Eduardo Asunsolo is a supporter and friend of Keith Raniere. He has a view of his friend that is different than my own view of the man they call Vanguard.
Eduardo has maintained that Keith got a raw deal at his trial. He thinks I and my publication, the Frank Report, had a great deal to do with the false narrative about Raniere and the destruction of Nxivm.
He confronted me on this topic in a respectful way. He wanted to put his arguments out to the public prior to sentencing and felt, since I had much to do with Raniere’s incarceration, that I should be willing to present the other side, in the spirit of fairness.
At the time we met, a few days before Raniere was sentenced, I told him there was nothing he could publish in Raniere’s defense, prior to sentencing, that will change the fact that he will be sentenced to life.
I said, “If you have evidence of due process violations, of prosecutorial misconduct, or judicial bias, as you claim, you should present this to Keith’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, who might be able to use this in an appeal.”
Shortly after, Raniere reached out to me by phone from prison. This was reported on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, and in many media outlets around the world since it was peculiar that Raniere would do his first media interview since his arrest with his nemesis.
I made it clear to Raniere that, while I did not think he was a man of good character, “I would fight for due process for even the devil himself.”
Eduardo and others of Raniere’s friends [along with Raniere from prison] put together their arguments of why they believe certain aspects of the case were handled improperly and prejudicially against Raniere.
Most readers know about their allegation of tampering with the photos of Camila.
They also put forth an argument that the sex trafficking of Nicole charge was improper:
They argued that Raniere never intended to flee to Mexico, he was visiting and not hiding and should have had been released on bail before he went to trial:
They have more presentations planned. How far it will go is anyone’s guess. But if the issue is due process, they have a right to make their argument and let it stand or fall on the merits. Due process does not depend on what we think of Keith Raniere.
Recently, Asunsolo has been interviewed in Mexican media and some of his message seemed to resonate with some of the reporters there, particularly his comparison of US and Mexican justice.
Below is Asunsolo’s summary of his position. I know it may anger some that I published it, but I think it fair to hear him out. If you disagree with his arguments, please feel free to debate it, preferably in a respectful manner, in the comments section, or submit an op-ed to FrankParlato@gmail.com.
This is not a debate on whether Raniere is a rascal or not; it is a debate on whether he received due process. It can never be wrong to review and debate that, even if the person is the worst offender we ever heard of. Indeed, it is especially important then that examination is required most and if doubt is raised, debated vigorously.
I do not think the argument against publishing it is persuasive: that this will retraumatize the victims by forcing them to relive their experience. Most of them are participating in a civil lawsuit against Raniere to get money from the Bronfman sisters, and they will have to relive it again, by their own choice, multiple times, including depositions and cross-examination at trial.
If they can do this for money, it cannot be unfair to publish various points of view regarding the criminal trial that sent a man to prison for life. The victims do not have to read or respond. The victims the Court ruled it would use first names only are not identified here, so their anonymity is protected.
By Eduardo Asunsolo
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Keith Raniere, there were irregularities in his trial.
In the USA, we pride ourselves on fair trials, but in his trial, because the media, led by the highly-biased Frank Parlato of the Frank Report, made Raniere out to be a despicable character, the prosecutors and the judge were able to dispense with “due process” and make sure his defense was not heard.
If you look at the evidence presented by the prosecution, aside from the hatred fomented against this man, it is flimsy. He was condemned more for his lifestyle than his actions.
I will now briefly touch on some of the most salient points:
Sex Trafficking
A sex trafficking charge was sustained where there was no money exchanged, over a single sexual encounter, with an adult woman who consented before, during, and after the incident. Keith himself wasn’t physically involved in the act.
How did the jury find “intent” from this?
How could someone know she was unhappy with this single sexual encounter when she said that she was fine with it, before, during, and after? The sex trafficking statute was never intended to be misused this way.
Sex trafficking was intended to be where women are placed into subjugation for commercial purposes and denied the freedom to leave this kind of life. I’ve personally helped dozens of these women asking for asylum in the US. To call Nicole’s experience sex trafficking is offensive to true victims of these horrible acts.
Nicole, the alleged sex trafficking victim, had one sexual experience, and she gave her consent to the incident. She was even asked if she wanted to continue it while it was in progress. She consented.
It was only later, under pressure from, first, Keith’s vicious enemy, Frank Parlato, then the rapacious lawyer, Neil Glazer, who planned to use her for a civil lawsuit, and then finally the US authorities, who, I believe, bent her testimony to suit their crime, that she agreed to testify that she was trafficked and in fear of the release of her collateral.
This is not sex trafficking. Possibly it might be some other, lesser charge, although I don’t personally think so.
I am confident there has never been a similar sex trafficking case in the US legal system. The only reason they could get away with it is that Raniere was hated. A hated man does not deserve justice it seems.
Camila Child Porn? Really?
The alleged child porn pictures of a 15-year-old Mexican girl, Camila, “found’ on an electronic device seized from Keith’s property seems to have been tampered with. The FBI admitted during trial that someone accessed the device while in FBI custody, but they did not know who it was!
That’s something that some Americans would want you to think could only happen in a Mexican court, not in a US federal court.
Think about it. The supposed child porn pictures were in FBI custody. Someone got into the devices and the FBI says they do not know who did it? And then our experts find the files were tampered with, dates were altered, etc.. The very dates used to determine her age by the prosecution.
Crying for Leniency
While being cross-examined by Keith’s lawyers, one critical witness, Lauren Salzman, on the verge of making admissions that could have altered the trajectory of the entire case, was excused by the judge from further cross-examination because she started crying.
Let’s think about this for a second. The entire paternalism is revolting. If Lauren was a man, the judge would have told her, ‘man up,’ ‘finish your answer’. But because she wept copiously, she was excused.
What a precedent! All a woman must do is start crying and she can’t be cross-examined? This brings the proverbial throwing of a tantrum to get your way, to a whole new level.
She can send a man to life in prison, lie on the stand – and then when the defense starts to challenge her, all she has to do is start crying and the judge will cancel cross-examination.
This woman was a cooperating witness. She was guarding for her own [lighter] sentence. We can not delete that it’s possible for people to create an upset when something delicate is being challenged.
I was there. Her testimony was challenged and she started bawling. And the judge stopped the cross-examination! He said “I’m a human first and a Judge second”. This is the opposite of justice.
For this reason alone, Keith deserves a new trial.
Keep in mind that the judge scolded Keith’s attorney for doing his job and frankly he intimidated him. After Lauren’s cross-examination which was stopped by the judge, Keith’s lawyer had to timidly ask questions of other female witnesses so they wouldn’t cry and he would get blamed for making them cry – when all he was doing was doing his job.
Ridiculous Naming Rules
The judge ruled that women testifying against Raniere and women referred to at the trial as being against Raniere should be identified by only their first names, while female supporters of Raniere were identified by first and last names, creating an impression for the jury that women whose first names only were used were the victims, while women whose first and last names were used were guilty of crimes. This was one cute trick by the prosecution.
On top of that, all men were named by first and last name, creating a gender unneutral scenario, further implying that all women whose first names only were used were the victims.
To show you how ridiculous it was, even women who wrote books and made documentaries like Sarah Edmondson and India Oxenberg were only identified as Sarah and India.
Come on, everyone knew who they were. But they could only be called Sarah and India – because the prosecution, with the judge’s consent, wanted the jury to know that they decided they were victims.
It’s outrageous that the prosecution got to decide whose names were first names only and the judge supported that.
Did Witnesses Lie?
The defense arguments that some witnesses were lying – and that all witnesses were adult women who consented to everything they did – were shut down again and again by the judge. Look at the transcripts of the trial.
The truth is these were adult women who made adult decisions and then, at the prosecution’s urging, they reverted to childhood and cried “we are weak, little, sensitive plants.”
This whole thing needs sunlight.
I have said this again and again: Switch the genders. If this were a group of men who chose to get branded and give collateral, this would never have gone to trial.
Kidnapping Deportation?
Then there were the strange circumstances of Raniere being seized by armed gunmen in Mexico and removed within hours to the USA.
Normally, there is an extradition procedure, which should have international human rights observers wondering how this happened and if it was a crime against Raniere.
The USA should not be permitted to kidnap people in Mexico or any foreign country without due process. In fact, the whole question of jurisdiction is at issue.
No Bail, Go to Jail
Prosecutors alleged Raniere fled to Mexico to hide from US authorities and was denied bail and held in prison, where he was frequently prevented from meeting with his attorneys to prepare for trial.
He should have had bail. He offered a perfect bail scenario, where he would have been at no risk of flight. It is the prejudice against Mexico that worked against him getting bail. As if Mexico is some third world country in the remotest part of the world.
Raniere was in Mexico because his partner, the mother of his younger son, is Mexican and he wanted to be with her and their son.
The dishonest representation by the prosecutors that Raniere had fled to Mexico to hide from US authorities was used as the sole excuse to deny him bail and hold him in prison. They had possession of his travel records and his passport while they stated false facts to the public. Again, this is outrageous!
He Is Hated So Due Process Does Not Matter
The reality is that the US government decided to get Keith Raniere and they weren’t about to stop to worry about his rights. They knew they could get away with this because no one would dare defend him because, after all, he was a despised person.
He was unpopular with the mob.
There was no need to worry about a fair trial. Nobody would care if he got a fair trial. Nobody wanted to hear his defense, just in case it might lead to his acquittal based on the law and due process application of the law.
Even if his defense is found to be wanting and deficient, he should have been entitled to present it under fair and unbiased conditions.
In the case of Keith Raniere, during every step, from the arrest, through the prosecution, it was saturated with prejudice and an obscenely arrogant assumption that the government could get away with anything because Raniere was a bad man, a cult leader, a man who had many women, a man who supposedly branded women.
Nowhere were voices permitted to be heard that all of these witnesses who testified were adult women, that everyone involved consented to everything, and only retroactively did they withdraw consent.
The proof of prejudice carried over into sentencing. The judge gave him 120 years. Even murderers don’t get this kind of sentence. Neither do kidnappers, or rapists. Raniere was not convicted of murdering, kidnapping, or raping anyone. There were no violent crimes.
Look at the crimes and examine them in the plain light of who was hurt and how every one of the so-called victims consented to the actions they did and only later, under the influence of the US government, did they withdraw consent and claim to be victims of abuse.
Then there is another horror of injustice, We are told we cannot question female victims. To question their veracity is to “victim shame.” If they were men, they could be questioned. But women are sensitive plants who cannot stand up and tell the truth? This is sexist, a macho attitude by men who claim to “protect” them, and an excuse for women who want to avoid their responsibility.
They cannot withstand scrutiny? What nonsense. Women will never get equality with men if they cannot stand for their truth – using their true name, first and last. This is, after all, what Keith was trying to teach – and now, he has been hung by the forces that opposed the maturation of women.
This was a trial where women too were put on trial. And the verdict is that we are told we cannot question a woman – or she’ll start crying and the trial will be stopped and a lynching will ensue.
I can promise you, Marc Agnifilo, Keith’s attorney, had to worry he might get lynched too. He had to go easy on the witnesses [female only] after Lauren cried her way out of cross-examination.
Examine the trial record closely. Take away the hate and emotion because Keith is different – and what you have in this case is something comparable to a witch trial.
Every decision went the way of the prosecution. I remember once when Agnifilo ran about 10 minutes longer on a cross-examination, the judge scolded him. But when the prosecutor, Moira Penza, admitted she was going to go over on direct examination by several hours, the judge indulgently said, “Take your time.”
I could admire the judge’s paternalism if it didn’t take place in a courtroom. He was treating Moira like she was his granddaughter. This is not my sense of justice. The judge should have been gender-blind and a seeker of truth.
There is no proof that only men lie and that women always tell the truth and just because they say they are victims, the defense has no right to question that.
When he stopped Lauren’s cross-examination when she was at the height of her crying jag, the judge said, “I’m a human first, a judge second”. That was his stark admission that he was biased. He was supposed to be a judge first. He is supposed to be justice incarnate, the spirit of justice in the human form, the personification of justice. That was why he was there. But when he said he was a judge second, he told the world he no longer was qualified to be a judge first.
Aristotle said, “When people dispute, they take refuge in the judge; and to go to the judge is to go to justice; for the nature of the judge is to be a sort of animate justice.”
But this judge was not animate justice. He was a human, a man with a great deal of prejudice and gender bias. In this case, Keith was predetermined to be a demon, a witch, and he was punished, without evidence.
Someone, one day in the future, will investigate the case of Keith Raniere with the perspective that only time can give – and realize that justice was not served, but annihilated. That regardless of whether Raniere is a good man or a bad man, he was deprived of the right to defend himself.
Sure, he was technically permitted to put on a defense, but his witnesses were intimidated, the witnesses against him coached and coddled and the judge, as a human first and secondly a judge, showed every sign of bias, at every step, with every ruling.
I cannot prove all this with a simple essay such as this, but a careful study will prove it. And the 120-year sentence confirms it – the US justice system is not dissimilar to my native Mexico. The only difference is that the Mexican system is more honest.
We do not pretend to such perfection as we do in America with our high talk and low values of justice.
It is clear. Justice demands that Keith Raniere get a new trial.
[I will have more to say on this topic in the coming days and weeks. Thank you for reading — Eduardo Asunsolo.]
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] of Raniere’s supporters, Eduardo Asunsolo, said that Raniere began to feel better this week compared to the symptoms he’d experienced […]
Asunsolo makes some interesting points. In the past, women were excluded from important decision making processes, like being on a jury, because of their frailties. It is a little odd to allow women to participate now, but continue to protect their supposed frailties. The adversarial process was designed to be a no holds barred drag them out fight between two sides with the hopes that truth will come out of the process. In the search for justice, one’s feelings about the truth doesn’t matter. But it seems that, in this court, feelings were more important than truth and more important than the law. The most important person’s feelings were Judge Garaufis’ feelings. It is evident that, early on, he felt Raniere was deserving of severe punishment and Judge Garaufis was unwilling to allow the law and due process to get in the way of his feelings.
With regards to Lauren’s testimony, I emphatically call into question Eduardo’s argument about flipping the genders and she would have been told to “man up.” Consider the case of the Buddhafield from the documentary Holy Hell for a moment. That particular group did not have a trial, but if it had, and a man (heterosexual or otherwise) broke down on the witness stand recounting the conflict and shame of sexual abuse by his spiritual leader (in this particular case a homosexual man), it would have likely been treated with a great deal of respect. I find it very hard to believe he would be told to man up. That Eduardo thinks he would seems surprisingly unenlightened from someone who belongs to a society of great humanitarians.
With that said, should Lauren have been excused from the witness stand? Great question. This should absolutely be evaluated on appeal. You emphatically have my support there.
Leaving aside the majority of Eduardo’s misplaced loyalty for a second, he’s right in that this is an expansion on the meaning of sex trafficking. This is what they’re going after R Kelly with.
—Think about it. The supposed child porn pictures were in FBI custody. Someone got into the devices and the FBI says they do not know who did it? And then our experts find the files were tampered with, dates were altered, etc.. The very dates used to determine her age by the prosecution.
Ahem! Ahem! The authorities were able to date the video by the lack of an operation scar Camila received at a later date.
@NiceGuy: Respectfully, and not to offend, but some of the followers said that Camila was in confirmed nude pictures at 18+ where you could not see the scar in the lighting and angle etc of the photo. So they are saying that it means nothing that it wasn’t visible in those contested pictures. *shrugs*
Exactly. It’s a non-issue. Cami validated them, and they were not challenged at trial.
I appreciate the information. Thanks
[…] we get to Alison’s view, I note that some people have said that Eduardo’s article, Justice Demands a New Trial for Raniere! is misogynistic. Of particular offense was his use of the words “sensitive […]
I can appreciate the fact that this has been published as there are always two sides to every story. But I would really like to know what the NX5 gain to have the organization revitalized? The money is gone — Clare cannot touch hers now, and does anyone really think that Sara, with the threat of having charges brought against her should she return to the US, would risk funding this group now? It seems that all of the money-makers and money-givers are gone. NXIVM is incapable of surviving without the bountiful purses and wallets….
[…] Eduardo Asunsolo offered a summary of why he believes Keith Raniere deserves a new trial. See Asunsolo: Justice Demands a New Trial for Raniere!. […]
We know you are friends with Roger Stone and Stone is obviously able to influence Trump, so which ONE of these NXIVM felons would you ask Stone to have Trump pardon if you had to pick one — Nancy Salzman, Kathy Russell, Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack? Likewise, which ONE of these would you ask to have arrested: Emiliano Salinas, Jim Del Negro, or Rodger Kirsopp? And will you ask your friend, Roger, to ask Trump for a preemptive pardon for the crimes you have been charged with seeing as how you view the justice system as unfair to poor people such as yourself?
This is a curious question. I would not seek a pardon for anyone, including myself.
If Nxivm was one big, happy, loving community, why do they only care about Keith’s “justice”? Why are they silent on…say… Clare? Especially if they are seen as co-conspirators? And what about Nicki’s beloved wife, Allison. Who pleaded guilty? Is she a liar too in their world? Why don’t they care what’s happening to her if the crimes she’s a co-conspirator on were not really committed in their minds? Also, Keith knows the intellectual and credibility shortfalls of his followers. He will continue to use them to gain a more high-value supporter. World beware. You’ve been warned.
I really love Nicki’s enthusiasm. She stayed silent on social media for about 2.5 years and when she spotted a perceived injustice, she started not one but multiple movements. Hell, she is so selfless, she does not even support her wife but a third person.
There is only one thing she could do to make it appear even more believable. This would be ending the movements now that the trial is over.
As enthusiastic as a dog running after a thrown ball to bring it to its master. Good when it comes to dogs, but bad when misguided and submissive people do it.
Here is a government link to sex trafficking:
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-sex-trafficking
So, you say ” Keith wasn’t involved in the act.” However, to play devil’s advocate, is a pimp involved in the act?
No. The pimp sets the act up with the victim but a third party has the sex.
Same situation. Keith blindfolded her, walked her to another house, stood by while someone else performed oral sex on her.
Is this any different than a pimp waiting near the hotel while the trafficked victim has sex?
As an outsider looking in, and not knowing anyone, I do have an opinion–and it is truly just an opinion. I will sum it up in one word: GUILTY.
Same that a jury arrived at.
And here’s why:
1. Can one person brainwash that many? No.
But this was a pyramid scheme. He brainwashed 1, 2, 3, and then they, in turn, brainwashed more. He had multi-level marketing boots on the ground for him. He created them.
2. Trafficking. ” Section 1591 criminalizes sex trafficking, which is defined as causing a person to engage in a commercial sex act under certain statutorily enumerated conditions. … The specific conditions are the use of force, fraud, or coercion, or conduct involving persons under the age of 18.”
It says ” a sex act”.
Clearly, the use of collateral is coercive. As is withholding visas, working with no pay, and so on.
From her statement to the court, I quote:
“This is a message that you sent to a first line slave [Camila], quote: “I think it would be good for you to own a fuck toy sex slave for me, that you could groom and use as a tool to pleasure me.” End quote.
Having oral sex performed on her blindfolded?
3. The milieu. Racketeering needs two predicate acts. Just two. So instead of looking at each individual bit, look at the entire picture.
4. Cami authenticated the photos.
5. KR had EXCELLENT counsel.
So, I am not saying this or that. I am giving you an outsider opinion, from someone who knows no one.
That aside, I’m sure there will be appeals of the entire record, and we shall see what happens.
Look at all that injustice allowed by the Mexican justice system through corruption and profit. Keith conspired to add to these numbers, through the very same corrupt system that allows this. No charges though, that’s just regular operating procedure. How many members profit and participate from this system while using our justice system for the same ends?
Pot, meet kettle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/more-than-60000-mexicans-have-been-disappeared-amid-drug-war-officials-say/2020/01/06/07a4ea56-24f8-11ea-9cc9-e19cfbc87e51_story.html
O.k., here goes. I’m going to imagine we’re having this discussion in the deliberation room of a mock jury for this case. Here is what I’d have to say to some of the other comments. Yeah, I’d probably be the juror everyone hates.
—Mocking the victims and calling them “weak, little sensitive plants” literally reduces them to not human.
My take is that Eduardo is saying that Judge Garaufis is the person who seemed to be regarding the women as “weak, little sensitive plants” and insisted they are treated that way and not as the mature adult human beings that they are.
— It shows hate towards women overall.
Why? Because he doesn’t think they need to be treated like children in a courtroom when a man’s life is in the balance?
—Nicki exhibited similar strange, childish behaviour when talking about Sarah Edmondson in the online interview.
I think she was trying (perhaps inelegantly) to get across the same thing as NYT writer Barry Meier, when he wrote, “Several defectors in [The Vow] are Hollywood types comfortable around a camera and seem at times to be playing to it.”
—In Keith’s text to Camila, he says: “I think it would be good for you to own a fuck toy sex slave for me, that you could groom and use as a tool to pleasure me.
Ok, it’s been a few weeks since I read those texts so I’m a bit hazy…but that exchange seemed to be a jealousy-fueled one where Keith was saying hurtful things to try to make Cami feel similarly jealous by making her think he wanted to get some other women to be with 24/7 (implying he’d then have zero time to fit her in. So there!). I think it was an angry, petty argument between two people in a likely dysfunctional relationship, not a true demand for slave procurement.
—How Eduardo does not see this as Sex Trafficking is beyond me…
I thought I read in a transcript text somewhere that the woman involved, Nicole, had shared with others beforehand that she had a fantasy about that precise scenario. Is it outside the realm of possibility that Keith was trying to go above-and-beyond to make her dream a reality? I don’t know her identity, but from all I’ve heard, she is really pretty and naturally thin, just Keith’s type. It’s possible he wanted to wow her to get her more engaged in the lifestyle, not traffic and traumatize her. Of course, it apparently backfired.
—The more extreme the crimes, the more likely a victim is to break down or be distraught while recounting those events, I would think.
Right. It’s to be expected. So why stop the cross examination in its tracks because of it?
I don’t see that there is anything hateful toward women in this essay, and I think he makes good points about a potential lack of fairness from the judge. I have more to say about it, but out of time for now. I’ll be back if I don’t get run out of here by torches and pitchforks before then.
‘I’’ll be back if I don’t get run out of here by torches and pitchforks before then.’
I think you are enjoying a little delusion, with that statement especially, Alison. This is civic life, no one gets blocked by primitive cult members brandishing garden furniture. Are you appearing in a 360 eternal multi-site Brechtian performance of The Crucible? – Theatre Of The Mind?
I feel for your box-office in these times. Break A Leg!
And what about the Mexican girl used to “wow” Nicole with cunnilingus while tied to a table? The same one who was trafficked, groomed, isolated, provided live-in maid service to Nancy Salzman, was tortured, raped as an underaged virgin, photographed nude, threatened in texts by Keith, whose sister was held hostage, whose other sister was impregnated to bear the Avatar, whose brother was used to take videos of his sisters being raped, who was blackmailed, threatened in texts with the release of her nude pics taken “way back when” she was just 15, who attempted suicide and had an untreated psychotic breakdown, who was drugged by Salzman and subjected to mind conditioning experiments?
Love to hear your take on that and, especially, it’s correlation to Mexican immigration rights the author claims to be familiar with in his sex trafficking pursuits, work, whatever. Btw, Asunsolo, Keith & Nancy get you into that line of work?
@Heidi
— And what about the Mexican girl who was used to “wow” Nicole with cunnilingus while tied to a table?
I don’t have a link to a source, but I swear I read somewhere that Camila had expressed an interest in participating in that one event, which occurred when she was an adult.
— Love to hear your take on that and, especially, its correlation to Mexican immigration rights the author claims to be familiar with in his sex trafficking pursuits, work, whatever. BTW, Asunsolo, Keith & Nancy get you into that line of work?
I can’t speak to Mexican immigration rights, but what line of work are you talking about? As far as I know, I’ve never sex-trafficked anyone, if that’s what you mean. I say “as far as I know” because this trial has me unclear on what exactly constitutes sex trafficking. I agree with Eduardo that there may be some other crime Keith should be charged with for that event, regardless of whether his intent was good or bad, but I’m not so convinced about sex trafficking.
Please provide your alleged source as to your repugnant assertion about the girl — trafficked from Mexico at age 13 for free labor to Nancy Salzman while being groomed to provide sexual services to Keith not two years later at age 15. Was this alleged “expression of interest” before or after her suicide attempt?
These are great points Eduardo makes. Sadly people here at Frank Report are blinded by prejudice and hate and most of them have no capacity of evaluating something objectively. They keep bringing points like ‘supporters are brainwashed’, etc. Not considering that they themselves have very little to no experience of Keith, the people involved, judge, prosecution or the trial and that there might be more to this story than what we’ve been told. They’ve been educated mostly by what they see in the media. They believe all this must be true because the main media says it and the US justice system thinks this man is the devil. This is sad because you see so many stories of people who have been on the other side, with no chance against the media and the corrupt justice system. There are many documentaries on this just on Netflix, try the Central Park Five for example. That happened 30 years ago. Are we sure something like this could not happen ever again?
Sadly, people don’t know this until they are in Keith’s position. Ask yourself, do you really think one single man can ‘Brainwash’ ‘Control’ or whatever to so many women for so many years? How about looking at these women for a second? Are they not capable of evaluating and making decisions for themselves? We keep thinking well they were threatened with collateral, according to Frank Report and the US government, there were hundreds of women in DOS, but not once was any collateral released! A few women are saying they are victims of Keith, what about the other hundred women? Could it be that these women (victims) are misrepresenting something? Could they be lying for personal gain? I wonder how much money has Sarah, India, and India’s mom made from their victim position? Come on people! Think more! Or they are sweet little angels and real victims of this ALL POWERFUL man?
I believe there are always two sides to every story. We better start evaluating more sides to this story. I’m not defending Keith, I have no personal interest in that, but I do believe there’s way more ugly stuff going on here than what we’ve been able to see. I am sure the US government has done worse things than whatever Keith is accused of. Just to know no weapons, no violence, no one killed in so many years of this organization and Keith is the real dangerous guy? I’m just not buying it
Nobody needs to ask themselves ‘do you really think one single man can ‘Brainwash’ ‘Control’ or whatever to so many women for so many years?’ because it is common knowledge that he had Nancy and her brain tampering experience and his group of women or his ‘wolf pack’ as they have been referred to and millions of dollars to threaten people with. There is absolutely no way he could have kept up his abuses/brainwashing/illegal activity without the help of said women.
Keith isn’t special, his behaviors follow patterns of various disorders that manifest in a diagnosable predictable way. I’ve never met Charles Manson either, but I can point to his psychopathy through his reasoning, behavior and chosen words.
If YOU can’t recognize the behaviors of sociopaths, narcissists and psychopaths, that says more about your lack of experience and cognition.
I am biased against that category. They are destructive unrepentant people.
This statement has several inaccuracies. It is truth mixed with lies, which is typical of manipulation.
Some lies that the statement says:
“No collateral was released”
Incorrect. Sarah Edmonton’s collateral was released. Specifically, her branding video. We all got to see her naked in the Mexican media (Her intimate parts were hardly blurred) She’s pretty hot.
Several victims have not gained anything. What had Ivy gained?
What exactly is the other side of the story?
Is it Clare‘s dad, his ghost spirit attacking Keith and manipulating the market so Keith loses? What is it?
Anthony-
Let’s unpack your comment/opinion:
—there might be more to this story than what we’ve been told
There always is more to the story. In a trial the prosecution can only present a narrative. Nothing novel about that fact.
—They’ve been educated mostly by what they see in the media
How else would the public be educated? Again, nothing novel here.
—The Central Park Five for example. That happened 30 years ago. Are we sure something like this could not happen ever again?
You are speaking of the criminal case, where five young men were falsely prosecuted, a in which the victim had no recollection of the events of the crime. The prosecution’s witnesses at Raniere’s trial were fully cognizant at the time; Keith Raniere committed his crimes. Please explain how these two criminal cases are remotely linked? I believe you are comparing apples and oranges.
—Sadly, people don’t know this until they are in Keith’s position. Ask yourself, do you really think one single man can ‘Brainwash’ ‘Control’ or whatever to so many women for so many years?
Keith used fear tactics to terrify people into not leaving or going to authorities. He had people falsely prosecuted in the civil and criminal court systems.
Anyone who left risked being bankrupted in court and having their reputation besmirched. Additionally DOS members risked their collateral being leaked like what happened to Sarah Edmondson. Do you remember Sarah’s collateral? 1/2 of Mexico got to see her naked spread eagle while getting branded? Her collateral was fed to the media.
Kieth had an army of enablers who helped with the indoctrination/brainwashing and the financing of civil lawsuits. Nothing was entirely done by him. It’s why Clare Bronfman, Allison Mack, and Nancy Salzman were indicted.
The reason Keith Raniere was prosecuted using R.I.C.O. is because he was the head of a criminal enterprise with many members. Keith never acted alone in regards to any of the crimes he was prosecuted for by the federal government.
—A few women are saying they are victims of Keith, what about the other hundred women?
Bill Cosby had many defenders including the woman who played his wife and Whoopi Goldberg and a number of other women who vouched for him.
So Raniere didn’t sexually assault every woman he came in contact with. How about all the women who gave victim impact statements under the pains and penalties of perjury. I imagine you believe they were made up what Keith did? Then are Cami and her mom liars? Is Ivy Navares a liar? Is India Oxenberg a liar? How about the anonymous slave of Allison Mack who testified at trial, is she a liar to then?
__
———————————————
—I am sure the US government has done worse things than whatever Keith is accused of. Just to know no weapons, no violence, no one killed in so many years of this organization and Keith is the real dangerous guy?
Unequivocally the US government has done worse. How exactly does that in any way absolve Keith Raniere of his crimes? So every child rapist should go free?
———————————————
—
—Just to know no weapons, no violence, no one killed in so many years of this organization and Keith is the real dangerous guy
Polite Reminder: Once again it’s a Federal RICO case not a normal criminal case. Honestly, RICO can be confusing.
Anthony I will concede one point to you. The point being RICO. RICO makes the prosecution of an individual simpler and far easier.
https://reason.com/2016/04/29/conspiracy-laws-ripe-for-abuse/
I do believe Raniere was correctly prosecuted by the RICO statute.
I very much appreciate if you could take the time to respond civilly as I have responded to you out of respect.
Questions….for Anthony,
Can one man control a group of women? You ask?
History shows us, that one man can control a country, and start wars.
By the way, Keith didn’t act alone? That’s why Nancy and Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack, soon will be inmates.
And why Clare Bronfman has a Yenta for the next 6 years.
You say you are not defending Keith. And yet you try to blame Sarah and India for sharing their story, the way they did.
They are lying for personal gain.
Google India Oxenberg, and ask yourself the question: Is this how someone wants to be regarded by the rest of the world?
Where is the personal gain? The victimhood?
You say you are not defending Keith. And yet you try to give your arguments validity by using the same crap, Keith did. Questioning their motives.
You wonder how much money, Sarah, India and Catherine made from their “victim position”.
Could you give me some examples of the lies that were told by Sarah and/or India?
You state here: there were hundreds of women in DOS. But not once was any collateral released.
You say this as if it’s a noble thing, that none of the collateral has ever been released.
If collateral would have been released, we would be talking about plain and simple blackmail.
The collateral was, of course, never meant to be released. That would have been a felony.
The collateral made sure the women with the aspirations to change the world, once they were in positions of power, would “stay in line” with the wishes of their “grandmaster”. So the sisterhood that was meant to break the male hegemony in places of power was a little too busy shooting pics of one another’s private parts, to send to their male “grandmaster”. Otherwise, I am sure it would have been very successful.
Last thing I heard, DOS is now a dance group.
If DOS had been a real women only thing, a group where Keith had no knowledge of, then you can argue that a group of intelligent women, inspired each other and others to make this world a better place. And to show their devotion to the sorority, they would all have the same brand.
No biggy. Then we wouldn’t be talking about DOS now.
The fact that Keith was the head honcho of DOS, that women got branded with his initials, and lied to about the meaning makes it a whole different ballgame.
I am from Holland. A little country next to Germany. As to your question, if 1 man can brainwash hundreds of people/women, I would like to refer to my “neighbors” in Germany. There was a time some Austrian dude told the Germans they were “ubermenschen”. So they all start raising their right hands, and went on “tour” in Europe, spreading the “happy” message. After 5 years, Europe was destroyed, millions were dead. Millions were homeless.
5 years!!! Keith’s “reign” lasted 20 years.
Just so you understand, I am not comparing Keith with Hitler.
I bring it up to show that what Keith did has been done before on a much larger scale.
Everything you say/claim in this post is vague. It all seems to head towards a conspiracy. The conspiracy theories that hundreds of millions are being spent just to put Keith where he currently is?
Why spend all that money? They could have him whacked for a K of coke.
But no, let’s spent years and years and ridiculous amounts of money, to bring Keith before a jury, and then hope for the best.
Last but not least, you claim that know body died. Think this claim is somewhat premature.
I mean, Keith and rich women dying is a subject for investigation in my opinion.
Love to hear your thoughts regarding all this.
I think it could help to share facts . What is the other side? That dozens of women lied? That the texts between Keith and Camila were fabricated? Abuse is a long process so it makes sense this lasted years.
“Ask yourself, do you really think one single man can ‘Brainwash’ ‘Control’ or whatever to so many women for so many years?”
Yes. Jim Jones did it. So did Manson.
Let him speak but I don’t agree on just about any of it. If these were real issues, however, KR would have raised them at the trial but he didn’t which shows me how “flimsy” these new points are. The girl said he had sex with her at age 15. End of story. KR has only been brought to trial on a tiny fraction of his crimes anyway and justice was both done and seen to be done.
If they want to make the justice system better, there are many cases must more deserving than KR out there.
It will also be a waste of the N5’s time and effort and emotional energy to try to get KR out as they will fail.
If they have time and money to invest in systems with bad justice, they should perhaps start with Saudi, China, North Korea (or even Japan) before going after the USA (which, like the UK, has internationally speaking, a very fair justice system).
Eduardo is assuming that the women lied about feeling blackmailed by Keith after Frank Parlato and greedy lawyers talked to them.
No. Look at the years of abuse that Keith inflicted on dozens of women. It’s the same story over and over again. You would have to believe that dozens of women lied – and that Keith’s texts to Cami are fabricated.
Open your eyes, Eduardo.
Si el rio suena es porque agua lleva.
“ In the USA, we pride ourselves”
“We”, who is “we”? Is he a dual citizen, or is he speaking on behalf of citizens while holding a visa? What’s his status in this country?
I got a bit further, and then I realized “Oh yeah, this guy is a Red Pill MRA that believes men have it so much worse than women, and that women are liars.” So I stopped because I don’t care unless any argument makes it to appeals.
This isn’t the case to address an unequal justice system, centered on a White man that used millions of dollars to abuse the justice system for his own personal vendettas. He’s an expert on buying justice, through unethical corrupt lawyers that will go after anyone for the right price. He’ll keep doing it until Clare’s money is exhausted.
I’m not interested. It’s all been said before, and it’s boring and pathetic.
Re This Article:
I actually found this article more offensive than anything Scott Johnson has ever said.
However, I also believe Frank is correct in publishing this article……Monsters and their followers need to be illuminated awash in light….
So that the public is informed as to the misogyny of Raniere and Nxivm. Remember when Raniere said rape and child and child molestation? These monsters should be highlighted for what they are. Monsters.
This article, written by a Raniere acolyte, serves as a reminder why the judge sentenced Raniere to 120 years in prison. Raniere will always be a threat to women and womanhood in addition to every one of his followers.
I think the Salzman family should take out a restraining order.
Message to Eduardo:
Your mother and grandmother are women, you asshole!
Well said, nice guy. Agree also that the article is more offensive than Scott
Re This “Supposed” Article By Eduardo:
Eduardo’s arguments are valid legal arguments and may help to determine future case law. He clearly has some understanding of federal criminal law. I personally believe if Eduardo were on an episode of Ally McBeal or Perry Mason Raniere would get a second trial and be acquitted. Fortunately, reality is not like a television episode of Perry Mason or Ally McBeal. Eduardo keep on fighting the good fight, my friend!
Key into;
Fortunately, reality is not like a television episode.
What difference exists between reality and TV exactly?
Mexican Lady-
My point is that Eduardo’s arguments are not in fact true legal arguments, but the kind of arguments you see on fictional television shows.
His arguments and legal reasoning to explain why Raniere needs a new trial have no merit.
His article is the ramblings of someone who has no idea of how the law works.
I was being sarcastic towards Eduardo.
Thanks for explaining, nice guy
There is no difference if you receive your reality and knowledge only from the television screen while watching fictional programs and subordinate your other real experiences in life to the experiences you unconsciously absorb while watching television.
Unfortunately, that’s true
Thanks for the approval.
Trying to read this with an open mind. Many points are raised. What immediately strikes me is the notion that Keith did not raise any defense because witnesses were intimidated. I find that hard to believe given the number of pro-Raniere letters submitted to the judge prior to sentencing.
Unlike most of us, Keith was able to hire one of the best defense attorneys in the United States. I suspect that the defense did not put up witnesses for fear of the exposure from cross-examination, or of opening the door to even more damaging information.
I believe this trial was not so much about sex as it was about prolific and horrid abuse. The weak, including vulnerable Mexican citizens were targeted. I just don’t see a vast conspiracy to frame a basically uninteresting guy from Albany because of an “alternative” lifestyle – No more than I think that Walmart conspired to shut down Consumers Buyline out of fear of competition.
Also, to be blunt, if you don’t want the Mexican authorities to haul your ass out of their country, do not run away and hide there to avoid investigation. Shutting down your cell phone and email accounts is a dead giveaway to your intentions.
Eduardo, I appreciate you sharing on this site. However, keep in mind that Keith is very fortunate not to have been prosecuted for the things that went on in the Northern District of New York. It could have been much worse in the long run, with a virtually assured placement in Super Max. If I were in your shoes, I would now focus my energy on trying to influence Keith being assigned to a more moderate prison.
I think it’s safe to say in the present tense. He is lucky he isn’t accused of anything else. But slow water washes the coast.
Frank coddles women also, just check out the latests story and comments about banning me and Scott. LOL
Having stated that fact,
Eduardo Asunsolo is a supporter and friend of Keith Raniere. He has a view of his friend that is different than my own view of the man they call Vanguard. ===> That’s because Raniere hasn’t sued Asunsolo. LOL
Eduardo has maintained that Keith got a raw deal at his trial. He thinks I and my publication, the Frank Report, had a great deal to do with the false narrative about Raniere and the destruction of Nxivm. ===> Welcome to the club, ask Scott about his Amway lawsuit sometime – Frank could call or email Scott to get his story, let’s see if the intrepid reporter does. LOL
He confronted me on this topic in a respectful way. He wanted to put his arguments out to the public prior to sentencing and felt, since I had much to do with Raniere’s incarceration, that I should be willing to present the other side, in the spirit of fairness. ===> The time for his arguments was before and during the trial, not just before sentencing, as due process is not unlimited, some crimes have statutes of limitations and there are proper and required times to do things on the defense side as well and Raniere’s supporters blew it – much much for bad-a$$ women and the “Society of Protectors” men, Raniere even trained them to protect him and they failed. LOL
At the time we met, a few days before Raniere was sentenced, I told him there was nothing he could publish in Raniere’s defense, prior to sentencing, that will change the fact that he will be sentenced to life. ===> That’s because it was too late, see above. LOL
I said, “if you have evidence of due process violations, of prosecutorial misconduct, or judicial bias, as you claim, you should present this to Keith’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, who might be able to use this in an appeal.” ===> They apparently did this and Agnifilo didn’t use it before/at the sentencing and we’ll have to wait for the appeal. LOL
Shortly after, Raniere reached out to me by phone from prison. This was reported on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, and in many media outlets around the world since it was peculiar that Raniere would do his first media interview since his arrest with his nemesis. ===> It was so peculiar and weird that most people didn’t pay attention and have since forgotten it. LOL
I made it clear to Raniere that, while I did not think he was a man of good character, “I would fight for due process for even the devil himself.” ===> And you would probably be just as successful with the devil. LOL
Eduardo and others of Raniere’s friends [along with Raniere from prison] put together their arguments, of how they believe certain aspects of the case were handled improperly and prejudicially against Raniere. ===> It’s up to Raniere’s lawyers to make those arguments before/during the trial, infinite doovers are not allowed. LOL
Most readers know about their allegation of tampering with the photos of Camila. ===> But the proper audience would have been the jury. LOL
They also put forth an argument that the sex trafficking of Nicole charge was improper: ===> See above. LOL
They argued that Raniere never intended to flee to Mexico, he was visiting and not hiding and should have had bail: ===> Does everyone who visits Mexico use burner phones and encrypted email, as well as have access to hundreds of millions of dollars and private jets? LOL
They have more presentations planned. How far it will go is anyone’s guess. But if the issue is due process, they have a right to make their argument and let it stand or fall on the merits. Due process does not depend on what we think of Keith Raniere. ===> They can make their argument any time they want, but they are late to the party and pushing a large bolder up a very steep hill at this point. LOL
Recently Asunsolo has been interviewed in Mexican media and some of his message seemed to resonate with some of the reporters there, particularly his comparison of US and Mexican justice. ===> Some, seemed, some, so what? LOL
Below is Asunsolo’s summary of his position. I know it may anger some that I published it, but I think it fair to hear him out. If you disagree with his arguments, please feel free to debate it, preferably in a respectful manner, in the comments section, or submit an op-ed to FrankParlato@gmail.com. ===> Any “anger” will be very wimpy. LOL
This is not a debate on whether Raniere is a rascal or not; it is a debate on whether he received due process. It can never be wrong to review and debate that, even if the person is the worst offender we ever heard of. Indeed it is especially then that examination is required most and if doubt be raised, debated vigorously. ===> Rascals aren’t sentenced to 120 years in prison, convicted felons are. For me, the time for debate is over, let Raniere’s supporters debate with the judicial system, there are literally millions of new people who are being scammed by Amway and other MLM scams and that is therefore much better use of me and Scott’s time. LOL
I do not think the argument against publishing it is persuasive: that this will retraumatize the victims by forcing them to relive their experience. Most of them are participating in a civil lawsuit against Raniere to get money from the Bronfman sisters, and they will have to relive it again, by their own choice, multiple times, including depositions and cross examination at trial. ===> If you want to beat the dead horse, go for it – Scott has had numerous guests on his podcast who were scammed by Amway and other MLM scams and I think every single one of them feels good about airing their grievances and educating others – it is quite a cathartic process and very unfortunate most people posting here refuse to do the right thing. LOL
If they can do this for money, it cannot be unfair to publish various points of view of the criminal trial that sent a man to prison for life. The victims do not have to read or respond. The victims the Court ruled it would use first names only are not identified here, so their anonymity is protected. ===> The civil trial may result in their identities becoming exposed. LOL
The review of due process via the First Amendment is due process itself.
By Eduardo Asunsolo ===> That would be the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. LOL
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Keith Raniere, there were irregularities in his trial. ===> There are irregularities in most trials, the question is whether they are significant enough to overcome the verdict. LOL
In the USA, we pride ourselves on fair trials, but in his trial, because the media, led by the highly-biased Frank Parlato of the Frank Report, made Raniere out to be a despicable character, the prosecutors and the judge were able to dispense with “due process” and make sure his defense was not heard. ===> Define “we” – while our trials may be more fair than most countries, they are far from perfect. LOL People could have come forward to defend Raniere and they failed to do so. LOL
If you look at the evidence presented by the prosecution, aside from the hatred fomented against this man, it is flimsy. He was condemned more for his lifestyle than his actions. ===> The evidence was very strong, especially since Raniere offered virtually zero defense and therefore did not even offer a reasonable doubt. LOL
I will now briefly touch on some of the most salient points: ===> And I will refute each and every one of them. LOL
Sex Trafficking
A sex trafficking charge was sustained where there was no money exchanged, over a single sexual encounter, with an adult woman who consented before, during and after the incident. Keith himself wasn’t physically involved in the act. ===> There was induced free labor and blackmail involved, so virtual money was involved. LOL Also, RICO laws permit prosecution of those involved in the crimes even if they weren’t physically involved and this appears to be a major miscalculation of the world’s smartest man – he was apparently too busy f*cking underage girls while the law, which was written for the mafia in the 1970s, was also applied to other white collar criminal activities during the ensuing decades. LOL
How did the jury find “intent” from this? ===> Easy-peasy, see above. LOL
How could someone know she was unhappy with this single sexual encounter when she said that she was fine with it, before, during and after? The sex trafficking statute was never intended to be misused this way. ===> Because of the blackmail, and how do you know the sex trafficking statute, together with the RICO laws, were never intended to be used in this manner? LOL
Sex trafficking was intended to be where women are placed into subjugation for commercial purposes and denied the freedom to leave this kind of life. I’ve personally helped dozens of this women asking for asylum in the US. To call Nicole’s experience sex trafficking is offensive to true victims of these horrible acts. ===> Just because Nicole’s experience wasn’t identical to others that you’ve “helped” (I used quotation marks because many of them were probably lying through their teeth), doesn’t mean the statute can’t be used against Raniere. LOL
Nicole, the alleged sex trafficking victim, had one sexual experience, and she gave her consent to the incident. She was even asked if she wanted to continue it while it was in progress. She consented. ===> Nicole “consented” while tied down and was being blackmailed. LOL
It was only later, under pressure from, first, Keith’s vicious enemy, Frank Parlato, then the rapacious lawyer, Neil Glazer, who planned to use her for a civil lawsuit, and then finally the US authorities, who, I believe, bent her testimony to suit their crime, that she agreed to testify that she was trafficked and in fear of the release of her collateral. ===> You would probably be another one of Raniere’s vicious enemies if Raniere sued you with Bronfman’s money. LOL Using the words “rapacious” and “lawyer” next to each other is repetitive, virtually all lawyers are rapacious, it’s their job. LOL
This is not sex trafficking. Possibly it might be some other, lesser charge, although I don’t personally think so. ===> That would be your opinion against the jury’s verdict, guess who won that argument? LOL
I am confident there has never been a similar sex trafficking case in the US legal system. The only reason they could get away with it is that Raniere was hated. A hated man does not deserve justice it seems. ===> If you’re so confident, have a lawyer look into it and prove it. LOL
Camila Child Porn? Really?
The alleged child porn pictures of a 15-year-old Mexican girl, Camila, “found’ on an electronic device seized from Keith’s property seems to have been tampered with. The FBI admitted during trial that someone accessed the device while in FBI custody, but they did not know who it was! ===> And yet Raniere’s lawyers did nothing about it even though they had the due process opportunity to object. LOL
That’s something that some Americans would want you to think could only happen in a Mexican court, not in a US federal court. ===> Some Americans don’t know how U.S. federal courts, or even state or county courts, operate. LOL
Think of it. The supposed child porn pictures were in FBI custody. Someone got into the devices and the FBI says they do not know who did it? And then our experts find the files were tampered with, dates were altered. The very dates used to determine her age by the prosecution. ===> The altered dates were a period of a single hour, not enough to change her age. LOL
Lauren Salzman
Crying for Leniency
While being cross examined by Keith’s lawyers, one critical witness, Lauren Salzman, on the verge of making admissions that could have altered the trajectory of the entire case, was excused by the judge from further cross examination because she started crying. ===> As I stated in an earlier comment, I view this as the major flaw of the trial but not enough to overturn it, especially since Agnifilo didn’t even attempt to continue the cross examination the next morning. LOL
Let’s think about this for a second. The entire paternalism is revolting. If Lauren was a man, the judge would have told her, ‘man up,’ ‘finish your answer’. But because she wept copiously, she was excused. ===> I agree, the judge f*cked up this issue, as Frank does on a regular basis on this website. LOL
What a precedent! All a woman must do is start crying and she can’t be cross examined? This brings the proverbial throwing of a tantrum to get your way, to a whole new level. ===> I agree, especially since Salzman was a lead bad-a$$ woman warrior. LOL
She can send a man to life in prison. Lie on the stand– and then when the defense starts to challenge her, all she has to do is start crying and the judge will cancel cross examination. ===> What lie did Salzman tell? LOL
This woman was a cooperating witness. She was guarding for her own [lighter] sentence. We can not delete that it’s possible for people to create an upset when something delicate is being challenged. ===> Cooperating witnesses getting lighter sentences to nail the head perp is how the game is played, nothing unique here. LOL
I was there. Her testimony was challenged and she started balling. And the judge stopped the cross examination! He said “I’m a human first and a Judge second”. This is the opposite of justice. ===> And so is Frank not allowing me to speak my mind the opposite of journalism. LOL
For this reason alone, Keith deserves a new trial. ===> Raniere does not deserve a new trial, he deserves an appeal and then perhaps a new trial, but probably not. LOL
Keep in mind that the judge scolded Keith’s attorney for doing his job and frankly he intimidated him. After Lauren’s cross examination which was stopped by the judge, Keith’s lawyer had to timidly ask questions of other female witnesses so they wouldn’t cry and he would get blamed for making them cry – when all he was doing was doing his job. ===> I doubt Agnifilo felt intimidated, he’s getting paid too much for that, plus he knows how the game is played – he was just making a calculated risk/reward decision and screwed up for not raising the issue the next morning. LOL
Only Sarah Edmondson’s first name was allowed to be mentioned in court despite the fact that she wrote a book, starred in a major Canadian podcast about her role in Nxivm and had filmed a hit TV docuseries, The Vow. ===> I agree this was not necessary, but again it isn’t enough to overturn the verdict. LOL
Ridiculous Naming Rules
The judge ruled that women testifying against Raniere and women referred to at the trial as being against Raniere should be identified by only their first names, while female supporters of Raniere were identified by first and last names, creating an impression for the jury that women whose first names only were used were the victims, while women whose first and last names were used were guilty of crimes. This was one cute trick by the prosecution. ===> This is done all the time, nothing unique in this case – could the judge have changed the dividing line slightly, such as Edmondson, sure, but he didn’t. LOL
On top of that, all men were named by first and last name, creating a gender unneutral scenario, further implying that all women whose first names only were used were the victims. ===> None of the men were at the trial as victims. LOL
To show you how ridiculous it was, even women who wrote books and made documentaries like Sarah Edmondson and India Oxenberg were only identified as Sarah and India. ===> To be fair, India’s “documentary” wasn’t even in the planning stages as far as Scott and I know. LOL
India Oxenberg could only be referred to at trial by her first name.
Come on, everyone knew who they were. But they could only be called Sarah and India – because the prosecution, with the judge’s consent, wanted the jury to know that they decided they were victims. ===> I doubt the jury knew who Oxenberg was before or during the trial, same with Edmondson. LOL
It’s outrageous that the prosecution got to decide whose names were first names only and the judge supported that. ===> The judge decided who were allowed to use first names only, the DOJ only gave their opinion, as did the defense. LOL
Did Witnesses Lie?
The defense argument that some witnesses were lying, and that all witnesses were adult women who consented to everything they did, was shut down again and again by the judge. Look at the transcripts of the trial. ===> The defense can’t just scream, “liar, liar, pants on fire,” they have to bring evidence to support their claim, and they did very little of that – look at the transcripts of the trial and consenting while being blackmailed is NOT consent. LOL
The truth is these were adult women who made adult decisions and then, at the prosecution’s urging, they reverted to childhood and cried “we are weak, little, sensitive plants.” ===> Tell me about it, it’s the same with Frank, except he is acting as the prosecution and the judge, which is his right on his website. LOL
This whole thing needs sunlight. ===> The sun has set on Raniere, good luck turning night into day. LOL
I have said this again and again: Switch the genders. If this were a group of men who chose to get branded and give collateral this would never have gone to trial. ===> I agree with this point regarding the branding, not the blackmail part. LOL
Kidnapping Deportation?
Then there were the strange circumstances of Raniere being seized by armed gunmen in Mexico and removed within hours to the USA. ===> That was indeed strange, perhaps it was done for Raniere’s protection. LOL
Normally there is an extradition procedure, which should have international human rights observers wondering how this happened and if it was a crime against Raniere. ===> This is true, although the outcome probably would have been the same. LOL
The USA should not be permitted to kidnap people in Mexico or any foreign country without due process. In fact, the whole question of jurisdiction is at issue. ===> Some countries have agreements that look a lot like kidnapping, it happens all the time. LOL
No Bail Go to Jail
Prosecutors alleged Raniere fled to Mexico to hide from US authorities and was denied bail and held in prison, where he was frequently prevented from meeting with his attorneys to prepare for trial. ===> They had plenty of evidence, I don’t know anyone who uses an encrypted burner phone and encrypted email when visiting Mexico, and most people are not judged to be a threat to others or a flight risk with access to hundreds of millions of dollars and a private jet that can fly to a place that has no extradition treaty with the U.S. LOL
He should have had bail. He offered a perfect bail scenario, where he would have been at no risk of flight. It is the prejudice against Mexico that worked against him getting bail. As if Mexico is some third world country in the remotest part of the world. ===> There is always a risk of flight and the law generally doesn’t allow a two-tiered bail system. LOL Mexico is a third world country, that’s why the wall is being built. LOL
Raniere was in Mexico because his partner, the mother of his youngest son, is Mexican and he wanted to be with her and their son. ===> Raniere could have brought them to the U.S. LOL
The dishonest representation by the prosecutors that Raniere had fled to Mexico to hide from US authorities was used as the sole excuse to deny him bail and hold him in prison. They had possession of his travel records and his passport while they stated false facts to the public. Again, this is outrageous! ===> As described above, that was NOT the sole reason. LOL
He Is Hated So Due Process Does Not Matter
The reality is that the US government decided to get Keith Raniere and they weren’t about to stop to worry about his rights. They knew they could get away with this because no one would dare defend him because, after all, he was a despised person. ===> Raniere is hated by some and apparently loved by others who abandoned him, even though they constantly practiced “readiness drills.” LOL
He was unpopular with the mob. ===> That’s the nature of mobs, but there were no mobs that were a part of the trial. LOL
There was no need to worry about a fair trial. Nobody would care if he got a fair trial. Nobody wanted to hear his defense, just in case it might lead to is acquittal based on the law and due process application of the law. ===> I cared whether Raniere got a fair trial, and he did – not great, but fair enough to convict – and the defense was essentially nonexistent. LOL
Even if his defense is found to be wanting and deficient, he should have been entitled to present it under fair and unbiased conditions. ===> Then why didn’t you and others testify on Raniere’s behalf? LOL I know the answer by the way, it’s because Raniere’s lawyers didn’t want to open up defense witnesses to cross examination by the DOJ. LOL
In the case of Keith Raniere, during every step, from the arrest, through the prosecution, it was saturated with prejudice and an obscenely arrogant assumption that the government could get away with anything because Raniere was a bad man, a cult leader, a man who had many women, a man who supposedly branded women. ===> Raniere had highly-paid lawyers to push back against that and they failed. LOL
Nowhere were voices permitted to be heard that all of these witnesses who testified were adult women, that everyone involved consented to everything, and only retroactively did they withdraw consent. ===> See the comment two comments above, and consent while under blackmail and other lies, such as Raniere was not involved in DOS, is not consent. LOL
The proof of prejudice carried over into sentencing. The judge gave him 120 years. Even murderers don’t get this kind of sentence. Neither do kidnappers, or rapists. Raniere was not convicted of murdering, kidnapping, or raping anyone. There were no violent crimes. ===> There may not have been any physically violent crimes, but there were extremely large numbers of financially, mentally, and psychologically violent crimes, and that is what Raniere was sentenced for. LOL
Look at the crimes and examine them in the plain light of who was hurt and how every one of the so-called victims consented to the actions they did and only later, under the influence of the US government, did they withdraw consent and claim to be victims of abuse. ===> Some of the victims approached the FBI first, so this is plainly false. LOL
Then there is another horror of injustice, We are told we cannot question female victims. To question their veracity is to “victim shame.” If they were men, they could be questioned. But women are sensitive plants who cannot stand up and tell the truth? This is sexist, a macho attitude by men who claim to “protect” them, and an excuse for women who want to avoid their responsibility. ===> I agree, but you won’t get much sympathy from Frank, he does the same thing all of the time on this website. LOL
They cannot withstand scrutiny? What nonsense. Women will never get equality with men if they cannot stand for their truth – using their true name, first and last. This is, after all, what Keith was trying to teach and he has hung by the forces that opposed the maturation of women. ===> I agree with the equality part but not the first and last name part, see the previous comments, but Raniere apparently didn’t teach that concept very effectively, did he? LOL
This was a trial where women too were put on trial. And the verdict is that we are told we cannot question a woman – or she’ll start crying and the trial will be stopped and a lynching will ensue. ===> Only Raniere was put on trial, all of his codefendants plead guilty. LOL
From the arraignment onwards, Keith Raniere’s attorney Marc Agnifilo argued that if the DOS women were men, they would never have been considered victims. ===> That argument falls flat, as the analogy Agnifilo was using did not include blackmail. LOL
I can promise you, Marc Agnifilo, Keith’s attorney, had to worry he might get lynched too. He had to go easy on the witnesses [female only] after Lauren cried her way out of cross examination. ===> The only worry Agnifilo has getting lynched is if he is on his way to the bank to deposit some of Bronfman’s cash in payment for his services. LOL
Examine the trial record closely. Take away the hate and emotion – because Keith is different, and you have in this case something comparable to a witch trial. ===> Hate and emotion are part of nearly every trial, they cannot be taken away. LOL
Every decision went the way of the prosecution. I remember once when Agnifilo ran about 10 minute longer on a cross examination, the judge scolded him. But when the prosecutor, Moira Penza, admitted she was going to go over on direct examination by several hours, the judge indulgently said, “take your time.” ===> Perhaps Agnifilo didn’t forewarn the judge his cross examination would go longer, that’s HIS fault. LOL
I can admire the judge’s paternalism, if it wasn’t a courtroom. He was treating Moira like she was his granddaughter. This is not my sense of justice. The judge should have been gender-blind and seeking truth. ===> i don’t admire the judge’s paternalism because it was a courtroom, just as I don’t admire Frank’s paternalism on this website. LOL
There is no proof that only men lie and that women always tell the truth and just because they say they are victims, the defense has no right to question that. ===> Nobody claimed that only men lie, only that Agnifilo was unable to prove the women lied. LOL
When he stopped Lauren’s cross examination when she was at the height of her crying jag, the judge said, “I’m a human first, a judge second”. That was his stark admission that he was biased. He was supposed to be a judge first. He is supposed to be justice incarnate, the spirit of justice in the human form, the personification of justice. That was why he was there. But when he said he was a judge second, he told the world he no longer was qualified to be a judge first. ===> I agree, but Agnifilo blew it by not asking to continue the next morning and cutting off her testimony probably didn’t change the guilty findings. LOL
Aristotle said, “When people dispute, they take refuge in the judge; and to go to the judge is to go to justice; for the nature of the judge is to be a sort of animate justice.” ===> Aristotle was was wrong then and he’s still wrong. LOL
But this judge was not animate justice. He was a human, a man with a great deal of prejudice and gender bias. In this case Keith was predetermined to be a demon, a witch, and he was punished, without evidence. ===> All judges are human, but I didn’t see a great deal of prejudice, but gender bias, yes. LOL However, there was plenty of other evidence to convict Raniere. LOL
Someone, one day in the future, will investigate the case of Keith Raniere with the perspective that only time can give, and realize that justice was not served, but annihilated. That regardless of whether Raniere is a good man or a bad man, he was deprived of the right to defend himself. ===> They better hurry, Raniere may not be with us much longer, and he was NOT deprived of the right to defend himself, he and his lawyer chose not to put on a defense and they made a serious error. LOL
Keith Raniere
Sure, he was technically permitted to put on a defense, but his witnesses were intimidated, the witnesses against him coached and coddled and the judge, as a human first, and secondly a judge, showed every sign of bias, at every step, with every ruling. ===> Raniere’s witnesses are probably guilty of crimes as well, or they wouldn’t have been intimidated, there is no “technical” about it. LOL
I cannot prove all this with a simple essay such as this, but a careful study will prove it. And the 120-year sentence confirms it – the US justice system is not dissimilar to my native Mexico. The only difference is that the Mexican system is more honest. ===> You haven’t proven much, so get busy with your careful study. LOL Yes, the Mexican system is known for its honesty
We do not pretend to such perfection as we do in America with our high talk and low values of justice. ===> Not all of us pretend to perfect American justice and I’m one of them, and in Raniere’s case, I say close enough and I think that’s what the judge will do if/when an appeal is filed in time. LOL
It is clear. Justice demands that Keith Raniere get a new trial. ===> That’s not clear. At all. LOL
[I will have more to say on this topic in the coming days and weeks. Thank you for reading — Eduardo Asunsolo.] ===> You’re welcome, and you and the other Raniere supporters are also welcome to come on Scott’s podcast, but since you haven’t responded to an earlier invitation neither one of us is holding our breaths. LOL
—Frank coddles women also, just check out the latests story and comments about banning me and Scott. LOL
Isn’t coddling better than acting like a misanthrope to men and women?
So if I’m not mistaken, the way the judge did the sentencing is 20 years for some charges and 40 for others. I think he did this because even he knows that the sex trafficking charge is flimsy and could be overturned. At the sentencing, he didn’t really focus on Nicole, he focused on Camila and the underage sex. I think he is well aware of the thorny issues around consent, and that’s why he focused on the most black and white charge. But he also focused on Raniere’s character, like not paying child support, and of course refusing to admit any wrongdoing.
I wouldn’t be shocked if he got the child porn and sex trafficking charges tossed, honestly. But here’s the thing, Camila isn’t the only woman who says he did this to her when she was underage. There are several. Not to mention, likely a lot more women over time who will come forward and allege abuse. If he gets those charges dropped, the FBI might file more. Face it, he spent his entire life abusing women. There are probably more instances of cruelty and even crimes that we haven’t heard about yet.
Yes, men who like sex with 15 year olds usually have loads of attempts to get them. The ones we have heard about which have not been prosecuted are probably only a drop in the ocean.
Yes, we only prosecute crimes we know.
The drunk driver is arrested the first time caught. The driver has driven drunk copious times before
None of these are successful legal arguments. There are several lies by omission. And mocking the victims and calling them “weak, little sensitive plants” literally reduces them to not human. These women were a part of the “incredible, loving, mission-based” Nxivm community for years. Decades even. And this is how one of their own respects, trusts and cares for them? Wow. I am with Catherine Oxenburg. This isn’t a community I want to be part of! I could make an argument for Keith. I could really critique this guy’s defense. But I won’t. Because I don’t work for child molester cult leaders. Especially for free. And that’s all this is. The podcast. The dossier report. The legal challenge contest. Any platform they can get. Or create. It is an attempt to get other people to solve Keith’s problem for them and ultimately for Keith for free. It’s how Keith has always operated. And still does. He will waste his followers’ time, energy and resources as long as he’s able. They weren’t “intimidated” by law enforcement out of testifying on Keith’s behalf. They were afraid of their own criminal conduct being exposed. And ridiculous, disgusting behavior and practices being legally documented. You can’t be threatened with legal action unless you are guilty of illegal activities. Think about it. If the person most important to you has been falsely accused of hideous crimes, what wouldn’t you do to defend them in court? Could anything stop you from defending an innocent soul in court from life in prison? I thought they were creating a more ethical world? How does this cowardice square with that decision?
Asunsolo seems to be someone with empathy and integrity, with no concept of evil. Maybe his time would be better spent pondering the question from his own master. In a patent application, Raniere asks: “Can a luciferian be rehabilitated?” And in case the die-hards argue that he was referring to others, could he have been referring to himself? The description fits his modus operandi to perfection (except for the omission of the word ‘narcissist’, but then again, narcissists never see themselves as such).
A sociopath without conscience or loyalty, who realizes his desires (destruction for the pleasure of it) by any means (inc. intimidation, blackmail, deceit, no conscience …); “all under the mask of good psychological adjustment. Sounds like a description of Raniere himself.
The patent states “A Luciferian is a person, who commits destructive acts. A Luciferian is a type of sociopath. He has severe behavioral problems that are masked by good psychological adjustment. He appears on the outside to be sane but he is not. A Luciferian is fundamentally unhappy and feels enmity toward others but has learned that, for him, pleasure can be had from achieving his selfish desires such as destroying material objects or relationships, and causing others pain, distress, or unhappiness. A Luciferian realizes his desires by any means—without consideration for others and without remorse. A Luciferian is a person lacking in conscience and loyalty to others. He commonly employs manipulation and deceit to achieve his desired end and is therefore capable of acts that could be highly destructive to those that interact with him. A Luciferian, therefore, typically experiences pleasure or gratification in situations where “normal” people would be repulsed or disturbed.”
https://www.google.com/patents/US20130281879
https://frankreport.com/2017/06/23/raniere-patent-offers-discovery-on-whether-a-sociopath-luciferian-can-be-rehabilitated/
Thanks for the link. Seem to he describing KR himself – takes one to know one I suppose.
Eduardo Asunsolo may have written this. But make no mistake, every single point was 100% directed by KR.
Good point.
For me, it is scary the control Keith still has over some of his followers.
Agree with that. I also believe KAR choreographed his defense at trial and tied his attorneys’ hands. He’s pulling all the strings behind the scenes, including the petition and the dance parties, to his great detriment. He should listen to others once in a while.
This guy is a sociopath. He must be dreaming that some day he himself will become the Vanguard.
This man is mentally unfit and should not be given any space in the public arena. He is no lawyer nor any sort of justice seeker.
I feel for his wife if she ever has a bad day and shows some emotion.
I was relieved to get to the end of this. It is just a poorly written repetitive rant. Again, his supporters cannot hide their hatred for certain women. I thought they were leading an ethical life and not resorting to such name-calling. I don’t mind that he truly believes in his “friend” and has certain beliefs about the trial but I just wish it could have been written with maturity.
What I would like is a legal expert to go through his points where injustice has occurred and give an opinion.
I agree with this. it shows hate towards women overall.
Nicki exhibited similar strange, childish behaviour when talking about Sarah Edmondson in the online interview. They seem to have similar reactions triggered when speaking of women. They are certainly interesting case studies on cult members.
I’m gonna have to track that interview down. The little bit I have seen of Nicki Clyne speaking on this has left me with the impression that she speaks well and intelligently albeit with perhaps a degree of deceit and sophistry. I do not agree with most of her conclusions or attitudes. I also wonder whether BeverageOfHerChoiceAlison is, in fact, Nicki Clyne herself. She seems to have arrived about the same time the N5 started communicating with Frank.
and furthermore…
I found a Nicki Clyne interview with Scott Adams – I assume that is what you meant? Turns of phrase, speech patterns, correlations between narratives in the interview and in comments in Frank Report – I’m even more suspicious that DrinkaDrinkAlison is Nicki Clyne. I have no objection to Nicki Clyne commenting here, even under an alias, but I object to her not owning up to being a Raniere supporter if that is the case.
Starting to agree with your suspicions.
Hi L. Yes, that is the interview I referred to
Mexican Lady & Natashka,
I don’t know about you both, but I honestly would have preferred to spend my time smelling Scott Johnson’s farts while Shadowstate belched in my face instead of the time I spent reading this article/rant.
All Kidding Aside:
The misogyny in this article/rant is grotesque.
I feel sorry for any woman in Eduardo’s orbit.
……Next time I read one of these articles I will have a bucket next to me so I can puke in it. Eduardo hates women and I hate Eduardo. I believe Eduardo needs the education that only another man can deliver.
Oh my, Niceguy – I don’t know whether to laugh or grab a puke bucket myself. My (what was it now.. ) “sensitive little plant” self is clutching her pearls (not really – if I had some, I’d pawn them) over that graphic image of Scott [redacted] I implore you – do not subject us to that again. LMAO
Oh yeah and… “The misogyny in this article/rant is grotesque.” Agreed.
Somehow the Nice Guy insult of Scott and Shadow slipped through the editors. It should have been redacted.
Apologies, Frank – you should probably delete my reply as well. Mea Culpa.
I think we may have lost Scott over Nice Guy’s crude humor. No need for you to apologize “L.” By the time you replied to say you were amused, Scott had already left us.
It’s funny, but after a person is gone, I tend to think of only the good things he did. Like the time he wrote to authorities to try to close down Rainbow centers, or wrote to the DOJ to complain about certain crimes, or invited Nice Guy on his podcast. I think he really wanted to be friends with Nice Guy, who continuously rebuffed his offer.
Sure we may not easily overlook the nearly 10,000 nasty comments or the times I had to look up the original comment to see who he was insulting, another commenter or the subject of the story. And those posts about Amway, always trying to warn Nice Guy and others about staying away from Amway, and of his harrowing experiences there.’
Let’s all of us wish Scott well wherever he winds up. Bid him farewell and smile.
Frank-
I apologize. I did not and do not feel I insulted Scott or Shadow. If anything it is a compliment.
Their all natural, fair trade certified organic air vs reading Eduardo’s ass fissure of an editorial.
Won’t happen again Daddy Warbucks!!!
You got one more in on Scott. But please no more, Nice Guy. Scott may have left us altogether and it might be because of my mistake in not redacting your comment.
—You got one more in on Scott. But please no more, Nice Guy. Scott may have left us altogether and it might be because of my mistake in not redacting your comment.
Frank I won’t mention his name in the future.
As God is my witness I do not consider my words to be offensive to Scott or Shadow. If my name had been used I could have cared less.
Scott has my sincere apology. Scott offending you was purely unintentional.
BTW; I can not see Scott’s farewell comment. Filters on or server settings.
He did not make a farewell statement. He seems to have just shaken the dust off his boots and left. Let us not burden our remembrance with a heaviness that’s gone.
I think the risk with that is we just give them help in a case where, in my view, justice was done. If these points were so great, they would have brought them all up at the original trial.
Eduardo hates women. This was painful to read. I couldn’t finish it because of the clear raw hate that Eduardo has.
But let’s just show how the first few sentences are wrong:
He says: “A sex trafficking charge was sustained where there was no money exchanged, over a single sexual encounter, with an adult woman who consented before, during, and after the incident. Keith himself wasn’t physically involved in the act.”
That is incorrect. In Keith’s text to Camila, he says: “I think it would be good for you to own a fuck toy sex slave for me, that you could groom and use as a tool to pleasure me […] having one or two young slaves devoted to reviving my body sexually to produce more energy would help. It would be their 24/7 job…”
Here Keith is talking about Camila having a sex slave. A sex slave does sexual labor for which she does not get paid. Here we see Keith’s intent and also the economic exchange he wanted to have (and eventually obtained from Nicole). He wanted women to engage in sexual labor and be paid peanuts for their labor. The women are producing labor and just because he wants to pay peanuts for it does not mean there was no money exchanged (He paid $0.0 but that is money exchanged). He paid less than the women deserved for that sexual labor. But it does not mean that money was not exchanged. Human trafficking is when “Individuals are compelled to work or provide services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion”. Keith was exactly bringing in sexual labor from women through the use of coercion (the blackmail material.)
I also disagree that Keith was not physically involved in the act. He was present in the room: He led Nicole there, tied her to the table, and then provided the narrator’s voice of what was happening and tried to create a story for the event. Just adding the voice is engaging in the act. A lot of porn has a narrator to make it more exciting. Eduardo’s argument disregards any of Keith’s actions
Eduardo reminds me of Manson’s followers. They also would say that Manson should not be in prison as he did not kill anyone. Manson plotted everything. He was the mastermind who did not want to get his hands dirty and, hence, sent others. Keith is the same also. They get a thrill from the crime and also from seeing the power they have over others to do the crime. Being the mastermind is more dangerous because they could orchestrate it again.
Finally, I share the victim impact statement from Nicole. How Eduardo does not see this as Sex Trafficking is beyond me…
“When the demands of DOS became more sexual and uncomfortable, I was, as I’m sure you remember, told that I was not only supposed to do and support you in whatever way you wanted but that I was not allowed to speak about my relationship or assignments with you to anyone.
If I did, I would be punished. This led to sexual encounters that I would never have agreed to, that would have never happened, had I not be blackmailed. Without the threat of my collateral being released, I would have never accepted any part of this sick and twisted arranged marriage circumstance I was manipulated with. I would have never been in Albany in the first place.”
You look great, Frank! Nice picture reporting the event
It was extremely interesting to be there with Keith’s closest remaining friends.
If they are right,
Keith Raniere has no friends, he has people he manipulates and uses, but they are not friends. Friendship is based on mutuality, which is not given here. His “friends” only imagine their friendship with Raniere.
–A sex trafficking charge was sustained where there was no money exchanged, over a single sexual encounter, with an adult woman who consented before, during and after the incident.
What part of the idea of “collateral”, aka blackmail, hanging over someone’s head doesn’t he get such that he can’t comprehend the simple idea that anywhere from consent under duress to coercion is not and has never been consent?
Again, his followers overestimate KR’s importance. I think the judge and almost everyone else who isn’t brainwashed can see that he’s an evil man who is also a pedophile. If he can’t see this, then that’s a personal issue he will have to come to terms with eventually.
Yes, that sums it up well. I came to the Keith R story and this website because initially, on a brief look, I felt sorry for KR. I usually take the side of the underdog and like to play devil’s advocate. I thought he might be a bit similar to me – pretty high-level IQ as a child, pianist, bit of a poly math and the BDSM issues and consent and sexual side were interesting but as soon as you read into it, it’s just like most other cults expect in this case a lot of it is copied from Scientology and others and clearly he is 100% rightly found guilty. I don’t use the p-word for those who have sex with a mature girl but it is illegal and it is wrong and he very very foolish to go anywhere near any girls who were under age – makes you the stupidest not the cleverest man in the world if you do that. Warren Jeffs of the FLDS did the same and is in prison now too.
Editing needed:
-“Indeed it is especially [important] then that examination is required most and if doubt be raised, debated vigorously”.
As far as the rest. I could only read one paragraph from Eduardo Asunsolo. Simple minds bore me.
Corrected– thanks
Eduardo,
Can you please elaborate on the SPECIFIC lies that you believe the witnesses made on the stand? You have alluded to this in previous writings on Frank Report and in other media and to date there is no further explanation of sorts. This has the [perhaps unintended] effect of making YOU sound like you are just fabricating your own story. What exactly are the lies here? If no specifics are offered, your audience will probably just be reassured that your arguments are empty, without merit and simply grounded in denial of KR’s actual sentence.
Also, just wanted to point out that your criticism of the women on the stand at trial, as compared to the men, seems wholly unfair. I think if the men were raped, sexually and emotionally abused, manipulated, etc. to the same extent as the women, their demeanor on the stand would be less composed as well, no? The more extreme the crimes, the more likely a victim is to break down or be distraught while recounting those events, I would think. At this trial, the most extreme crimes were perpetrated against women. It is what it is. I’m not sure your argument of paternalism here is landing the way you are intending.
Finally, just wondering if you do or do not have a problem with Camila confirming that KR photographed her and carried on a sexual relationship with her at 15 (while grooming her as early as 13)?
Good questions. The problem is KR has conditioned these men to think men are some kind of superior being and women have all kinds of awful defects and have to be made whole which is a load of rubbish.
Eduardo is about to have a daughter himself. Ask him this question in fifteen years. He might feel differently by then. It’s the kind of thing only a parent of a teenage daughter or son understands… when you realize how impressionable they are, how easily they could be manipulated because the adult can present a reality far from the truth and she would believe it (like Cami did!)… This is why the law protects children and draws a line at 18.
Eduardo fails because he’s objectifying Cami. Not truly “trying on” what it’s like to be a fifteen-year-old girl in the hands of a “guru.” He’s not considering the fact that logic hasn’t set in yet… that the kinds of decisions she makes at 15 will be so different at 25, simply because brain development hasn’t matured. Keith knows this. Eduardo if you believe EMs work, then the reason EMs work is the same reason a child’s brain can be so easily molded. Logic can replace emotional misunderstandings. But at 15, a girl (or boy) hardly has logic. Parent one, and you know this to be true. Or you can rely on the scientific understanding of brain development and logic.
Either way, Eduardo the real question for you once you hold your baby girl for the first time will be… would you let Keith have her? At what age? 15? Or younger if she’s really “mature”? Are naked photos ok? Would you give your blessing for her to be kept in an apartment, its location known to no one, not even you? How many abortions would you be ok with her having, and how soon? At any age, would you be ok with her being required to have a “fuck toy slave” on 24/7 call for some old dude that has about 20 other partners he’s promising children to? Would you want her branded as well since you’re so proud of the DOS women and their “noble” mission? Tell us, where would YOU draw the line with your little girl?
Eduardo Asunsolo’s story isn’t new to the Frank report. I’m not sure what this man’s issues are with trying to prove Raniere isn’t guilty of his crimes and would want this evil monster back on the streets.
Perhaps he enjoys watching women being tortured by this evil man and hasn’t gotten enough enjoyment from his Master’s abuse.
Eduardo Asunsolo, not being a man himself to carry such acts of violence out against women, must have some motivation to want to see Raniere released as there is plenty of “data” Raniere has decades of torturing women.
At this point, Eduardo isn’t fooling anyone he doesn’t know about Raniere’s history.
Plenty of murderers and other like criminals get a sentence like KAR or even worse. Bernie Maddoff was a white collar criminal and he received an even greater sentence (150 years) than him. So clearly Eduardo doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
Re “That regardless of whether Raniere is a good man or a bad man, he was deprived of the right to defend himself.”
Raniere himself refrained from making a statement of his own in his trial. This is not the fault of the others, but his own, even if it would not have made any difference in his conviction or sentence. Moreover, the court did not decide whether he was a good or a bad man, but whether he had committed crimes, nothing else was at stake.
Some good points. The whole consent thing is off though given the blackmail/collateral going on. If someone pulls a gun on me and asks for my money, I may consent to give it to them. For them, later at a trial, to claim I consented to it would be technically correct… but still…
— If someone pulls a gun on me and asks for my money, I may consent to give it to them.
What if you gave the gun to someone you completely trusted and said, “Please threaten to shoot me with this if I don’t finish filing my taxes/completing some other tedious chore today.”
Well, okay, you could still get them arrested for making threats with a deadly weapon if they followed through with the threat. (For the record, I don’t recommend using a loaded weapon as a motivational tool except for in a few special circumstances.)
But it’s my understanding that was the general rationale for the collateral; well, that and it was meant to help ensure secrecy but guess what, they make men in groups like the Masons swear to secrecy with threats of painful repercussions if they break their oath.
Of course, the whole collateral thing had so much potential to go very wrong if someone joined who didn’t quite get it and actually became afraid to say no to anything. But I guess that’s why they reportedly had written contracts for members of DOS. But some people didn’t get around to signing them?
I think Eduardo has made some very good points here.
Your analogy fails miserably because beyond the first line slaves, the women gave “collateral” under false pretenses. They did not know the whole truth (in addition to being outright lied to), i.e., that Raniere was the head of the so-called female empowerment organization, nor that it would require possible sexual services to him. They were effectively defrauded for theri collateral such that they couldn’t possibly have informed consent.
Anyone with half a mind can see through his real intent behind the group and it has nothing to do with making women stronger. It was just another tool to satisfy the lusts of a misogynistic and sexually obsessed conman.
The fact that these NXIVM kool-aid drinkers still think they can convince anyone outside of their little clique is completely mind-boggling.
— They did not know the whole truth
Do newcomers to any secret society know the whole truth about what’s going on at the topmost level?
Why would Eduardo Asunsolo or any of the NXIVM five want Raniere free? What is their real motivation?
After all the destruction and torture Raniere has done in his life, these five people are fighting to have his freedom. Why, what is in for them? Do they then get to justify their behavior while in NXIVM? Does it somehow clear their minds of their own behaviors if this monster is set free?
If the NXIVM 5 is seeking their so-called Justice, why are they only fighting for Raniere? Why are they not fighting for the other five arrested?
Eduardo Asunsolo IMO is a very sick man. He wants to watch Raniere rebuild his following and use Nicki Clyne as his #1 to, once again, wet his sexual abuse of women and continue his illegal activity.
Why else would he be fighting so hard to free his Master?
Your point? Is what they were “sold” prior to giving collateral – i.e., female empowerment–the consequences of which they were not told to them until after they had provided such material–equivalent to doing whatever your “master” says despite the content, inclusive of providing sexual services for a man?
Are you really trying to imply this? If so, you’re just as bad as Raniere.
If that’s the only string you can pull from all of what was said, it’s a very short one.
No. But if they were lied to and then blackmailed under false pretenses, it is a criminal matter.
That’s a good point and observation. Sincerely.
The fact other secret societies do not always tell people what is going on at the top is irrelevant. If you are conned into having sex with someone who says he has a condom on or doesn’t have AIDS or you think it is a different person, then that is an offence.
Other lies to get you into bed such as IT is 7 inches long or I am worth £2m or I am single don’t cross the line, wicked though those kind of lies are.
CaffeinatedAlison-
I have enjoyed reading your comments. I mentioned previously (a few weeks ago) you are the only person thus far who has actually made good points from a different perspective.
I hope I have not insulted you in any way.
Your points do have validity.
You clearly don’t need me to qualify your beliefs. I am just sharing my perspective with you.
If the collateral/blackmail had not existed I believe many of us would have a different perspective.
You and Alison are adults. If you were men. we would not question your and hers stance to continue following Kieth Raniere.
Either way I wish you well.
@NiceGuy,
No worries, you haven’t offended me, and I’m glad to hear your perspective even when it’s different than mine.
And here all this time I thought your moniker was sarcastic. Guess I was wrong. 🙂
They didn’t give the “gun” to Raniere – they gave it to a trusted friend who turned the “gun” over to Raniere. Now Raniere was holding the “gun” aka the collateral aka the blackmail, therefore coercion and no consent.
—They didn’t give the “gun” to Raniere – they gave it to a trusted friend who turned the “gun” over to Raniere. Now Raniere was holding the “gun” aka the collateral aka the blackmail; therefore, coercion and no consent.
I thought the women who gave the 1st collateral to get more info about DOS were then told by their new potential “master” that said master had her own master. If so, it would be evident that the new person who joined was also extending her trust to her master’s master. But maybe I’m remembering that detail wrong. And then if I recall, the person who gave the 1st collateral was free to say no and have nothing to do with it and were only expected to not tell anyone else about it.
Are you Nicki Clyne? Because I believe you are.
What evidence do you have?
NiceGuy may be seeing the same things I’m seeing, Frank. I stated my suspicions and reasons for those suspicions further up in these comments. I have previously stated why I find BeverageOfHerChoiceAlison’s comments reminiscent of Raniere’s manipulation and gaslighting. I don’t want to shut her down if she is Nicki, so I’ll leave it at that.
Frank-
I am asking a question. No worries evidence just my gut and the style of writing/speech.
I have enjoyed reading AllisonCaffeine, AllisonTeaTime, and AllisonCoco etc. comments. She is the only person to make good rational points that have some substance.
I am probably wrong anyway.
I am actually leaning that way too since L pointed it out and I took more notice.