfmans may benefit more than we know… certainly, SB’S husband strikes me as someone that was angling from day 1 how he could get a piece of the NXIVM pie); a deeper dive into the children brought here from Mexico; what took place with the children in The Rainbow Garden.
The other parts of this story remain human trafficking, sex trafficking, financing of political organizations/people, money laundering, and any connection to money laundering with drugs, the businesses affiliated with NXIVM, selling of humans, sexual abuse, and procurement/distribution of weapons. Using this theoretical self-help group for moving money, people and likely weapons (maybe even drugs) have me pondering who is behind all of this propping up Raniere for their own purposes?
The on-going resources of information from people all over the world; the ability to move money and launder it; the ability to make piercing the corporate veil difficult with all the shell corporations and affiliated companies; moving people across borders; moving children across borders; the political engagement in different countries; the failed coup in Libya; the control of young children; and all the brainwashing to direct people to take actions under your direction seem more sophisticated for Raniere to be the sole beneficiary with some dollars doled out to keep folks like Nancy, Mack, Edmondson, Vicente, the Mexican & London centers owners compliant.
I do wonder if Raniere, despite being a narcissistic sociopath, was ideal to be propped up and used by people much more connected, professional and purposeful than he is capable of. Drugs, Human & Sex Trafficking; Weapons; Money Laundering are the most profitable industries in the world. Information provides influence to get more. Some entity was possibly leveraging NEXIVM for greater business needs. It would explain a lot. LOL
What weapons?! @10/20 9:39
Well? @10/20 1:39, not 9:39. Show your “weapons” or please explain wth you are insinuating with this new weapons charge. EKG brain study equipment or Libyan/Mexican revolutionary supplies or what?
I have not seen any evidence of someone using KR in that sense, quite the contrary – he was wasting Bronfman money and making rich Mexicans think it was wrong to have a rich family.
However I agree it is very pro Alison M in the affidavit even though she clearly got lots of people into this and then pleaded guilty.
If the prosecution threatened Michele with a perjury indictment for testifying for the defense, they must have had hard evidence that her story was false.
A perjury charge wouldn’t stick if she were telling the truth consistently. Why would she fear such a charge if she told the prosecutors the same story every time? Michele’s a farm girl – she is well aware of how effective closing a barn door is after the horse has escaped. Well, she should be anyway.
How fucking idiotic are these people? It’s all about he said, she said. But with trafficking and pedophilia, it’s fucking stupid. I believe Sara Edmonson and you know the people that didn’t give naked pictures of confessions of pedophilia like “proofs of love.” You have to be a fucking idiot to belive the proud slave beautiful c&€& Hatchette or I gave my slaves a dog necklace for a matter of confidence and kept the collateral of everyone Clyne. The first line of slaves should all be in jail except maybe Camilla. Particularly I’m happy for you to rape my child for your Luciferian sexual ritual Rosa Laura. So I believe Nicole, Edmonson, Daniela, Sylvie and the rest of the 80 persons. I hope that in the light of these they sue the shit out of beautiful c&€# Hatchette and Clyne. I want to be in a blow job like the 6 part of it with all the Luciferian cult still supporters. They support a fucking pedophile and don’t care about justice. I mean if they do, Raniere is one of the most deserving dicks ever, they just want to (make another blow job orgy probably) get the possible murderer out of jail. I hope that there is another trial, so feminists pay more attention to this case and finally Nxivm Will be remembered like the pedophile Luciferian cult it is. Where is the woman that trafficked children that Emiliano was saying? Why did Mack and Raniere official demands involved the trafficking of children.? Why does no one talk about the pedophilia of Raniere?
The Long Game
The New NXIVM Narrative
Keith Raniere does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting out in the next 20 years.
Keith Raniere does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a new trial.
The real game is setting up a New Narrative to allow NXIVM to survive and thrive.
The New Narrative is that Keith Raniere is a Martyr.
Keith Raniiere is being redefined as a victim of government persecution.
And all of Raniere’s followers are being defined as victims of government persecution.
Clare Bronfman is a victim of government persecution.
Allison Mack is a victim of government persecution.
Nancy Salzman is a victim of government persecution.
Lauren Salzman is a victim of government persecution.
Nicki Clyne is a victim of government persecution.
Michele Hatchette is a victim of government persecution.
And all of the other NXIVM goblins are victims of government persecution.
Of course, this is all Bull Shit!
But it allows the Ghouls of NXIVM to restart their gang in a few years.
Yes, and well put. If you look at what the die-hards of the FLDS group think about Warren Jeffs, their leader in jail it is the same and fundamentalist Mormonism because of what happened to Joseph Smith loves a good martyr as it proves everything cult leaders have been saying to you – that you are the chosen people hence your prophet is in jail and that that proves the prophet is true. Same here with KR.
All of this could have been avoided had KR followed the law, not allowed branding, not had sex with anyone underage, not engaged in vexatious litigation to drum people into bankruptcy, and just preached his (in my view) total waste of money very similar to so many other groups’ Scientology-type “self-help” whilst fleecing people of money in an MLM scheme
Is there any pic Michele Hatchette sans cult’ish / Tom Cruise-seething elated faux-smile?
Always smiling is a tactic used by certain people to hide something. With anti-social manipulators, you often see a half-smile which is a dead giveaway… A big smile as she has likely hides vacuousness…
“…based on my experience the collateral was not intended to be used as force or coercion, that it was never used in this way, and that I was not afraid, concerned or worried that it would be used this way.”
It was not, NOT ‘used in this way,’ either. Even The Vow (series) illustrated this. The Prosecution only has to pull up one or two electronic correspondence where any slave inquired into their collateral, and the response is Anything BUT Agreeable, a la:
‘I’m fearful of the collateral leak. Please pacify my concerns?’ or…
‘…Return them to me’ or…
‘Tell me who has them or where they’re stored?’ or…
‘Provide proof of their destruction along with any and all duplicates’
They don’t have to prove publishing collateral to the public, either directly or via intermediaries, was Ever an immediate concern for those ‘Slaves’ OR Designation (intention) for Administrators. Rather,
Only collateral’s INTERNAL dissemination (w anyone other than their MASTER); and ‘The Vow’ showed that, mid-season’ish, with Sarah’s correspondence with ‘Master’ Lauren (albeit, she eventually panics, and agrees to Sarah’s demands, but only for a short while)
Every piece of collateral [text/email] inquiry answered in dissention, or even, left unanswered, not only decimates her argument, it re-affirms the conviction.
Regardless, the real goal is only to delay, à la Continuation (a hopeful byproduct of this hogwash filing), thereby delaying sentencing
Among the few facts that can be found in this pile of crap is the fact that the prosecutors DID invite Michele to testify at Raniere’s trial, DID NOT “threaten” her with perjury charges as she claims — Michele’s “belief” they did came solely from her Bronfman paid attorney who obviously discouraged her from cooperating in the third interview to prepare for the trial — all of which suggests that Michele’s prior two interviews with investigators (with ‘Clare’s’ attorney present) would not have been helpful at all to Raniere much less “exculpatory” for him or any of the defendants.
In fact, I’d love to see what she really said during those interviews that was so damning the prosecution wanted to call her as their witness but not for Clare’s intervention on that through the attorney they selected and paid for Michele.
And, of course, there was obviously no offer for Michele made by the defense to appear as their witness no matter how allegedly exculpatory her testimony may have been.
Question: Can she be charged with perjury if this affidavit differs from the information she previously provided to investigators that, again, was so offensive in the view of her Bronfman-paid counsel the defense didn’t want her to appear for a third “trial preparation” interview? Much less appear at trial?
I would have thought so if she lied in an affidavit; that would be perjury. I don’t think she says much at all in this one though so if there were slight variations from what she said before, it would probably not be worth the cost and probably she has not told any major lies as she talks about how she felt – she felt okay about the collateral which may be true but, of course, that doesn’t mean someone else would feel okay about it.
Yes, courts are not big on perjury prosecutions these days, anyway. Bad for business.
God, that’s tedious reading.
“…I feared an unfounded indictment if I did testify.”
LOL! Is that even a thing or an outright red herring court docket-jammer?
It’s as if they already KNOW their eventual testimony will only yield detainment, i.e. perjury? –thereby laying the groundwork for their undeniable pre-fense: ‘…See! Told Ya So!’
There is no way, these two have the slightest indication their testimony might actually land them in jail!!
Crybaby Jane has convinced them he’s seen to it, so State will never be able to prove perjury and if by some insurmountable-miracle they do, it could only be by Unicorns w nunchucks shenanigans (à la his own conviction)
And in that situation, their Messiah absolutely pre-paid lawyer’s retainer and bail bonds:
“You’d Be in a holding cell for maybe, only, 30 or 40 minutes TOPS! You’re One Hour of jail is an investment, paying dividends equaling My Freedom!”
Too little too late. I think the time to tell that bedtime story was at the trial not (1) one year later and (7) days before sentencing. I seriously don’t get what Keith is doing. Makes me wonder if he’s doing all this so he can be Vanguard just a while longer; after the 27th, not so much.
Michelle
How do you feel about not having testified? Was allowing the government to intimidate you the right, “ethical’ decision?
Your testimony could have meant something during the trial, particularly the part about the government seeking to coerce you and threaten you. By your cowardice, you have sacrificed your friend, Keith Raniere and you have sacrificed a fair trial.
That’s right, Michele, you’re only truly brave when you bend down and let Keith Reniere intimidate you. Don’t you know who your master is? Don’t you know you’re not supposed to fetch the ball until promoted by a tiny little man that can’t do anything for himself, so he empowers others to do it for him? Go fetch for Keith, we’ve already seen how you bark and play dead.
How else are you going to get that genetically defective sperm down your throat unless he’s out of jail? You could even hold down teenagers for him to rape like a good little house negro.
Without reference to the article:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-therapists-werent-allowed-join-180000947.html
This article, and the other one that is linked within it, give far too much credit to Raniere and not enough to the old witch Salzman. LOL
Scientology also hates therapists and Amway and other MLMs promote pushing through any obstacle. LOL
Good point in the article. So much of it has never seemed at all new or original or expensive well developed intellectual property original thought – just a load of rehashed stuff I read in library books as a teenager and then saw in scientology online when I was older.
She’s beyond skank like! What ugly people this group of whack jobs are – both inside and out! Her parents must be so proud!
MLK, Malcolm X and RFK all collectively rolled over in their graves.
hahahah
Hatchette’s slave, Souki, was, with Nicole, the first DOS slave to quit. I’m not sure she recalls such a wonderful experience of it, unlike her Master.
Thank you very much, for telling your side of the story Michele!
“…I had a very positive experience when I gathered and submitted my first batch of collateral to learn about the existence of DOS as a guarantee that I would keep the existence of the group confidential (whether I joined the group after learning about it, or not).” How is giving embarrassing information a guarantee the group would not be exposed if it were not blackmail?
Yes, they cannot have it both ways. If it would never be released and was not collateral why call it collateral, and how could it then possibly work?
Dear Michele,
Michelle and Nicki are the living, breathing examples of Keith’s handiwork. He has meddled in their minds and is continuing to pull their strings. It is terribly sad.
However, I do find it amusing that their attempts with their publicity stunt, cries of injustice fell on deaf ears. The interview on CBS hardly went their way. All I can remember of that are two silly girls putting their hands up that they were/are in DOS and a little squeaky “It’s none of your business who I slept with”. Way to go in drawing attention to something so serious. Then they cry that a lot was edited out. An epic fail.
The only one who would take any interest was Frank. Of course, he was going to write about them. He asked for the evidence. Now, they are spinning it like some great idea from the world’s smartest man. All they are doing is providing endless material for Frank Report and looking pretty silly at the same time.
Perfectly stated. Playing right into Frank’s hands.
Yes, I just cannot see why they cannot see how hopeless it is. They seem to have nothing new, nothing material, nothing that would change anything and yet they are sure they have found some holy grail wonderful revelations that will be a sure fire winner way to free KR.
In Hungary, it is mandatory to give evidence if called in by the public prosecutor’s office/police. If you do not go in, you are taken in and also fined a heavy fine in such a case. There’s no way the authorities are going to contact you and you’re not going to talk to them. That’s understandable because the only person who refuses to testify is someone who’s hiding something, keeping something quiet, or afraid to testify against someone because that someone threatened them. In this case, of course, he is protected and participates as a protected witness in the rest of the proceedings. (There are several stages of this, which depend on the degree of threat.)
The question of the possibility of prosecution does not constitute a threat, but merely a communication in relation to future expected events.
I would add that this is in our country, I do not know the American legal system, but the two justice systems cannot be so far apart.
Regardless, I still have an opinion on this case. Beyond the crimes that have been committed, this has been a highly destructive medium for young people with little experience, both morally and psychologically. I don’t know how open the jury is to this Keith Raniere-led filth.
The Path of Evil usually begins with a beautiful and uplifting fabulous story that will put a person’s healthy self-defense reflex to sleep, which could protect him from subsequent attacks.
Such a brainwashed system (sorry for the term, but when I started reading this article, the word brainwashing came to mind) is also particularly dangerous because it is a psychologically proven fact of the group, the community’s influencing effect on the individual. Countless studies demonstrate the manipulative effect on the individual, which captivates weaker individuals who thereby blend into the “uniformity” of the community.
And a so charismatic leader like Keith uses his followers with a laugh for his own nefarious purposes. As the events that have taken place show.
OK, girl. Then why not testify at the trial? If the prosecution couldn’t squeeze it out of you as a witness for them, why not go on record for the defense at trial?