Suneel: ‘I Am Defending Raniere Because the Prosecution Was Wrong, the Judge Biased and the Defendant Is Innocent!’

Keith Raniere

This is the third on our series on the review of the trial of Keith Raniere.

Part 1: By Raniere:  Raniere’s ‘Call to Action’ Email Written After His Conviction — Never Before Published – ‘Why Was I Convicted? The Simple Answer Is Hate’

Part 2 By Claviger  Were Raniere’s Legal Rights Violated Via His Apprehension and Expulsion From Mexico – and/or His Arrest and Arraignment in the USA?

Our third story is from a friend and supporter of Raniere’s, Suneel Chakravorty. In this piece, Chakravorty delves into Raniere’s Call to Action and adds some additional information that he hopes will further establish Raniere’s claim that he was unjustly convicted.

Some readers, of course, will think that this is an outrage to present this issue, or at least to present Raniere’s side. I have addressed this in As I Attempt to ‘Brainsoil’ Raniere Followers, I Listen to Arguments of Due Process Violations

I have also published a post by Claviger that explains what might happen to Raniere if he is successful.  What Are Raniere’s Remaining Legal Options to Ever See Freedom Again?

By Suneel Chakravorty


My name is Suneel Chakravorty. Some people think I’m brainwashed. As we examine the case of Keith Raniere, I would also like you to examine whether you think I’m brainwashed. 

I was a student in Executive Success Programs from October 2016 to June 2017 in the New York City center. Then, I was a volunteer coach from June 2017 until the company shut down operations in June 2018.  I was never a paid employee or contractor for NXIVM or Keith. 

The first time I met Keith was after his trial, in his prison setting. 

So why am I advocating for him? I attended every day of his trial and came away with a sense that there was something gravely wrong with the way his case was prosecuted.

During the trial, I became convinced that this case had been decided before opening statements; everything was orchestrated to convict him. Yet, I was not convinced then, nor am I now, that any of his “victims” were in any way severely hurt. 

I know this will outrage many and while we are permitted to question almost everyone and everything in this country, from judges to presidents to senators to bureaucrats to actors to musicians to philosophers to even kings, the one thing we must never do is question a victim. I am sorry, but I disagree. 

If the word of a human being dubbed a victim can send a man to prison for decades, or for his life, then I reserve the right to question that person, and if it so happens that there is any hint of exaggeration or falsehood, it is incumbent upon us to challenge it severely and robustly. 

For it may be true, in the end, that we have labeled the wrong individual a victim. 

I am fully aware that there is an anti-justice, anti-truth pack of angry people who will hurl insults and ad hominem attacks, and if they could, probably hang me to a sour apple tree for merely suggesting that victims could be questioned, especially if their gender is female.

And yet, I think this is the greatest disservice to women, and men as well, to treat them distinctly and as if they cannot be challenged because of their gender.

Now, I invite you to come with me; let’s take a journey through the evidence, without an extraordinary, one-sided, media-fueled narrative, and the view of the prosecution, aided and abetted by a judge who believed the prosecution, and determined, I believe, from the onset there was but one goal — conviction.

I invite you to look at evidence, and look at the consistent abrogation of due process, littered across a thousand legal documents, and six thousand pages of trial transcripts.  I propose to show that not only did the government break the rules, but, my friends, that Keith Raniere is innocent. 

The first thing to look at is Keith’s “Call To Action” essay

In this article, I will examine the sections containing Keith’s memoirs about the case.  In a subsequent article, I will examine the sections containing Keith’s inspirational phrases, intended to rally advocates to join the cause. The excerpts from Keith’s essay will be in bold  and followed by my commentary.

Let us begin at the beginning.


“On March 25, 2018, I was kidnapped in Mexico after visiting my seven-month old son and his mother, a life-partner of mine whom had just left. Six men in masks, wearing full body armor and armed with machine guns, arrested me. Within twelve hours I was thrown out of the country without legal representation or extradition. I was turned over to the US authorities and isolated from family, friends, and attorneys, for almost a month, pre-indictment.”

Men with guns arrived at the residence where Keith was staying. Some of them wore uniforms, others did not. They did not show identification. They simply took Keith and put him on a plane with armed escorts out of the country, bypassing extradition or deportation paperwork. 

By all appearances, the men who took him were bounty hunters and delivered him across the border to the FBI. 

How did the Mexican bounty hunters know to do this when the arrest warrant for Keith — a sealed court document — was not unsealed until the next day? 

The prosecution broke the seal, seemed to have avoided diplomatic or governmental channels, and likely worked with private Mexican citizens to kidnap Keith.

If you believe in a rule of law, you have to question this, the first “official” act of the actual prosecution of Keith Raniere.

Even if there is not an appealable issue of jurisdiction, you have a government willing to kidnap its own citizen.

This is even more salient because there was no need to kidnap him. He was not in hiding — there were 20 or so friends visiting him who told their friends and family where they were. Also, the government could have requested through his attorney, former US Attorney Michael Sullivan, that Keith return to the United States [read this article on the FrankReport analyzing legal filings and evidence that showed this]. 

Keith came to Mexico to be with his partner and their baby boy. He was enjoying being a father at a time when he was the subject of extreme negative press. Just about anyone would want to avoid that. There is a difference between wanting privacy and trying to cheat the law. 

I imagine that had the boy’s mother, a Mexican citizen, not had to leave the country to comply with her visa, they might have stayed in Albany. This is supported by the fact that they initially tried to exit the country to Canada, a location closer to their friends in Clifton Park, to comply with her visa requirements. They were denied entry into Canada.

So they went to Mexico. Period. It was not a flight from justice. 

Thankfully, Keith was able to enjoy a few golden moments with his infant son, from whom he is now separated by his imprisonment. 

Hector, father of Camila, Daniela, and Mariana, holds his grandson, while Keith Raniere openly drives a golf cart down a street in Mexico.


Note: It took almost two months in total to indict me, during which there were grand jury hearings, and a lot of investigation. Shouldn’t a person be ready to be indicted if incarcerated? Shouldn’t the privilege of arresting by information be honored by the subsequent indictment being the first action the grand jury takes? If not, was the complaint sufficient?”


“Arrest” first, indictment afterwards.

After his kidnapping, and following a pattern of stark irregularities in this case, the prosecution needed additional investigation through grand jury hearings before they had enough “evidence” to indict him. 


“I am pledged to non-violence, lead a peace movement in Mexico, and the peace segment of the Pan-American games we produced reached an estimated 25 million people. For this we were nominated for three daytime Emmy Awards and won several Tele Awards. I have never owned a weapon, used any drugs (including smoking and recreational drinking), or had a criminal history.

“For a bail package, my attorneys offered two armed guards with a supervisor (guarding me 24/7), in a well-vetted apartment, all overseen by the former head of the Secret Service who appeared at my bail hearing to affirm this. I would also wear an ankle monitor and only have contact with my attorneys. Additionally, we posted a $10 million bond. My bail application was denied.”


The best way to ensure you win a case is to make sure the defendant is locked in an unhealthy cage and can’t defend himself.

Keith’s attorneys proposed a bail package that would have made it impossible for Keith to escape or hurt others, even if he wanted to. Note that the peace movement Keith mentions was documented by filmmaker and friend-turned-adversary, Mark Vicente [see the trailer here].

The judge denied the motion for bail. This made it infinitely harder for Keith to mount a defense [studies show higher conviction rates for defendants who are detained pre-trial]. 


“I have five co-defendants: All are women. One has a grave illness; another is her 40-year old daughter. There is also a well-known actress, an heiress, and another who is a long-term partner of mine. The heiress had to post $100 million bond, wear an ankle monitor, and see no one but her attorneys in order to not be remanded into custody.

“All are innocent, but all plead guilty; two even cooperated, with one of them testifying.”

Clare Bronfman had no criminal record, cooperated with law enforcement in returning to the country well in-advance of any issues and moved to NYC in anticipation of being indicted. There was no need for such high bail. But the optics of the $100 million bail, I believe, were meant to impress upon the public and the jury that this woman was liable to run away because of her guilt. 

Leading up to Keith’s “kidnapping,” there had been significant negative media coverage of NXIVM, starting with the NY Times article by Barry Meier. Once Clare Bronfman’s bail was set at $100 million dollars, the chances of getting anything close to media neutrality went to zero.

This was a case of extremes and those extremes include a fabulously wealthy woman who was charged with financial crimes amounting to less than $100k, who was marked as a flight risk despite the fact that she came back to the United States from Mexico when she learned of her potential indictment and cooperated with law enforcement every inch of the way.

The $100 million bail was an indication that this was going to be handled in extremes and differently than similar cases, such as Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was charged with more severe crimes, such as rape, yet his bail was set at $1 million.


“Ultimately, because I was charged with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act… and, in my specific case, any friend or associate could be charged as a co-conspirator, I could not see or contact any of my family, friends, or co-defendants for the fifteen months before my trial…

“… Additionally, at trial it was impossible to call any defense witnesses I knew, for they could be considered co-conspirators in RICO and would strongly be advised to use their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.”

In my opinion, RICO was an inappropriate charge. Look at the predicate acts. They are not at all comparable to typical organized crime matters. They were largely innocuous things like allegedly altering a video tape, keylogging a computer, and using a deceased person’s credit card. They were not even alleged to be done by the same people for any common purpose. Those things should have been charged separately but they could not be because either the statute of limitations expired or they weren’t crimes at all.

RICO solved this.

Keith was prosecuted under RICO,  which was created to prosecute the mafia. RICO cases require a “criminal enterprise,” which in this case was Keith’s “inner circle” of friends. Anyone who testified on his behalf could have been considered part of his “inner circle” and faced being indicted themselves. 

See FrankReport’s coverage of the defense’s motion for a new trial, which contained sworn affidavits from Nicki Clyne and Michele Hatchette, potential defense witnesses, alleging they were threatened with indictment by the prosecution.

In addition to the threat of possible indictment, because of the media narrative, anyone seen supporting Keith could be publicly exposed and shamed on sites like FrankReport. In short, if you supported Keith, you could be canceled, then indicted. Because of this, many who could have testified chose instead to save their livelihoods and reputations and protect their families. Keith supported them in their decisions.

Keith Raniere did not want his supporters risking getting indicted.


“The jurors were good people — at least as far as I know. Three hundred potential jurors were screened by a questionnaire prepared by both sides. From about 150 remaining candidates, the judge interviewed them in front of us, allowing our input. They seemed earnest, although a surprising percentage voiced very conservative views towards things like abortions and taxation.”

Brooklyn, New York is known to be a liberal place. If a jury was assembled from a random sampling of the populace, having numerous strong anti-abortion jurors would be statistically unlikely. This is a point worth investigating given the fact that the prosecution introduced with the judge’s consent and over Keith’s objections abortion records, despite abortion being absolutely unrelated to any of the charges. It is not illegal for women to have abortions. The prosecution, playing to the jury, sought to “dirty him up.”

Abortion records of some of his romantic partners should not have been introduced at trial and I believe this is one of the issues of the appeal that is soon to be filed.


“On June 19, after six weeks of a trial based on prejudice and hate, with no true opportunity for a defense, I was found guilty of crimes, all of which I did not commit. That day, the very start of jury deliberation, the jury came uncharacteristically dressed-up and literally took less time to reach a verdict than it took the judge to read the jury instructions. They came prepared to reach a verdict with little or no deliberation.”

As I wrote above, I attended the trial every day and can corroborate that jury members typically wore comfortable, casual clothing, which would make sense for individuals sitting for 6-10 hours per day. It begs the question, when they arrived in their “Sunday Best,” as if they were going to church or a hanging, had the jury already made up their minds before they began deliberating?

“How can this be? Innocent defendants — very innocent — pleading guilty, cooperating, and being convicted? The answer is simple: hate. I am innocent. Sadly, in the end, the jurors accepted the hate of the prosecutors who, in turn, had taken up the hate of the opposition.”

It would not be possible to determine the facts of a six-week trial in less than three hours.  Perhaps the jury did not convict Keith on the facts but on their personal opinion they formed of him throughout a trial, where the judge let the prosecution run amok, dirtying him up with every salacious tidbit about his lifestyle regardless of whether it was accurate, wildly exaggerated or remotely related to the charges or not.


Is Amazon a “pyramid” organization? When we want to show respect to an organization, we call it a company.

“The term “pyramid organization” is an example of hate. This is possibly the least offensive hate conduit in my case, yet its innocuous nature serves to illustrate the hate’s subtlety…

“I supposedly create “pyramid organizations” — different from normal “organizations”. The implication is somehow “pyramid” is improper: I am at the “top” or “apex”, control everything unchecked, in some “sinister” and unspecified way. How is “pyramid” different than a restaurant, private corporation, or even the US Attorney’s office? Some will say each of these likely answer to some check and balance system so even with a small, sole proprietorship — a restaurant for example — that owner must answer to the Health Department. If it were true I created businesses wherein I answer to no one, I still, in the least, answer to the law (If I didn’t, I would not be incarcerated.)

“So why label organizations I create “pyramid” which imparts undefined, vague, negativity? The answer is simple: hate…”

Keith points out that the prosecution used the pejorative “pyramid” for his organizations instead of businesses or companies or even multi-level marketing companies – none of which are illegal. A pyramid scheme is illegal and yet he was not charged with running a pyramid scheme. The fact that the judge let the prosecution use this term repeatedly despite it being literally wrong shows again how the government created a negative stereotype image of him. 


What the hell do abortion records have to do with any of the charges?

You’ve heard of a prosecution trying to “dirty” Keith up. But using the abortion records, they wanted to “bloody” Keith up.

It is preposterous to believe that any woman was forced to get an abortion because the woman herself has to consent to an abortion and she has to appear and be alone with the doctor. This whole case is historic because it is all about proclaiming to the world that women have no agency. 

“The following is a more extreme example of how hate, through prejudice, was allowed in my case: The abortion records of several of my past and present partners were allowed into evidence and presented to the jury. These are confidential records of adult women voluntarily choosing this legal option. Note: abortions have nothing to do with my charges. The majority of the members of my jury stated they believe abortion is murder. This evidential allowance violates, in the least, the intent of the HIPPA laws, shames people associated with me, and generates tremendous anger, hate, and prejudice towards me, my community, and my actions.”

Note that the prosecution also mentioned abortions to the media. For example, US Attorney Richard Donoghue stated in his post-verdict press statement that Keith was responsible for “compelled abortions” [see video clip of Donoghue’s comments to the press], although there was no evidence presented at trial and indeed no woman was ever compelled to have an abortion, nor did anyone testify she was. 


The above screenshot is a generic example of “sexting.”

The so-called sex trafficking victim in this case, Nicole sent similar messages to the defendant, such as asking for “hot, rough sex” (Pg. 4214 in the transcripts). This is not what you would expect a sex trafficking victim to text. This is why one might even think that the defendant might have been confused and thought she actually wanted to be with him.

“In contrast to the over-permissiveness of the above is a decision relating to the sex trafficking charge. An essential witness for the prosecution (and an alleged victim) lives a double life: On the normal, plain side, she presents herself as child-like, family loving, and innocent. On the alternative side, she has had a significant partner with an international reputation as a sexual “bad boy” with both civil and criminal challenges relating to sex. Her alleged sex trafficking experience was a self-styled enactment of a fantasy relating directly to her past, more extreme, sexual experiences. All of her alternative activities, fantasies, and proof of these things were barred from my trial. This was allegedly to “protect” the prosecution’s witness, but was done at the expense of justice.”

The judge allowed abortion records into the case unrelated to the charges, yet he prevented the admission of text messages relevant to establishing whether or not the relationship between Nicole, the alleged sex trafficking victim, and Keith was consensual. [see the “hot, rough sex” message that Keith’s attorneys tried to cross-examine Nicole about].

Imagine the one-sided nature of this. The so-called sex trafficking victim asked Keith for the very kind of sex she later claimed to be a victim of, yet the judge would not allow the jury to hear it.

In addition, there were emails and other messages to Keith from Nicole that strongly indicated not only consent, but an eager desire to enjoy sexual experiences  with him. In one email, the so-called sex trafficking victim asked Keith to teach her to be a “sex goddess.”

The judge did not allow such messages into evidence and the jury was left with the impression that the victim had no desire and did not reciprocate in the one incident where Keith was charged and convicted with sex trafficking.

And what was that incident? She was blindfolded, tied to a table [bondage] and another woman performed cunnilingus on her. During this incident she was asked if she wanted to continue and she said yes. 

Oy Vey! If we are supposed to believe the woman, then when should Keith have believed her? When she said she was content with the sexual experience or afterward when she said she wasn’t? 

In summary, a woman who had told Keith that she wanted “kinky” sex with him, and who said she had sex with him on other occasions, was sex trafficked. It doesn’t add up. 


“Even with this extreme bias, there was no evidence presented of commercial sex — a required element of this charge — yet, I was found guilty of this contemptible crime which carries a fifteen year minimum sentence.”

Commercial sex refers to sex on account of which “anything of value” is received by someone. Anything of value need not be money directly but typically something that has monetary value, for example, gifts. Prostitution is one example of commercial sex. In Keith’s case, no money changed hands. (As an aside, the sex act was a single act of oral sex between two women.) 

The prosecution argued that the payment was the possibility of another woman [Allison Mack] receiving future financial opportunities and social benefits with Keith [see the prosecution’s closing argument of this charge]. 

Let me make this simpler. The commercial benefit of this single sex incident, the prosecution argued, was that Allison Mack kept her position in the sorority DOS by encouraging Nicole to participate in this sexual experience and kept Keith happy. Yet they presented no evidence that Mack would have lost her position had she failed to comply, none whatsoever.

As an aside, the “pattern” or standard jury instructions are how jurors usually are instructed on the definition of the law. The pattern instruction for sex trafficking is the Sande instruction and can be found here on pages 512-522

However, Nicole’s sex act would not have qualified as sex trafficking under the pattern instruction, because no money (or monetary equivalents like gifts) changed hands.

The only way they squeaked up to sex trafficking was by the judge deliberately giving a non-pattern instruction (in essence, creating a new law from the bench) where any sex that results in someone getting a social benefit could be considered sex trafficking.

If this became precedent, the ramifications could be extraordinary. 

“It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished… when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever” — John Adams, 1770

Many believe that John Adams was a prescient man for the ages. It is nice to see he encapsulated Keith Raniere’s situation almost to the letter. An innocent man should not be in prison.


“My life partner of 30 years died of cancer in November 2016. She was a prominent community leader, founder of an international women’s movement, and a beloved friend and mentor to thousands of people. The community was helping put together a memorial service for her. One person in the community, who was also in the now infamous sorority, told me she would do anything to help. She was a person to whom I had given access to as much cash as she needed to pay for things like rent, courses, and expenses incurred in traveling to and from Albany.

“Unbeknownst to me, she worked five to six hours to transcribe a video of my deceased partner for that memorial: the prosecution is calling this “forced labor”. If this person believed she should have been paid, she could have just taken the money from the cash made available to her. This “forced labor” charge, in the minimum, does not meet the ‘knowingness’ or ‘coercion’ elements of the crime.

“Considering the deep sorrow surrounding the death of my well-loved, 30-year partner, it is cruel to charge this baseless count. It is also insulting to all victims who have actually experienced the raw ugliness of true ‘forced labor’.

This is what you usually think about when you hear the words “forced labor.”

This is what forced labor looked like in Keith’s case. Nicole did a little computer work in her own room and on her own time.

The forced labor conviction in Keith’s case involves an adult woman doing several hours of video transcription and reading 50 or so essays written by Keith [read the prosecution’s closing argument of this charge]. This in and of itself makes a mockery of all true forced labor victims. But it also must be noted that the “victim” was not without the ability to be paid for her work.

During the entire time she did this so-called forced labor – of reading and transcribing – perhaps some 40 hours of total labor — she had access to some $10,000 in cash provided to her by Keith for anything she wanted.  She could have taken payment for her labor.

There was no violence or threat of violence and she left the conditions of her so-called forced labor without repercussions. She worked or did not work at her “forced” labor solely at her own time and condition. 

It is ironic for Nicole spent perhaps no more than 40 hours of mild work, for which Keith is now serving 40 years in prison for this charge alone.

Without “hate”, without dirtying him up with a raft of morally repugnant allegations, an intelligent jury would have laughed at this forced labor charge. Think of all the true victims of forced labor, confined to sweat shops or dirty massage parlors who labor for years, forced to work or be beaten or deported, then think of an aspiring actress, with no financial needs, doing a few hours of easy paperwork. And where is the injustice? The felons who enslaved and forced women for years of hard work and quick-aging labor, got shorter prison sentences than the hated, the despised, the demonized, Keith Raniere. 


“In short, there was no tax imposed, due, or potentially due, on any of the transactions shown by the prosecution. All transactions were straight forward, signed by the relevant party, and all transactions and monies were examined and processed by an accounting firm run by the past commissioner of the IRS. How could there possibly be tax evasion?

“Answer: it is not possible, and the elements of the crime were not even possible. The prosecution used hate and created prejudice by showing large expenditures on a credit card to imply taxes were being ‘evaded’.

“The prosecution should be ashamed for this is a sleight-of-hand obscuring the truth and destroying innocence; all for the satisfaction of winning.”

Let no one say that the prosecutors for the EDNY were second to any prestidigitator at sleight-of-hand.

The prosecution’s argument that Keith’s motive to use his late partner’s credit card for identity theft was for the purposes of tax evasion, [tax evasion was not an actual charge]  is that a series of purchases were made on her credit card and that Keith has an opinion about taxes and their coercive nature. [see their closing argument for this charge here]. 

Keith was not convicted or even charged with tax evasion. The charge was identity theft for his deceased partner of thirty years whose estate he inherited. The prosecution ascribed to him a motive — that he used his late partner’s card to enjoy tax evasion. But they provided no evidence. The only thing they proved was that he used the credit card. By the way, he paid every bill on the card. No one was injured. 


As you can see, I am a staunch defender of Keith Raniere, I believe in his innocence, and I believe he did not get a fair trial. I welcome your comments.

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Why the judge gave Keith Raniere a 120-year sentence, especially if you compare it with several cartel bosses that have been prosecuted in the United States. Why being a drug dealer and a murderer is less of a crime (in terms of prison years).

  • The evidence from the Prosecutor’s Office was weak and insufficient to prove not a single of the crimes that Keith Raniere was accused of, and in my opinion, influenced by hate propaganda and discrediting of the media, which prompted the Prosecutor’s Office to seek a triumph to climb in statistics and in positions of power and politics, as is common in these government agencies, since it is not explained in any other way, the evident concern to manipulate the process, violating individual guarantees, due process and the illegal handling of witnesses and other evidence to which he was subjected.

  • Ya, ya, ya. Everyone chose to do what they did and the witnesses and complainants are all making up lies. The vanguard is innocent of all crimes. There are no ultimate victims except for the poor and defenseless vanguard who is so sorry that these people made bad choices.

    This vanguard can go ahead and say that public opinion is based on hate and nitpick over the details of the trial. But the charges were laid because of the criminal and sinister nature of the organizational agenda.

    Suneel, if you think that your so-called “real victims” of sex trafficking don’t obey and hold still when “they” get branded? You’re probably wrong. It’s never happened to me but I can try and imagine what that might feel like.

    I guess I’m writing all this because yes, I think you’re brainwashed. I’m kind of lumping you in with those weirdos dancing outside the jail. I don’t know if that was you or not. But, to think of all the better ways people could apply their energy instead of wasting it dancing in front of jail all of a sudden because the great vanguard is imprisoned inside?

    I’m wasting some of my own time, too, just writing this post. I stumbled into crime stories over the holiday break and this one was interesting. 120 years does seem like a really long time. But? Lots of criminals get life sentences, too. Just for killing one single person let alone harming a whole bunch of individuals.

  • The crime of “forced labor” for which Keith Raniere was sentenced to 40 years in prison is unconstitutional, since the elements of the criminal type were not gathered for his origin, firstly because the defendant had no knowledge or participation in the work made voluntarily by the party that was said to be injured and Second, there is no element of forcing force or against their will to carry out an action or do something, for which the budgets required by the Law for the origin of the aforementioned crime were not met much less its accreditation and conviction, for which the conviction is illegal for lack of groundless motivation and must be nullified.

  • One more thing, Suneel. If everything that was happening in DOS was so great? If threat of collateral wasn’t any kind of violation whatsoever? I challenge you to post as your LinkedIn profile pic a photo of you and your hairy penis. If you truly believe? You’ll post a brand new one every month.

  • At the trial, the Judge is the impartial person in charge of the case, he decides what evidence can be shown to the jury, he is not there to support one party or another but to make sure that the entire process is carried out fairly, but unfairly. The Judge allowed evidence that was not, and that only negatively influenced the jury, did not allow the defense to cross-examine key witnesses, becoming a Judge, Jury and Executioner, to the discredit of Justice.

    • Here’s a freebie. Don’t make the 2nd sentence in your intro, “Some people think I’m brainwashed”. It reads like this,” Hello, my name is Bob. Some people think I am on crack.” Well I wasn’t thinking you were on crack before but now I do, Bob. You are taking it in that direction, Suneel. Then y’all complain about being labeled a word you introduced. Also, it’s so flipping unnecessarily long. It gives the continued impression that you are throwing everything at the wall hoping something sticks. And that you will just keep manufacturing complaints endlessly. Most legitimate arguments are succinct. You guys need editors so badly it hurts me physically.

  • Yes. I think you’re brainwashed. Good of you for caring about the fairness of the justice system but why are you doing it for this guy?

    Why not invest your energy into someone or something truly deserving? It’s just so incredibly clear to everyone that this guy is messed in the head. People on the outside, people on the jury, people everywhere. If you can’t see the same things that are so very obvious to the rest of us? Absolutely! You are brainwashed.

    Beginning with the creed that there are no ultimate victims. Who teaches that? You mean to tell me that someone struck and killed in an accident isn’t a victim? This teaching is entirely removed from reality. But that’s just where the story begins and it only gets worse from there. Why were defectors tortured in the courts? Why were people so often placed in positions of owed servitude?

    All this just sounds awful from the perspective of a person not involved. I wish smart people like you could help people in places where even more serious human rights violations occur every day. But no. You’re gonna throw your time and energy behind this guy. Why? Because he was so good at “building community”? So what? Lots of people are really good at that if you look around.

    Go ahead and hang yourself on this cross if you must. It would be very interesting to study how this no ultimate victims thing can play out in the courts because obviously, this situation is exploiting the principle to the tits! Or should I say all the way to a hairy pussy? In my opinion as a very average person? This guy is clearly sick in the head and yes, you seem brainwashed.

  • In all the alleged crimes that Mr. Keith Raniere was charged with, none of them was reliably accredited by the Prosecutor’s Office, by not following due process which is very serious for the judicial system in the USA, since it sets a serious precedent, “The fact that any citizen can be prosecuted without following the rules of impartiality and the right to a due defense, but serving hateful and prejudicial interests, which implies a delay in the administration of Justice.

  • It is clear that the action of the Prosecutor’s Office as the accusing party in the Trial does not fulfill its purpose of investigating the fact and providing the necessary evidence, since contrary to the above, it is evident that since the arrest of the accused and throughout the Trial his attitude is arbitrary when participating in the kidnapping of the accused and later manipulating the evidence to achieve an unjust and unlawful sentence!

    • Making the same unsubstantiated claims over and over again is not helping “Vanguard” in federal court or him/you in the court of public opinion.

      You should Google “run-on sentence,” BTW. That’s a bad writing habit you need to break.

    • Reading this certainly brought up more questions for me about prosecutorial misconduct. It does seem like things were skewed against Raniere in many ways, and it seems like he was chosen to be guilty before the verdict was decided. It’s an emotional case and I’ll admit it’s tough to view much of the evidence while holding the lense of disgust and anger. Thanks, Suneel, for putting yourself out there. I’ll continue sifting through this a second time.

      • It is obvious you are [redacted]

        Can you figure out what it is about your writing that makes it so easy to see that?

        The propaganda skillz The World’s Smartest Man™ taught you [redacted]

          • Frank, what you redacted were not individuals’ names, curse words or even insults.

            It is a fact that cult ways of thinking don’t work outside of cult bubbles.

            Not sure why you redacted that idea…

  • […] January 1, 2021 Jane Smith, who says she is lawyer in another country, shared some interesting thoughts about a recent post by Suneel Chakravorty, a friend and supporter of Keith Raniere.  [Editor’s comments are in bold and in brackets.] By Jane Smith It is interesting to hear the other view as found in Suneel: ‘I Am Defending Raniere Because the Prosecution Was Wrong, the Judge Biased and the Defend…. […]

  • It is clear that the prosecutors act violating the principles to investigate and provide evidence without any doubt in this case. It is evident that Mr. Raniere’s rights were violated in an arbitrary way. He was kidnaped and the evidence was manipulated to get an injustice sentence contrary to the law and human rights.

    • Obviously, in addition to neglecting grammar, the NXIVM curriculum didn’t teach anyone how to use spell check.

      Hey, “Vanguard,” come on dude, give your minions some new talking points.

      Hate, bias, injustice, violation of rights, manipulated evidence, “I was kidnapped!”… none of this is getting any traction because the facts against you are so clear.

      “Vanguage” you are better off focusing on securing as much anal lube and as many condoms as you can. Maybe if you sweet talk the gentlemen who overcome your judo skillz, they’ll use both and be relatively gentle with you.

    • Joshua, there are no ultimate victims; therefore, “Vanguard” and you should have chosen not to be victims.

      If you are tired of being a victim, simply stop. No new trial is necessary.

      Success is an interior state of clear and honest awareness of who you are, your value in the world, and your responsibility for the reactions you have to all things.

      “Vanguard” and you can succeed whether or not he’s imprisoned, or whether you are despised by everyone around you that’s not in the NXIVM bubble.

      Just have a clear and honest awareness. Simple as that.

    • As I have documented with citations to the applicable laws and cases, even if Keith had been kidnapped in Mexico by bounty hunters and delivered to FBI agents at the Mexico/USA border — which is NOT what happened — his subsequent prosecution would have been perfectly legitimate. Making statements like “He was kidnapped and the evidence was manipulated” is not evidence. Give me citations and evidence — and I’ll start giving your arguments some credence. Until then, you’re just stating your opinion — or, in reality, re-stating Keith’s opinion!

  • Big thanks to the Frank Report for making space to see sides we won’t find on other news outlets. What really matters to me is that we continue to find what works in bringing humanity to a more ethical and more peaceful way of living. I absolutely support due process and I am open to seeing new perspectives. I’ve been wrong before and taking biased sides isn’t the quickest way to finding what works. If there is a chance that KR is innocent, I would find pain in knowing I didn’t consider the possibility. With something this big, we could all use a lot of communication coming from an Honorable place.

    I love finding info that I didn’t have. And Frank Report offers a variety in a great way. And this is good in my opinion.

  • It is interesting to hear the other view. I fundamentally disagree but am happy to hear these views.

    Wrong. We can question victims. We do it all the time. Some people usually male might like to think every rape victim is always believed and no men is ever guilty of sex with a 15 year old but most men know there are real cases where girls are harmed and that some, but not most, men can be extremely predatory KR specialised in victim blaming and fed into a general view some men like to hear that men get a bad deal (sometimes they do sometimes they don’t but KR obtained a lot of male support by feeding into the line that all mean are exploited financially and probably in other ways by weak manipulative women.
    In trials we question victims all the time but we don’t only need their testimony. We prosecute violence against a spouse (male or female) even if the other spouse refuses to give evidence because there can be other external evidence. There is plenty of evidence not from the victims which proves KR broke the law even if you leave victim testimony entirely out of it.
    On the first point about Mexico most people can see there was nothing done wrongly there as for golden moments with his son I thought he packed off the mother so he could have a group oral sex session with other women and he had not paid child support ever to his other child. He is hardly father of the year. He is in jail because he had sex with what in law is a child. He could have easily only had sex with women of 18. He put his love of very young girls above much else and pays the price.
    I don’t agree it was wrong to bring up abortion records of his partners. It was part of a pattern that he persuaded women not to have children and strung them along for years to a point when I think several were too old ever to have a child – in a sense he took away their chance ever to do so, to lead a normal life – not a crime but indicative of how awful the man is.
    The fact the jury decided quickly is not unusual and there is no requirement for them to spend a lot of time. Mentioning the clothes they wore is the kind of small irrelevant point those deluded by a cult tend to mention. The bottom line is KR was prosecuted for about 1/1000th of his wrongs only.
    Pyramid scheme – DOS where women brought other women in etc etc and there was the collateral – I don’t see any problem with calling it a pyramid scheme – it was that.

    When he talks about the texts he does not really understand how women caught in a controlling relationship like this (or young boys at boarding school abused by a male teacher – these issues are gender neutral at heart) have to do just to get by – yes they might send a sexy text as required by the person controlling and owning them – that does not mean the woman or young boy is not a victim.

    Forced labour – he plays that down but it is was pretty bad and salaries not paid which had been agreed and that kind of thing, never mind the loss of business of those who left and had to leave their coaching business behind. The FLDS making 12 year old boys leave school and work all the time for just about no pay or The Order having all member funds go to the group etc is typical in cults and unless we go after them for forced labour it will never change.
    Why would anyone use a card of someone who had died? I don’t understand why this is regarded as a wrong part of the decision. Why would you even take money from the state of a follower? Give it to her parents or siblings instead like any decent person.

  • Regardless of where Suneel stands, I respect him for wanting to stand for a principle at the expense of his reputation.

  • —So why label organizations I create “pyramid” which imparts undefined, vague, negativity? The answer is simple: hate…”

    I had no idea the word “pyramid” was a form of vitriol hate speech.

    Hey Frank your a pyramidal-pyramiding for publishing this crap. You goddamn pyramid lover!

  • K.R. Claviger, your analysis is careful and well-grounded.

    The inability of the Anonymous NXIVM diehard below to do anything other than continuously repeat the same generic truisms about the right to due process familiar to anyone who has taken a middle school civics class is a testament to the intellectual debilitation caused by years of cult indoctrination.

    In the NXIVM echo-chamber, one is rewarded solely for parroting the “Vanguard” orthodoxy. Critical, logical thinking is not only unnecessary but harshly penalized. The ability to see one’s self from the perspective of someone outside the cult is also stunted.

    This Anonymous NXIVMite is a brain on cult. I suspect it likely isn’t clear to them that their post makes it obvious to those of us with full mental capacity that they are a NXIVMite. I bet they think they’re pulling off a successful masquerade as a disinterested third party by continuing to use the phrase “whether he is guilty or innocent.”

    They have no clue about their linguistic tells.

    • Yes, it’s a shame as they seem well meaning and feel they are certain of their beliefs. It was a bit like the certainty I saw when my sibling was in a cult years ago – a kind of superiority, a sense of rightness, not departing from the cult party line.

      It would be nice if one of them could write about the faults of KR too.

  • Suneel shows with data that due process did not applied to Keith´s case. Beginning with the kidnapping in Mexico, the jury fast verdict to the uncommon, to say the least, sentence.

    Every citizen has the right to due process, it is a cornerstone of living together in society. Denying this right to just one citizen jeopardize the safety of every citizen. The biased justice brings fear to citizens thinking “I might be next”.

    It was convenient to charge Keith with RICO to prevent the judge and the jury to know the defense part.

    Prosecution, judge and government if found biased as shown, should be bring to justice because they are employees of us, the “citizens”, who pay them for a due process and not to win at any cost and personal benefit.

    Whether he is guilty or innocent, Keith deserves, as every citizen, a fair trial.

    • As I wrote in an earlier post, Keith was not kidnapped in Mexico — he was expelled by Mexican law enforcement authorities acting on behalf of the Mexican government. And even if he were kidnapped by third-party bounty hunters or agents acting on behalf of the U.S. — and then returned to the U.S. – his subsequent prosecution would have been perfectly legal under existing U.S. law.

      My post included citations to the Mexican Constitution, statutes, and applicable cases that are legitimate sources for what I wrote.

      Your pots, on the other hand, repeats the same words as Suneel’s post without any references.

      Therein lies the difference between explaining what happened – and telling a tale about what you wish happened.

    • Keith got a fair trial. He had almost unlimited money to fund his defense. That is an extreme luxury that maybe 1% of the US population has available to them.

      A jury found him guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      I am not at all “afraid this will happen to me next”. Because I don’t molest children or create child pornography. I don’t cheat the government on taxes, blackmail or brand people, etc.

      I do not commit immigration fraud. I do not launder money. I do not force labor. And all the rest. So I’m good. Thanks for your concern.

      Now maybe turn that thirst for justice toward the real inequities in the criminal justice system and you will have my support. In the favored language of the Nxivm dead-enders: you are taking away from the real victims (of the US justice system) with your ginned-up Keith Raniere false claims of procedural misconduct.

  • Next ridiculous claim! “The text messages”. The judge ruled the texts were unverified as Nicole’s.

    The conversations around this issue are actually very funny and do not reflect well on Keith. Vanguard ” hid his phone in Mexico”. The defense cannot explain how they simultaneously cannot locate Keith’s phone and admittedly got (allegedly) the text messages off of the missing phone (that again, they claim they have never found. Except…that is where they are claiming the msgs. came from). Ha, ha, ha!

    Now Nicki Clyne has complained about supposed tampering with the kiddie porn. And stated only showing screenshots of said child porn was ridiculous. One hundred percent they are now saying that showing possibly-altered, no-name-on-account screenshots of Nicole’s (alleged) texts should be admissible.

    And just to add even more dumb to this reasoning, the defense said it was “unfair” Nicole had, way before anyone knew there would be a trial, deleted her messaging app from DOS. Because it (understandably) “skeeved her out.” She wanted to leave and forget about the lies, abuse all of it. She did however hand her phone over immediately and completely when asked.

    The judge gave the defense the option of verifying the texts and presenting the “evidence” correctly. They could also produce Keith’s magical phone that appears and disappears only when it benefits the defense to provide out of context and very likely doctored texts that could help Keith.

    I side with the judge. Calling bullshit on the ” text issue”. Moving on. Next!

    • Excellent point about the alleged texts. I’ve seen “doctored” (tampered) texts on my phones for years (including messages from “Puto” made to look like they came from my cousin’s number, that was later reprogrammed to a different number one digit off in my contacts, after Frank spoke to “Puto,” and I reported to the police and FBI, etc.

      I understand from experts text tampering is not hard for anyone with basic hacking skills to do but the nature of the conversation Frank had with the extortionists and the content of the texts bespeaks NXIVM’s involvement along with other harassment coincidental to the on-going cyberstalking.

  • It is clear how the trial was biased, point by point Mr. Sunnel proves that the process was illegitimate, which warrants its annulment, in the application.

  • I don’t see how Suneel is doing this for free – not working, living in New York, and being the spokesperson for NXIVM.

    Obviously, he’s been paid by the Bronfman sisters. But Clare or Sara? If Clare, she’s already violated the terms of her plea, not to have contact or participate in NXSCUM activities. If Sara, she’s just wasting her money and throwing her freedom in the face of the DOJ.

    So, what happens next?

    • Suneel has created and sold successful businesses. He attended Harvard and is quite accomplished. Get your facts straight before spreading more hate and lies.

    • No, he just has strong views about it. I think he would be better off spending his time on something else as clearly KR was rightly convicted but if he wants to defend him that’s fine.

  • Okay. “Vanguard and the mysterious case of the slightly better clothing on the whole jury”. Let’s get to it! Are you accusing the jurors of misconduct? Because that is a very serious allegation. Is your theory that the jury sat for weeks doing their civic duty and then… What? They left the courthouse went to a bar and planned outfits? Did they get their instructions from the judge, listen carefully, and then get on a group chat on the way home to coordinate wardrobes? Before you malign these 12 citizens, you better have some ” who/what/where/how” they hatched this plan.

  • On the alternative side, she has had a significant partner with an international reputation as a sexual “bad boy” with both civil and criminal challenges relating to sex.

    Who is that guy?

  • I want to make a broader point about the abortion evidence.

    I am a woman. I am pro-choice. I do not think abortion in the first trimester is murder. These are my personal views—feel free to have your own, and I’m not here to debate them.

    Suneel is correct (to the best of my recollection) that witnesses did not testify to being coerced into having abortions. As I recall, Dani testified that she did not want to have a child with Raniere and wanted to have an abortion. It’s worth noting there is a huge amount of extenuating circumstances around Dani’s feelings including her age (I think 21), immigration status, and the fact that her relationship with Raniere was a secret. One could make the argument that she was not ordered to have an abortion, but she also had very few other options.

    Raniere in his own Call to Action does not refute the evidence that multiple women in the community had abortions, so it seems that that is not under debate. Suneel is calling into question (1) what it has to do with the charges and (2) whether it was admitted into evidence to be highly prejudicial to a jury.

    In regards to the former, I think the idea was it was evidence of manipulation and coercion in the community. While I do think there was rampant manipulation and coercion in the community, I actually agree this might not pass muster from a legal standpoint, so I support examining this on appeal.

    In regards to the second point, I do think it was highly prejudicial to a jury. I also support this being be examined closely on appeal.

    But to put a finer point on it, Suneel, I also think that this evidence should be examined closely—in fact, very closely—by your conscience.

    Here’s the thing. Let’s say Raniere gets a new trial tomorrow, his conviction is overturned, and he walks out of jail a free man.

    Suneel says at the beginning of his post: “I was not convinced then, nor am I now, that any of his ‘victims’ were in any way severely hurt.”

    Out of curiosity, do you know the physical and emotional impact an abortion has on a woman? Do you know that even in the best of circumstances many women that have abortions carry the emotional impact for years?

    Multiple of Keith’s partners had abortions. Some of Keith’s partners had more than one abortion. He didn’t contest this.

    I don’t have an issue whatsoever with a woman exercising her right to choose. But it’s a choice that has significant physical and emotional ramifications. Raniere would know this, because a number of women in his orbit made that choice, and because he was the other responsible party.

    He professed to have loved these women, and yet somehow this kept on happening. In some cases, to the same woman multiple times.

    Did it ever occur to him at any point to get a vasectomy?

    Vasectomies are reversible. He could have reversed it at any point once he was ready to conceive his avatar baby.

    How fundamentally selfish is he as a human being?

    So in conclusion, I’m in full support of due process, and if the result of the fair and just execution of due process is an overturn of his conviction, so be it. But none of that changes the fact that he’s a terrible human being.

    • “I am a woman. I am pro-choice. I do not think abortion in the first trimester is murder. These are my personal views—feel free to have your own, and I’m not here to debate them.”

      You are wrong and evil and murdering babies in the womb makes you a baby killer. If you want an abortion, you should die too. If the kid dies, so should you.

      If you don’t want a kid, use contraception. Or, sew your cunt up.

    • Yes it is a terrible illustration of how much damage the SOP did to men that this man cannot see that any women were harmed by KR. Extraordinary that he cannot see that.

    • Anonymous-

      Nobody was ever ever pressured into getting an abortion?

      Pam did not go with the young women to make sure their abortions were carried out without a hitch?

      Someone needs a reality check.

      • Pam went to support and care for a woman who was making a choice that is difficult for most women. Often women choose to have someone they love come with them for moral support. This has also been twisted for the narrative, like many other points.

        • ” often women choose to have someone they love come with them for support”. Oh! You mean…Like the man who impregnated them? How many of the very large number of abortions where Keith was the father did he attend? What kind of man repeatedly has someone else take on this “difficult” burden for them?

  • Frank, I am sharing your news reports on Twitter. I hope you get more views.

    Thank you for all the work you do. Your work has been key for exposing Nxivm and its bad deeds in Mexico. Thank you.

  • There is data, information, and relevant process-related issues, even though the people who hate, decide that a person is guilty just because they do not like him. It is irrelevant for them the justice. How is that different as was in the past? Mr. Chakravorty is upholding a principle, the principle of justice.

    • Has nothing to do with hate. This is the new phobia mantra evidently. “Oh, you’re a racist”. “Oh, you’re a homophobe etc.”

      Have to come up with something better than word salad and the hate battle cry.

      We on the outside can see through the bullshit.

    • Only the Nexivm people use the hate word and the prosecution and victims do not hate anyone – they just followed the law. It suits the Nexivm group to pretend people hate it – all cults are like that, that is why Warren Jeffs in jail and still FLDS leader can doubly convince cult members his predictions were correct – that he is so true, so the one true prophet that he has been jailed.

  • This piece consists entirely of motte and bailey arguments. And not particularly good ones. You avoid the most damaging evidence and add in a mixture of confused interpretations of the law.

    I do think that this article serves a purpose in that every time the Nxivm 5 twerks for Keith, literally or figuratively, it damages the Vanguard’s case. Tie yourself into a pretzel if you feel like it but the more you struggle against the Chinese finger trap of Keith’s case, the more entangled and hopelessly stuck you will become.

    • Leo, I would like to formally thank you for educating me on ” motte and bailey”. Now I must learn proper pronunciation before I over eagerly use it in a verbal discussion and embarrass myself!

    • Yes, they need a US lawyer writing about the issues for them. There non legal points do not really advance their case.

      They also need a PR person as suggesting no victims were hurt when clearly to everyone else lives were ruined and a man as old as KR was thought it was fine to have sexual relations with a 15 year old is incredible.

  • There are two questions involved.
    One, is the justice system in the USA is fair?
    Two, was Keith was treated in the same way as other arrestees?

    According to Human Rights Watch, there are areas in the former that are concerning.

    Everyone arrested has a right to a jury trial. Yet if even 30% of arrestees insisted on a jury trial that would collapse the whole system. They couldn’t do it.

    What is the solution?

    Right or wrong, the solution devised is to make sure plea deals are made. Anyone who does not make a plea deal has to be taught a lesson for anyone else who may get strappy and insist on a jury trial. Thus, typically if you plead guilty you may get for example 10 years and if you go to trial you get 30 years.

    If people started getting “not guilty,” pleas after going to trial —all of a sudden there would be impossible to handle surges in criminal trials. That simply cannot be allowed to happen for the system to work. A number of factors make sure it doesn’t.

    “Anonymous” has pointed out that maybe prosecutors are skillful enough to justify the EDNY 99.8% conviction rate. But if that is true how did it happen that the USA has 4.4% of the world’s population and 22% of its prisoners? Are Americans just bad people?

    Part of being of high IQ would be to understand a situation and solve it the best it can be solved. One such person who might be an example is the case of Bhagwan Osho’s secretary Ma Sheela. Like Keith, she too felt she was innocent but she had perhaps a different understanding of the American justice system. What did she do? She plead guilty to attempted murder, assault, immigration fraud, wiretapping, and setting fire to a county office. She got 3 concurrent 20-year sentences. She was released on good behavior after a total of 39 months in prison.

    Similarly, I believe had Keith plead guilty, admitted wrong-doing, and expressed remorse he would have gotten even less than 20 years and could have been out in less than 39 months. He would have then gotten out around March 2021. Perhaps there is an O’Henry story here someplace about the “world’s smartest man” in prison for life for the world’s dumbest ideas.

    • You raise some very valid points in terms of what many (including me) consider to be flaws in the U.S. criminal justice system: the over-charging of defendants in order to encourage them to plead out to lesser charges; the “trial penalty” that ends up with convicted defendants who go to trial getting longer sentences than those that plead guilty; and the high percentage of people in the U.S. who are incarcerated. And there are others that you didn’t raise: the over-criminalization of activities that are not crimes in other countries (e.g., marijuana possession); the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, inmates are considered to be slaves; the lack of rehabilitative programs in prisons and jails; the ancillary penalties that go along with every felony conviction; the life-long nature of a felony record; etc.

      Your description of the Ma Sheela case left out two very important facts.

      First, because her crimes were committed before November 1, 1987, she was eligible for parole – which is why she only served 29-months (Parole is no longer available in the federal penal system – and every federal prisoner must serve, on average, 85% of their original sentence).

      Second, it was after she served the 29-months and left the U.S. that the government discovered she was involved in the plot to assassinate Charles Turner. The U.S. requested that she be extradited from Switzerland to face charges regarding the planned assassination but Switzerland rejected that request.

      • I agree, KR. Not one person should be arrested for marijuana while Perdue reps skate scott free.

        Prisons should be safe.

        Female prisoners are yanked from families and their kids grow up on the streets.

        And there is zero rehab when they get out.

        Personally? I blame public-sector unions. Jailing is big business, and someone needs to pay their fat pensions.

        Police don’t need to be defunded. They need to stop harassing people over petty crap.

        It starts with them. They’ve turned into armed revenue agents.

      • Clav, interesting. If you were given Keith’s arrest circumstances, how would you have played it? I assume plead guilty and bargain for financial penalties, possibility of early release, low security prison etc. If so, when would the earliest possible release conceivably be?

        • I’m not sure I want to answer your question publicly because I do not want to inadvertently assist Keith and his attorneys as they move forward with his appeal. Suffice to say for now that I think major mistakes were made at every stage of his case – especially at the earliest stages.

          • Ok. The chance of an appeal being heard is nil though.

            Certainly, everything done early is much more effective. Franklin Jones aka Adi Da faced a similar situation and immediately escaped to Fiji.

            Perhaps Keith felt he had enough political connections in Mexico, making what happened such a surprise, unknown to his sources.

            Ukraine, Bali, Moldova, Taiwan all would have been good choices as soon as the branding story broke.

            I think it was a case of having grown so accustomed to blackmail, coercion, fraud, and mind games it became like brushing his teeth and he genuinely couldn’t imagine anyone thinking it problematic.

          • I agree that Keith had grown to think he was immune to legal prosecution…

            PS/Keith’s appeal will be heard – but I think it will be summarily rejected.

          • Claviger.

            Just so you know I enjoy reading every insightful comment you make, particularly when it pertains to to the law; and I’m sure everyone else does as well.

    • Sheela went on, with plenty of $$$ well-hidden, and eventually settled down to run an old-age home across the pond. She still runs her mouth. A lot of her education was gotten in New Jersey, USA, by the way.

      I have known and watched Ma Anand Sheela at quite close range ever since the mid- seventies. Ah yes, personally. I mean , whoops.

      If you want, I can do her act for your viewing amusement. With or without her auld pharmaceutical overlay. She is too elderly for that shit anymore and has mellowed. Only somewhat. Sheela is, after all, Sheela. Strange fruit?

      She has added a few verses to the tales of Scheherazade tales to be told only where there is candlelight and with roses on the table. “See-la.”. Capricorn who just had another birthday. See? Someone still remembers a tale told by an idiot. Of course not any Sheela idiot. Hoo boy.

    • The Achilles Heel of grandiose narcissists is the absence of an understanding of their own limits.

      The most dangerous sociopaths comprehend the boundaries of their power and act with more care and calculation. Had “Vanguard” been less enamored of himself, he might have avoided criminal charges or, at the very least, high-tailed it to a safe haven while he had the chance.

      The grandiosity that garnered him so many followers was his undoing.

      Now, all he is left with is bleating from his tiny jail cell that people are biased and hate him.

    • Are you saying people should lie and say they are guilty so they get a shorter sentence? I thought America was supposed to be a country that is civilized and promotes justice, liberty and freedom. What do you think someone’s life looks like after they are labelled “guilty”. Do you think society welcomes them with open arms?

  • Morality aside, I agree with Suneel that the sex trafficking charge is flimsy. I wouldn’t be surprised if he appealed it successfully.

  • Since you are still allowing off-topic comments. Here’s one that is at least connected to this site. Was the Nashville suicide bomber one of your 5G conspiracy contributors? for a while there you were posting many articles from seemingly like minded folk. was any of them named Anthony Warner?

  • The jury wore nicer clothes on the day they deliberated and pronounced the verdict. This is supposed to prove Raniere was wrongly convicted.


    What kind of pretzel logic is this?

    Raniere had women branded with his initials. On their pussies. After having them blackmailed. He had his minions order these blackmailed women to service him sexually. He collected obscene pictures these women were obliged to provide.

    He was found guilty by jury. Despite having a high priced legal team in his corner and a year to prepare his defense. Hardly surprising, since Raniere and his minions left a robust trail of evidence proving his and their guilt.

    Raniere had his trial. He had his month in court. He was convicted of racketeering because he had been running a criminal racket. That is the only reason he was convicted. He won’t win an appeal, he won’t be granted a new trial.

    He’s guilty. Justice was done.

    • Well said. The Nexivm 5 always leave out the main salient facts so they end up looking like fools and it does their cause of KR no good.
      They won’t get him out so they and his principles/tech (adapted from Scientology et al) they could just carry on doing if they think it is so good. The person they should remember never matters if the principles are good.

  • So… the guy who “was honored in 1989 by the Guinness Book of World Records in the category of highest IQ” didn’t think to actually put on a defense at trial, is surprised he was convicted and now thinks he’s going to win on appeal?

    And thinks having one of his minions write this nonsense is going to change his public image?

    World Record Stupidity. Someone contact the Guinness Book.

  • Suneel, words of encouragement by the one and only.

    Dig and then dig a little more.
    Dig until you can’t dig
    then dig
    just a little more
    Dig hard dig deep for this right here
    Raniere won’t sleep a wink.
    Peaches 🍑

      • I need evidence that he was in Nxivm. Just being a student in Nxivm can cost people their jobs or deny them work, etc.

        • I think he was on John Tighe’s 2011 coach list.

          He was, however, 100% both a Nxivm student and a coach.

          I encourage you to find out.

          I also encourage you NOT to let him sneeze, cough or generally exhale within 50m of you. The Chinese Cough and all.

  • Crybaby Jane and Ed’s whole position seems to be that he barely, only marginally committed the crimes of which he was convicted? It’s also interesting that Keith or Ed, rather, never address Keith’s diddling of little girls. This is the root of the hate. What say you about this topic, Keith and Ed?

    • They seem have convinced themselves the women lied. KR seems to have told SOP men that women are defective and liars and weak and exploitative of men – something some men lap up so it is not hard to convince men of that… and therefore not to be believed. It is a bit like the Bible – Eve in the garden of Eden tempts Adam with the apple and thus man kind falls – women the root of all evil, a woman’s place is in the wrong. I am not surprised a lot of men fell for that.

  • A corporation relies on horizontal sales to stay in business. Amazon sells books to consumers. If it stops selling books, it fails. It has a horizontal chain of distribution to move product.

    Its success doesn’t depend on employees bringing in new employees. Its success depends on horizontal sales, not a vertical flow of new employees with money moving in commissions vertically, depending on new employees getting trickle-down commissions.

    A pyramid model relies on the vertical influx of new members. When new members stop joining, it fails. Income is derived by vertical commissions, not horizontal sales.

    I believe Nxivm relied on new members instead of a closed distribution chain. If so, that sounds like a pyramid.

    If part of that open recruitment included a pipeline of women across state lines, collateral used against those women to keep them in line, branding of a leader’s initials and failure to disclose that, nude photographs of minor, coercive threats, lawsuits and punishments, completely illegal medical experiments on unknowing victims, demanding loyalty and monogamy to a polygamous charismatic leader, then……

    You’ve probably got a real big legal problem on your hands.

    In my very humble opinion, based on what I know thus far, if I was on that jury, I too would see a RICO enterprise and would say ” guilty”.

    But again, just my opinion.

  • This story is incredible, I am amazed by how biased the prosecution was. Sometimes, I assumed that the US had the best justice system in the world. In this report, I was amazed by how wrong I was. Thank you, Suneel, for opening my eyes to this sad reality.

    • A prosecution by definition is biased. Just like a defense is biased for their client.

      Try a new one for your Vanguard.

      • The prosecution should have a higher standard than the defense… they wield much greater power. They can deny a person, and potentially an innocent person, their liberties. They have a much greater responsibility for rightness than the defense.

        • “Amy” that isn’t a legal argument. You aren’t helping improve your “Vanguard”‘s public image or reducing his need to stock up on anal lube.

          Seems like the main thing people learned from NXIVM was how to whine and call people haters.

          • Amy, the prosecution does have a higher standard. It’s called ” beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s a very high standard, which must be proven by an independent jury of ones peers.

            A defendant doesn’t need to do a single thing.

  • It’s hard to ignore how compelling this story is – seems pretty logical and evidence-based to me. While the charges against Keith Raniere are pretty horrendous, I haven’t read anything that is as fact-based on the Nxivm story as what is written in this article. Thanks for posting this, Frank.

    • It gives few good true facts nor any legal argument. Not logical or evidence based at all and it says it thinks no women were harmed – how anyone can think that is beyond me.

  • Suneel, dude, I hope you dedicate more of your life and time to something other than defending NXIVM forever. You’ll know if you are brainwashed if you wake up a year from now and you and the others are still chasing Keith around and have accomplished nothing else during that time. There’s plenty of ways to improve yourself and do good for the world. Give something else a shot.

  • Suneel, I thought that was the most thought provoking and coherent defence of Keith I have read. It was decisive and lacked the taint of misogyny apparent in others I have read. Whilst we may disagree that Keith is guilty of some crimes, for example, sexual abuse of children is a real sticking point for me, I do, however, think he cannot be proven guilty on all the charges that he was. Do I think he belongs in prison? Yes. For 120 years? No.

    • Clarification…sexual abuse of children was not charged nor proven. There was a letter read without swearing to the truth – and there was no cross-examination nor consequence to lying. This process of allowing people to speak who did not testify is a real problem for me.

    • Agreed, btw LM interesting you used a sentence using the word taint. It makes me take pause to say, poor Raniere he’s living life a little queery. They cause his strife. LADY JANE he’s the wife. Beef noodles, beef cheeks it taint no pussy it taint no dick! Hurry Suneel come save him quick!
      Thank you I’ll be here all week.

  • Suneel misses the entire point. There should be no NXIVM, no Suneel or anyone else in prison or going to prison and no story to tell. Keith Raniere signed a deal with the US Government to never start another multi-level marketing organization after Consumers Buyline years ago and he did the exact opposite. That should be the end of the story right there. But it is not.

  • This isn’t about your “Vanguard.” This is about you, Suneel, and your inability to admit that you were hoodwinked by a charismatic, grandiose narcissist with a middling intelligence, but enough insight to snare you by your fantasies of wearing colored sashes.

    You sound like an insecure narcissist (which is true of most of “Vanguards” followers from what I’ve read). Now, you are following your convicted guru’s pathetic, whining, after-the-fact writings around like a puppy led by the nose. You lack insight, you have no clue about the law, and you’re not a good writer. I see no point in paying attention to you any longer, because a) it isn’t interesting and b) what a narcissist craves more than anything is attention, even negative attention.

    You think defending this despicable rapist scam artist makes you special. It does, to some degree. However, marks fooled by charlatans are a dime a dozen–you just worship one who happened to create lurid headlines because he was into having his initials branded into women.

    Grow up. Start reading some books by worthwhile thinkers.

    You have the choice to stop being a NXIDVMDVM.

    • Even though I’ve found most of what I’ve heard about NXIVM quite troubling, I’m also troubled by your comment. Frankly, it’s just a mean ad hominem attack. It says nothing and adds nothing to move the conversation forward . I actually thought the author did a good job of outlining points, providing evidence, and making clear analyses. What specific points that he made do you disagree with?

      • “Amy” I understand that it is hard to accept that your guru is a fraud and a despicable human.

        When someone’s character is at issue, the matter is necessarily ad hominem.

        NXIDVMDVMs sorely need to retake their high school freshman Latin class.

        Imus ad magum videndum, magum Ozi mirum mirissimum.

  • After I am done with my own review of Keith’s “Call To Action”, I will comment on the various issues that Suneel has raised in this post – and any other issues that he raises in subsequent posts or comments. Suffice to say for now that although I agree that there are some legitimate issues that can be raised concerning the arrest, prosecution, trial and sentencing of Keith Raniere, I do not believe that any of those issues – even if conclusively proven – will result in him being granted a new trial.

    • I’ve been following this case and I agree with most of what you’re saying. After everything that Frank has shared lately, I do see a chance for Keith getting a new trial. Interested in learning more of your thoughts on this.

    • There are two ways to comment….one is about the law. the other is about morality and what should happen for justice to take place. Your comments about Keith getting the same treatment that other criminals get and have gotten brings up points of uniformity of treatment. This does not mean the treatment is moral or just. If you could comment on both I think it would be interesting. For instance, the Mexico kidnapping situation you argue that it was done within the law. Do you think the laws and the application of those laws is just? There was a woman arrested and put in jail recently in the Caman Islands for not quarantining herself. It may be lawful to put her in jail. Do you think it’s just?

      • Although my current series of posts is focused solely on the question of whether any of the “legal issues” raised by Keith Raniere in his “Call To Action” are a legitimate basis for him receiving a new trial – either via a Rule 33 motion or an outright appeal – I am happy to answer questions such as yours in the comments section.

        That said, let me address your question about the manner in which Keith was apprehended in Mexico and expelled from the country. In my ideal world, here is how I think things should basically work (If the U.S. citizen in question has supposedly committed a crime of violence – or some other heinous crime – I would be willing to modify these rules):
        – When a U.S. citizen who has already been convicted of a crime in the U.S. flees to another country to avoid going to prison, I think that the U.S. ought to be able to have that person turned over without going through a complicated extradition proceeding. Thus, I would be fine with the apprehend-and-expel methods that were used on Keith in this sort of situation.
        – When a U.S. citizen who has been arrested or indicted in the U.S. flees to another country before they can be brought to trial, I think the U.S. ought to be able to have that person turned over via a very simple identification hearing. In such a hearing, all the U.S. would have to do is prove that the person in custody is, in fact, the person who was arrested/indicted – and the person would be turned over to them (The country in which the person was located would be obligated to apprehend the person – and retain them until the identification hearing could be held).
        – When the U.S. suspects that a U.S. citizen has committed a crime and wants to bring them back to the U.S. for questioning, DNA testing, etc., I think they should have to go through a full-blown extradition process in order to get custody of the person (Once again, the country in which the person was located would be obligated to apprehend the person – and retain them until the extradition hearing could be held).
        – In all instances, it should be the responsibility of the country in which the U.S. citizen is hiding/residing to apprehend that person. Only if that country explicitly refuses to carry out that task should the U.S. be able to resort to third parties or U.S. Marshals to do the apprehension – and, even then, the U.S. should be required to notify the country in question before any such action is taken.

        So, let me reverse the question to you…how would you handle such matters?

      • Patrick,

        —There are two ways to comment….one is about the law. the other is about morality and what should happen for justice to take place

        Patrick. your issue is a philosophical conundrum that lies within the nebulous of morality and the law. Two man-made constructs.

        Don’t conflate the law and morality.

        • Patrick-

          “Don’t conflate the law and morality.”

          I do not mean that statement in jest.
          I’m very serious.

          Sometimes the law and
          morality can at times appear to be mutually exclusive. Such as in the case with Keith Raniere.
          I would agree with you if……
          ….If Raniere committed his crimes as an individual and not as the leader of a cult I would agree with you, in part, and I’d say 120 years is much to long.
          In all seriousness Bernie Madoff never raped, molested, or murdered anyone. He committed absolutely no violence or criminal acts of a sexual nature. Bernie received a 150 year prison sentence. Because he was the head of a criminal enterprise and a message needed to be sent to the investment banking community.

  • Dude, you are embarrassing yourself. There are many more productive things you could use your time for other then defending your idol like some pathetic puppy dog. Your bias presenting this is ridiculous and your presentation shows you are clearly not a lawyer. You ignore all the facts that make him look horrible which REALLY highlights your bias.

    Simply put, you are doing a bad job advocating for Keith and he would be embarrassed if he saw this (that is if these aren’t already his words that he told you to write). Just stop for everyone’s sake.

    Also, stop acting like female victims are treated like babies. My wife was abused by her stepfather and is a lieutenant in the Marines and is the toughest person I know. Women aren’t babied like Keith would like you to believe. The misogyny from you guys makes me sick.

    • David, it would be very interesting to know what about Suneel’s comments you find ridiculous, also what are the facts you believe he is ignoring. I am not someone who defends Keith at all. But I’ve been following this case for a while now and would be interested in knowing your perspective since I believe Suneel makes some really interesting points that I believe could change the outcome of the trial. But I’m sure there’s more that I might be missing. Appreciate your response!

  • Lol, I guess those Keith fans posting here missed the verdict (which was guilty ) on all charges by a jury of his peers which is what he wanted: a jury trial The sad thing about them is if this is what our Government wants Keith behind bars, this is what our Government is going to get. Big Brother is not going to change that no matter what you do. If they keep this up, they just might find themselves in legal trouble with no way out. just remember: Big Brother has long arms and deep pockets.

  • List and prices of items sold at the commissary in FDC Philadelphia:


  • That’s where a lot of people got it wrong about where Clare Bronfman will spend her prison time. Not the place as it was assumed.

    Phone: 215-521-4000
    Fax: 215-521-7220
    Inmate Gender: Male and Female Offenders
    858 Total Inmates
    Judicial District: Eastern Pennsylvania
    BOP Region: Northeast Region

    Register Number: 91010-053
    Age: 41
    Race: White
    Sex: Female
    Located at: Philadelphia FDC
    Release Date: 06/29/2026

  • Weren’t many of the women ordered to seduce Keith as an assignment with their blackmail material hanging over their heads? Wouldn’t this account for the texts and emails, which were written by Nicole asking for hot sex or whatever?

    • Yes. Most DOS witnesses explained this very thing. Being ordered by their master (with the threat of their blackmail being released) to contact Keith and “seduce him”. Keith even told one slave “you’ll have to do better than that” when her emails were not explicit enough. It is my belief this pre-sexual contact forced communication was premeditated to further the narrative that these women “wanted Keith” both to stroke his ego and to mind-fuck them into thinking they asked to be raped. It is an electronic paper trail that backfired on him in the end.

  • This is a very different story than the story presented in the media and the trial. I find it believable due to the RICO charges, which are my main complaint in this whole thing because of my first hand knowledge that NXIVM is not a criminal organization. RICO is the foundational charge used to game the system in the favor of the prosecution. Because I know this to be true, it brings all other facts into question regarding the government’s behavior.

  • What a bunch of kool-aid drinkers these NXIVM acolytes are writing these articles and posting in these comments. Your Vanguard wasn’t convicted of brainwashing. Just like Capone who was convicted of tax evasion and not the murders and thefts he ordered, Raniere was guilty of so many other things, but was convicted of the charges against him. His lascivious lifestyle, being a manipulative jackass, running of a cult, and that he has you “brainwashed” morons still posting here, shows why he needs to be where he is.

  • So much wrong here. The prosecution’s argument for why Keith committed identify theft is rather irrelevant.

    “ The only thing they proved was that he used the credit card. By the way, he paid every bill on the card. No one was injured. ”

    ^^^^^ this IS identity theft ^^^^^^^^ You admit Keith is guilty of doing what he was charged with in your own sentence.

    • Exactly. Besides being so disrespectful to a deceased person it’s more money laundering/ hiding your income/tax evasion tactics. Probably even trying to hide his location.

  • There are two issues here.
    1.Was Keith treated fairly.
    2.Was Keith treated differently than normal.

    That is to say, the US Federal court system IS unfair with a 99.8% conviction rate.

    On the document linked to above page 13 shows:
    New York, Eastern: 648 convictions,
    1 acquittal for 2015.

    If you have money, you will find attorneys claiming they can get you off in a trial, but if you look at their track record you will find almost no defense lawyer has ever won in court. Your only chance in this system is to make a deal before trial.

    From the same article:
    “deciding to go to trial can legitimately be considered either suicidal or
    the sign of a severely deranged mind in almost every other federal district.” P.13

    “The conviction culture that prevails in federal courts is resulting in the majority of U.S. District Court and magistrate judges going for a year and more without a single defendant being acquitted in their courtroom.”

    The system is skewed, highly unfair, and discriminates against the poor. Keith seemed to love attacking people with it and had no problem with it hounding others. To suddenly say he thinks the system he used so relentlessly is unfair strikes a grating note.

    As far as not being released on bond. Someone with hundreds of millions at their disposal facing a court with a 99.8% conviction rate and a life sentence would be addled not to head straight to a non-extraditable country.

    • You could argue that a high conviction rate is a result of only bringing legit cases to court. The DA’s office has no motivation to bring cases against people just “because they do not like the defendant”. The prosecution has every motivation to make sure they have an actual case based on the preponderance of evidence. High conviction rates can simply mean that they are very, very careful in choosing to only prosecute those defendants who are, in fact, guilty.

      • It would be great if this is how things worked in all prosecutors’ offices–but, unfortunately, that’s not the case.

        I think one of the reasons why Keith believes that the prosecutors in his case were acting in bad faith is because he was able to get the Albany County District Attorney, P. David Soares, to initiate criminal charges against several of Keith’s “enemies” when there was no basis whatsoever for those charges (Hell, in the criminal computer trespass case against Joe O’Hara, John Tighe, Toni Natalie and Barbara Bouchey, Soares initiated the charges even though Albany County didn’t have jurisdiction over the alleged illegal activity). So, it’s natural for Keith to project that the prosecutors in his case were also acting improperly.

        • That’s the irony of ironies for me, Clav. The corruption that clearly does permeate the Albany DA’s office worked in NXIVM’s favor and still does, not against them.

          They’d all be figuratively hung — and who says they’re not standing on a shaky platform with a noose around their necks as they pay obeisance with their last breaths and groin salutes to their unjustly imprisoned master? — were it not for the ‘protection’ of the NDNY’s rotted justice system yet supported by Bronfman and Mexican elite ‘defense’ spending?

          Again, where is Kevin Trowel with his purported, sorely needed investigation into public corruption in this case?

          And, Suneel, son, the first time you ever met Keith he was behind bars?

          Reminds me of a friend whose tragic story began with, “I noticed his ankle monitor when he took off his pants but it was dark and…”

          • Re: Trowel, just the thing for a careful dig through the archeology of nxivm malpractice – it seemed at the time. I know you’ve asked the question frequently, H, but seriously –

            ‘Again, where is Kevin Trowel with his purported, sorely needed investigation into public corruption in this case?’

        • While I completely understand your solid p.o.v on why Keith would hold these beliefs that is just not my experience with prosecutors. They are not all to be painted with the brush of corruption or incompetence (Did the debacle you presented merit state bar investigation? Genuinely curious) of these Albany buffoons. In most cases, they have a genuine desire to serve the public. They are not seeking the most money they can make in a cushy private practice. They do not all seek political office. Most toil in obscurity and do not relish a ” high profile case”. It is an enormous amount of pressure with pitfalls if you win or lose. Ask Marsha Clark how brutal the spotlight and career-killing it can become. Also, it often requires an expensive camera-ready wardrobe and makeover that the civil servant is ill-equipped to pull off financially or otherwise. We can agree on the negative prosecution you detail but disagree on prosecutors in general.

          • We don’t disagree at all because, like you, I believe that the vast majority of prosecutors play by the rules (I think some of those rules need to be changed but I have no issue with prosecutors who stay within the existing boundaries when it comes to prosecuting cases). The point I was trying to make in my comment is that Keith may have a warped perspective about how prosecutors operate because the Albany County District Attorney has been basically catering to his directives for the past 15-years.

            I was told – but have not seen any supporting evidence – that a complaint against P. David Soares was, in fact, filed with the governing body in New York State. However, given Soares’ then-status as the head of the New York State District Attorneys Association, it would not surprise me that any such complaint was quietly disposed of without any serious investigation into its legitimacy.

        • So basically Keith committed the fallacy of overgeneralization based on his own anecdotal evidence: i.e., since he was able to manipulate, coax, con, buy off, etc. the prosecution in his local district, therefore, the entire justice system is “corrupt” because he’s now on the “wrong” end of it. It appears that the actual reality is that those he dealt with are simply the exception to the rule, and the majority follow proper procedure and behave ethically. Too bad for him.

        • —Hell, in the criminal computer trespass case against Joe O’Hara, John Tighe, Toni Natalie and Barbara Bouchey

          Ah yes! I remember when Toni Natalie lied to the other defendants, saying she had permission to access the database system. Toni not at fault at all.

          1/2 kidding 😉

  • “If it were true I created businesses wherein I answer to no one, I still, in the least, answer to the law (If I didn’t, I would not be incarcerated.)” Pretty sure getting arrested was not part of the genius plan.

    Per pyramid, if the lawyers understood their Latin, arguably they were too embarrassed to voice the mangled attempt of bad-ass classical lingo that was Keith & Co.’s definition of DOS. (Read: only the dominus makes sense; it sure ain’t master over the slave lady people.)

    The word pyramid keeps the DOS outline, leaves out the “somebody give me a book report on Wheelock’s Latin.”

    Besides, pyramid is in part how they sold it to those Latin-eschewing sisters. You too can be a bad-ass Bezos with your own set of labor-saving slaves who have to jump when you text and get punished for infractions.

    Libs in Brooklyn may be fine with an abortion or two. When your life partners of decades rack up numbers seen more often on loyalty punchcards (10 abortions and the next one’s free!) judgmental coastal elitists think those involved are either lazy, or stupid, or in a sperm-worshipping abortion cult. None of these looks is endearing, despite being legal.

    Birth control: it’s easier than Latin grammar or showjumping. Figure it out, yo. Have Dani do a book report.

    Speaking of Dani, (not the sex dungeon one tho), when did Nxivm get so goody two shoes about Keith & Clare’s ladies not overstaying visas? What brought about this dramatic change in policy?

    • Mr. Claviger. On this subject, I am really only interested. The D.A.’s office is working closely with the Secret Service. What about them? Can we talk about them? Or is it a background theme? (They work with us.)

  • Suneel, you make some strong points in your argument. It does raise questions about how the trial was handled. I read the transcript of the text messages the defense was trying to use and I was surprised to read how the judge handled the situation. In my opinion, it does show bias on the judge’s part.

    I am in shock if what you have shared is true. It is scary that this is possible.

    I don’t know if Keith is innocent or not. Nor do I support what he is accused of – yet there is something fishy about all of this.

    I am impressed by your analysis and it takes courage to put yourself out in the line of fire. I think it is important that this is reviewed further.

    • You are out of your mind if you think those texts should be allowed. The phone was being hidden in Mexico. those were screenshots. if those were legitimate texts, then why didn’t they go get the phone and bring it to court? What did he have to hide on it that was worth more than 120 years in prison?

      This is an organization that implanted spyware on computers and hacked into accounts of journalists, congressmen, judges, fathers, and anyone else in the way. There is NO WAY you could allow unverified ‘text’ messages from a paper screenshot on a deleted account.

  • Suneel, let it go, son. At this point we all have ‘Raniere word salad fatigue’ and nobody is going to spend any time doing your work for you. Don’t expect ‘free’ input from others, when Keith is ‘splitting hairs’ in order to try and manipulate the situation. The ‘court of social media’ pressure is very unlikely to happen: Keith is really not that important, except in his own mind, but then again, he always was rather grandiose, was he not?

    If you really want to inform yourself, go and read about narcissists and how they operate on a website like ‘narcsite’; you may learn about how narcissists are unable to admit any wrongdoings, always grandiose, always have to be in control, manipulate tactics, compartmentalization of info, playing one against the other, and other typical traits. Even in being a narcissist, K. isn’t ‘unique’ or ‘special’. And nobody actually ‘hates’ him as he claims (another typical ‘narc.’ ‘grandiosity defence/attack).
    Disgusted, more probably.

    If you really believe Keith is innocent, then go hire lawyers to defend him and get them to parse through this nonsense.

  • I am at a loss for words. It seems like there were no laws to imprison Mr. Raniere, so the prosecution figured out how to make it look like he should be in prison by using character assassination and twisted arguments about the law. I am beside myself hearing about the judge’s participation in this by not allowing evidence in support of Mr. Raniere’s innocence into the trial and creating jury instructions around commercial sex that pretended immaterial exchanges like social status are material (be careful having sex with a person who has fewer Twitter followers than you… you might be accused of participating in commercial sex). I recently read a Tolstoy novel where a lawyer feels grateful to the prosecutors and judges because he, the lawyer, was free… at the moment. In Russia, the prosecutors and judges could do and did whatever they would like with the citizens. Maybe it is time to start thanking the US judges and prosecutors for the freedom they give to innocent citizens by not imprisoning them.

  • So you lead with this – “I am fully aware that there is an anti-justice, anti-truth pack of angry people who will hurl insults and ad hominem attacks, and if they could, probably hang me to a sour apple tree for merely suggesting that victims could be questioned, especially if their gender is female.” – and you expect to have people listen to you? You characterize those who disagree with you as anti-justice and anti-truth and then accuse them of hurling insults and ad hominem attacks – especially if they are female? Man, I think the now-defunct Knife of Aristotle editors would have a field day with you “sour apples” and “merely”. I read the first few paragraphs of pontificating and misogynistic statements and decided I don’t need to go any further. And by the way, the prosecution’s job was to prove his guilt – of course, they came in with that foregone conclusion. If they were trying to prove him innocent, he wouldn’t be in court to begin with.

    Frank – thanks for trying so hard to give these folks a chance to be heard. I, for one, have heard enough of them at this point. From now on, I’ll be skipping any of their posts just like I don’t bother with comments from Scott or shadowstate or banger man. From what I’ve read, they all seem pretty unable to look at themselves and their own arrogance. If that’s what all those EMs taught them, I suggest they need a couple of new modules on humility and effective communication (hint – annoying your readers right off the bat does NOT lead to open communication). Have at it; I’m out.

    • L, well put. Seriously and with no offence meant to either followers or detractors of KR, I would say that the kindest thing would be to find a psychiatrist specializing in NPD to work (or EMs if he prefers) with KR in order to try and rehabilitate him. Not that I expect he will agree to it. Narcs never ever think anything is their fault. If after 2 years of forced ‘isolation’ and reflection, he still believes he is innocent of all charges and puts the blame on the world at large, the justice system, the people who ‘hate him’, the women who lie or didn’t stand up for him, ad nauseam, and even grandiose claims of martyrdom, and still tries to manipulate through his remaining followers, then his teachings are bogus, since he has no insights whatsoever into his own psyche. This saga is likely to go on and on if you buy into it and is exhausting for everyone. It’s oddly ‘addictive’, like anything that is so remote from how the average person thinks, but there is nothing positive to be found in it.

      Suneel, if you are so keen on ‘justice’, maybe invest some of your time to research the John Tighe case or the Kristyn Snyder case? Better time investment. Just my opinion, of course; but I’m also out with any KR-generated discussion points.

  • “It is preposterous to believe that any woman was forced to get an abortion because the woman herself has to consent to an abortion and she has to appear and be alone with the doctor. This whole case is historic because it is all about proclaiming to the world that women have no agency.”

    To suggest that a woman can never be coerced into getting an abortion because she has to consent to the procedure and be alone with a doctor, ignoring any number of extenuating circumstances which might result in her doing these things against her own will, is an absurdly uninformed world view.

    • My understanding is the “abortion door” was opened by Cami. The defense wanted to deny Keith had sex with her underage. Well, she had an abortion as a teenager. She named him as the “father” of the embryo way back then. Depending on where she had it, they might even have DNA still. They track the tissue. If the defense wanted to pretend that an underage child in America illegally from Mexico somehow secured this abortion herself – it was relevant to bring up Raniere’s parade of past sexual partners/victims and his pattern of demanding they abort. Side note. Learn. P. R. 101. If you do not want the multiple abortions brought up… Stop bringing up the multiple abortions. If your far-fetched fantasy of a new trial comes to pass, every potential juror in America will already know about the abortion mill. Because of you! And Keith. All the supporters. Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. You are putting it out there now. You do know all this new stuff y’all generate can be used in the (fantasy) next trial? You do know that right? Does Keith know that? He is, after all, the smartest man in the world.

  • I would just like to note that the Mexican Eduardo speaks better English than Suneel. This sentence has grammar issues: “I Am Defending Raniere Because the Prosecution Was Wrong, the Judge Biased and the Defendant Is Innocent!”

    I think Eduardo is trying hard to learn and adapt to the United States. He is a smart cookie. I saw he is friends with Javier Jileta, from Mexico’s Government. I hope they together can push the country, Mexico, in the correct direction. I don’t think they need Suneel

  • To quote Suneel: “Perhaps the jury did not convict Keith on the facts but on their personal opinion they formed of him throughout a trial, where the judge let the prosecution run amok, dirtying him up with every salacious tidbit about his lifestyle regardless of whether it was accurate, wildly exaggerated or remotely related to the charges or not.”

    Suneel, this is so sad to see countless examples of unfairness in the judicial process.

  • Suneel makes great points here. I am no one to defend Keith and I don’t. But with what Suneel explains here I do believe in Keith’s innocence. We all know how FU our justice system is. Great article, Frank.

  • I’m beginning to think more and more that calling anyone who says anything positive about Keith “brainwashed” is just another attempt from the prosecution to head it off at the pass and discredit anything that opposes their presented case. I am not yet convinced that all of their narrative is false but certainly their abuse of the legal system is evident if you examine the actual case and what the required legal process is supposed to be. Sarah Edmondson, Mark V and company also seem to have some major holes in their stories and need the world to think anyone supporting Keith is brainwashed which is why I think they’ve pushed this idea so hard. Strange that they believe they themselves are victims but someone like Suneel is not. Not sure this Harvard boy is under a svengali spell or just exposing some things that would definitely lead to them (the prosecution, Sarah, Mark, etc.) having some serious explaining to do if true. He certainly makes some extremely solid points that hold up if you understand the law and justice system as they are meant to be utilized.

  • I really believe that these cult people should have a hard time finding decent exposure and a chance to answer things. I mean victims didn’t have it until Frank Report really.

    There should be more attention to the crimes that no one investigates. Where is Kristin Snyder? In the story of Daniela or Camila, we need more details and more people should be separated from other humans that could be in danger just for sharing space with these people.

    The important part for example is how Raniere’s pedophilia wasn’t really judged, or suspicious deaths, including Cafritz for example. How none of these people is for trafficking children because Cafritz took these kids to abortions, right?

    So these women participate in the rapes of children and women. Or how he practices oral sex on Sylvie.

    So that’s another murder, for example, the abortions. Also the snuff videos or torture. The scarification lasts 25 to 40 minutes in an obvious Luciferian ritual, with mind control like a purpose behind it.

    So, Suneel, you could be just a scapegoat, a slave, a brainwashed asshole, or something darker. I mean it’s obvious that Nxivm was and is protected, they didn’t get it hard at all. Clare deserves 30 years, for example. And people, black and Latin people, have harsher sentences for mistakes daily. The system of Justice sucks and doesn’t work maybe, but that applies to any person

  • Sir, your John Adams quote directly applies to Mr. Raniere as the abuser of words. I’m a total outsider and bystander to all this, so I’m sure someone with more Inside knowledge would have more to say.

    But, let’s look at just three words Mr Raniere systematically abused: Celibacy, Ethics, and Non-Violence.

    The man promoted himself as a nonsexual celibate monk. That was blatantly untrue.

    He claimed to have nothing to do with his DOS ring of kinky sexy slaves. Also, untrue.

    Ethics: he denied his own firstborn son and played havoc with the mother’s emotional sanity while she was raising him. You are correct to say he was in Mexico trying to enjoy his second child he saw while escaping from the harsh realities of how the world is treating him, wreaking havoc with his emotions. Do you see the hypocrisy there? Does that sound ethical to you? Does it display the high and mighty powers of a celibate grandmaster Ethicist? His pledge of non-violence extends only to the physical realm of using fists. He clearly does not see, understand, or give a rats anus about mental, emotional, or financial violence, all of which are displayed in spades throughout much of Nxiums’s dealings.

    Yes, none of these particular abuses are against the law, and yes maybe Mr. Raniere doesn’t deserve the kind of jail time he got, I do agree with you there… but I ask you honestly, Suneel, does Keith’s blatant abuse and hypocrisy of words make him worthy of your support and worship?

  • Okay. Lots to sort through. Will start small. The arrest and “delay” in inditement(s) (a) not unusual in cases of multiple co-conspirators (b) not unusual with the amount of money available (flight risk). I understand that flight risk was not your concern. It was the court’s concern. Yes. You are correct that to a certain degree the prosecution has decided before the trial. Or there would not be a trial. They must prove there is “probable cause that this defendant has committed the crimes of which he/she is accused”. The courts are really backed up & trials cost a lot of money. Their job is to make sure that there is a case. Then to prove that case. No personal feelings. Many people who may have been “hated” have escaped charges in this manner. Have you heard of… Woody Allen? Did you see that media shit storm? But in the end, no charges. No trial. No personal/hard feelings from people whose job it is to decide not guilt or innocence. But if there is enough to go to trial, the case is there. Or it isn’t. You do not get convicted on what people “say”. That’s irritating when you guys keep stating this falsehood. You are convicted on evidence. A preponderance of evidence. This got long. More later.

    • @Anonymous: He was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance. Preponderance is used only in civil cases and means “more likely than not” or more than 50% likelihood the claim is true. In all criminal cases in the U.S., the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that the jury or judge (in cases with bench trials) was firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. Keith Raniere was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was firmly convinced. I’m a lawyer.

      • I’m genuinely curious, Anonymous1, if evidence that was tampered with (as Suneel and co claim to have had certified by multiple experts re the kiddie porn) lead to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” conviction from the jury, do you still consider that a “firmly convinced jury” and a fair trial?

        • I’m genuinely curious, SSR, if you faced up to reality rather than chasing hypothetical fantasies, would you still think “Vanguard” was The Smartest Most Ethical Man Alive™?

  • I am shocked to find out that it is even possible for people to be kidnapped in order to be arrested. If someone has done something so bad – why the need for such drastic measures…

  • I think it’s important that we believe women, but at the same time, if what I just read is true…this woman is giving women a bad name. Also, I’m not sure if I would call that “kidnapping,” but something does smell fishy there. I’m disappointed in the prosecutors for not following standard protocol and potentially mucking up this case.

    • Prosecution? They also say with an angel’s face what is obviously diabolical. If you don’t believe it, it’s still your fault. They can run over everyone because every subject (human being) is just a person to be used, and sometimes collateral damage.

    • Exactly and now KR and his followers are cherry-picking texts/emails from someone who was ordered to seduce KR with collateral as a threat. They were basically ordered to send those texts. There are only so many ways to seduce via texts (when the man in question is asking for them to be more and more explicit). Then there’s the amazing audacity to show these stating the victim is lying.

      I find Suneel a curious fellow. He has fallen hook, line and sinker with, I’m assuming, minimal mind messing considering he was only in it for two years. He was called upon to help Clare off the toilet when she hurt her back in this time and had the honour of becoming Keith’s friend (even though Keith had to ask him what line of work he was in on one of the prison phone calls). Part of me thinks he is wealthy, doesn’t give a damn, and has inserted himself into the thick of this as a joke or some form of entertainment or research for an experiment. It’s too bizarre to think someone would be doing this with their life. It’s Agnifilo’s job.

      • Curious, why wouldn’t you say that the Prosecution cherry picked the messages they decided to share….especially when it comes to the apparent conversations between Keith and Camila?

  • Hire outside counsel to review the criminal case against Keith. Everything else is a waste of your time and not helping Keith one iota.

    • I heard Kim Kardashian is taking the bar to become a criminal defense attorney. And what with the cancellation of her show, her hubby’s bid for President…maybe next time? Wouldn’t she be the ideal spokesperson for NXIVM?

      Line it up, Frank. Not that you and Clav won’t do but I’d rather see Kim’s ass in a sling, myself.

  • Suneel Chakravorty-

    Nothing you say has, in your well-written essay, any “legal” merit. Otherwise, Keith’s defense attorneys would have brought it up at pretrial or at trial. Sorry, old chap, you have nothing. Don’t believe me? Borrow some money from Sarah Bronfman and hire an excellent attorney to review the case.

    On the plus side, you are definitely an intelligent man and a good writer.

    Suneel, there is no doubt in mind that you believe what you’re saying.

    There is also no doubt in my mind that you are a good person who means well. I am being serious. You are noble in your cause to help a friend.

    • Yes, NiceGuy. He is an intelligent human being but NOT intelligent enough to grasp the context here. Let’s not forget, I.Q. is also a spectrum…

  • I had to stop reading when he mentioned the jurors’ clothing. That argument is absurd. And the part about their abortion views? This is not someone grounded in reality. Or he’s trying to manipulate us.

    • Adam Hayes,

      My favorite part was,
      “If we are supposed to believe the woman, then when should Keith have believed her? When she said she was content with the sexual experience or afterward when she said she wasn’t? “

      Suneel conveniently forgets Keith Raniere knew all about the blackmail/collateral over Nicole’s head. Not to mention she is alone naked, blindfolded, and tied to a table.

      • This gal did not need an assignment or collateral to seduce a man. She was all over every guy including married ones.

    • Adam, You should be content, grateful rather, he didn’t start raising issues about the jurors’ genitalia texture! Don’t get too fussy buddy! [redacted]!

      • —Genitalia texture

        ……Something I have never contemplated until this moment.

        Thank you so much for enriching my life, Alex. I don’t know how I will ever repay you.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083