Editors’ Note: K.R. Claviger has taken the role of the defender of the prosecution and that due process was done in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere. He was assigned this task because as Frank Report publishes the opposing viewpoint, written largely by supporters of Raniere, and Raniere himself, it is important to have checks and balance, and an honest and robust debate as we examine the issues.
If the supporters of Raniere are biased, or rather are presenting their arguments in the best light possible, it is important that we have a counterbalance and a man who is biased against or certainly not biased in favor of Raniere. He also needs to be someone familiar with the law as Claviger is.
One of the arguments Raniere made in the post, ‘Call to Action’, which was, in effect, Part 1 of this series, was that he was denied due process concerning his apprehension in Mexico and his arrest in the USA. Here is Claviger’s rebuttal to Raniere’s argument.
By K. R. Claviger
One of the first legal issues that Keith Raniere raised in his recent “Call To Action” is his assertion that on March 25, 2018, he was “…kidnapped in Mexico after visiting [his] seven-month-old son and his mother, a life-partner of [his] who had just left”.
He goes on to elaborate on what happened to him in Mexico on that fateful day and afterward.
“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.”
Before I delve into the legal questions surrounding this alleged kidnapping and expulsion from Mexico, I want to review whatever evidence is available regarding the incident that was described by Keith.
In this regard, the only person who testified at Keith’s trial about the incident was Lauren Salzman.
There were others with Keith beside Lauren when he was grabbed up in Mexico – Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne, Loreta Garza, and Dani Padilla to be exact – but none of them has testified, under oath or otherwise, about the incident.
So, let’s see what Lauren Salzman had to say about what happened on March 25, 2018.
[Side note: During her testimony at Keith’s trial, Lauren revealed that Keith’s nickname for her was “Forlorn” or “Lorn” – and that he gave her that nickname because, as she put it, “I was sad and suffering”. She also revealed that in the NXIVM/ESP community “suffering” was considered to be indulgent. Here’s how she put it: “Suffering is like a pity party, or like it’s when you’re generating an upset over something, it was seen as – suffering was seen as being indulging in sadness to make yourself feel better about something that shouldn’t feel good, or to get attention or something, or to get off the hook for something”.]
During her third day on the witness stand, Lauren testified that Keith had decided to hold a “recommitment ceremony” while he was in Mexico in March 2015.
According to Lauren’s testimony, this “recommitment ceremony” was to include several of the original DOS masters: Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne, Loreta Garza, Daniella Padilla, and Lauren – and the highlight of the “recommitment ceremony” was going to be a group blow-job for Keith.
And so it was that Lauren, Allison, Nicki, Loreta and Daniella joined Keith at the villa where he was staying in Chacala, Mexico – which is a small fishing village about an hour-and-a-half outside of Puerto Vallarta.
For several days, Keith presided over work sessions that were focused on how to rebuild the NXIVM/ESP business. Those sessions included several other high-ranking members of the cult (e.g., Clare Bronfman) – and Mariana, the mother of Keith’s second child, Kemar.
But a week before Easter, everyone who was not going to be part of the “recommitment ceremony” was sent away.
That included Mariana – who, according to Lauren, did not know that several women were going to stay behind with Keith at the villa after everyone else left.
Shortly after everyone left, Lauren and Keith took a nap together. When he woke up, Keith indicated he wasn’t feeling well – and asked Lauren to bring him some food.
After bringing him some food, Lauren went back to the kitchen to make herself a smoothie. That’s when Loreta came running in to tell her that there were police at the front door who were looking for Keith.
Lauren dashed back to Keith’s room – and tried to convince him to escape through one of the windows.
Rather than do that, Keith told Lauren to call [redacted], one of the cult’s highest-ranking members in Mexico.
But because neither of them knew how to use Keith’s phone, the phone call to [redacted] never happened.
Instead, Lauren started securing the room she and Keith were in. She closed and locked all the doors – and then she closed all the blinds.
But as she was closing the blinds, she could see what was going on outside.
As Lauren testified, “…I could see outside the window that federal police with machine guns and bulletproof vests, some of them wearing masks, were like surrounding the property…”
She continued, “…basically, they surrounded the whole property and they searched the whole property until they found the only place they weren’t able to search was the room we were in – and they came to the door and they were banging on the door and Keith was going to leave to go into…another room like a walk-in closet”.
As he was exiting, Keith told her to ask them if they had a warrant.
When Lauren asked about the warrant, they told her they would show it to her if she let them in. But after she refused to do that, they simply kicked in the door, held her to the floor with machine guns pointed at her, and asked her if anyone else was with her.
Afraid that she was about to be assaulted, Lauren called out Keith’s name in the direction of the adjacent room.
Several of the police immediately kicked in the adjoining door, dragged out Keith, put him on the floor, and handcuffed him. When they were done doing that, they stood him up – and let him read the piece of paper they had with them.
As Keith was being hauled away, Lauren testified that “…he called out to me what the allegations were, that they were out of the Eastern District of New York, that he was being accused of sex trafficking and I can’t remember what else…”
So, there we have it.
Keith Raniere was picked up in Chacala, Mexico by a group of what appeared to be Mexican Federal Police.
At the time that he was picked up, Keith was presented with some sort of document that indicated he was facing charges for sex trafficking – and perhaps several other charges – in the Eastern District of New York.
Setting aside the obvious misstatements and exaggerations in Keith’s claim – e.g., he was not visiting with his seven-month-old son at the time of his arrest, not all the Mexican police were wearing masks, and none of them appear to have been in full body armor – it appears to me that, based on the known facts and circumstances, there are three legal questions regarding what happened to him in Mexico and immediately afterward:
First, was Keith illegally apprehended and expelled from Mexico?
Second, was Keith illegally arrested in the United States?
Third, was Keith illegally isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for almost a month before he was indicted?
Let’s take a look at each of those questions – and see if we can come up with fact-based answers to them.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Apprehended & Expelled From Mexico?
Although Keith claims that he was “arrested” in Mexico, I do not believe that was the case.
Had he been arrested, he would have been held by the Mexican authorities – and the U.S. Embassy would have been notified of his arrest. Thereafter, a Consular Officer would have visited him, checked on his well-being and the circumstances surrounding his arrest, provided him with a list of local attorneys who are experienced in representing American citizens who have been charged with a crime, and asked the Mexican authorities for permission to be in contact with others regarding the arrest.
Instead, I think that Keith was simply apprehended by the Mexican police – and immediately expelled from the country.
Under Mexican law, the rights and obligations of foreigners – and Keith was definitely a foreigner throughout the time he was there – are not codified in one place. Instead, those rights and obligations are sprinkled throughout the Mexican Federal Constitution and in a variety of codes, regulations, and statutes.
Thus, for example, Article 33 of the Federal Constitution empowers authorities to expel from the United Mexican States “…immediately and without any previous legal action” any foreigner who the Mexican immigration authorities or agents deemed to have been engaged in any type of political activity.
Given Keith’s previous actions in Mexico, it would have been easy for Mexican authorities to have concluded that he had been involved in “political activity”. Even Keith acknowledges this in his “Call To Action” when he notes “I… lead a peace movement in Mexico”.
Indeed, Keith’s own attorneys argued in their “Sentencing Memorandum” that “He remains proud to have been permitted to play a part in helping citizens and residents of Mexico strive to bring peace to a country beset by violent gangs, kidnappings, and murders, a struggle that continues to the present and that will continue to the future” (See HERE for more details regarding Keith’s “political activity” in Mexico).
Regardless of how well-intentioned Keith may have been, the simple reality is that he had been engaged in political activity in Mexico – which made his apprehension and expulsion totally legitimate under Mexican law.
The fact that he was not engaged in political activity at the time of his apprehension – assuming, of course, that a group blow-job is not considered to be a political act – is irrelevant.
Keith’s prior involvement in political activity in Mexico – and his likely involvement in such activity in the future – was sufficient grounds for his apprehension and expulsion from the country on March 25, 2018.
Thus, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Arrested in the United States?
Now that we have established that Keith was properly apprehended in – and expelled from – Mexico, the next question becomes whether his arrest on the U.S. side of the border was proper.
While it is true that the U.S. could have sought to have Keith extradited back from Mexico, it was able to avoid that sometimes long and tedious process by simply picking him up when the Mexican Federal Police summarily dumped him at the border.
To be sure, that was not a fortuitous event.
Clearly, the Mexican authorities had tipped off the U.S. authorities exactly where and when they would be forcing Keith to cross back into the U.S.
So, is there anything wrong with that?
Unfortunately for Keith, the answer is “No”.
Mexican and U.S. authorities engage in a wide variety of cross-border cooperative efforts on law enforcement matters all the time.
Indeed, the U.S. Marshals Service – which has a Task Force that is dedicated to finding and capturing U.S. citizens who are trying to avoid arrest – even maintains a Field Office in Mexico to coordinate their joint activities with Mexican authorities.
So, while it may seem a little strange that a U.S. citizen was arrested after being forced by armed Mexican Federal police to leave their country, there is nothing illegal about it – especially since there was a warrant out for Keith’s arrest.
One of the things that Keith neglected to mention in his “Call To Action” is the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York had issued a Complaint and an Arrest Warrant against him sometime on or after February 14, 2018.
In reviewing the various filings in Keith’s case, we know that FBI Agent Michael Lever filed a “Complaint And Affidavit In Support Of Arrest Warrant” against Keith on February 14, 2018. That, in fact, became Document #1 in the filings for Keith’s case (That filing was done “Under Seal”).
We also know that on March 26, 2018, the EDNY U.S. District Court ordered the unsealing of the Complaint and Arrest Warrant in Keith’s case. This order was registered as Document #3 in case filings.
With both of the above-referenced documents in hand, it’s pretty easy to figure out that Document #2 – which was also filed “Under Seal” – was, in fact, the Complaint and Arrest Warrant against Keith.
Thus, when the FBI agents saw Keith coming across the U.S./Mexican border on March 25, 2018, they had a legitimate, court-authorized Complaint and Arrest Warrant regarding Keith.
As a result, they had a perfectly sound basis for arresting and detaining Keith on that date.
Once again, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Isolated From His Family, Friends and Attorneys for Almost a Month Before He Was Indicted?
Keith’s next point in his “Call To Action” is that after he was arrested on March 25, 2018, he was isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for almost a month.
Even if that assertion were true – and parts of it clearly are – what he fails to understand and/or admit is that he was treated exactly the same way as any other U.S. citizen who is arrested far away from the jurisdiction that issued their arrest warrant.
Keith was preliminarily arraigned in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 27, 2018 – just two days after he was arrested.
At that preliminary arraignment, Keith was represented by Brian D. Poe, a criminal defense attorney whose office is in Fort Worth, TX.
As noted in the record by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton, who presided over the preliminary hearing, Keith waived his right to have a separate hearing to confirm his identity – and requested a detention hearing back in the EDNY.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Keith was remanded into custody – and ordered to be “removed forthwith to the district in which he is charged”.
Keith’s next court appearance – which took place in the EDNY – was on April 13, 2018.
That means he was in transit from Texas to New York City for no more than 17 days: i.e., from March 25, 2018 through April 11, 2018 (He first showed up on the Federal Prisoner Locator System at the Metropolitan Detention Center on the later date).
Although we are uncertain as to the exact date Keith left Texas, we do know that he arrived at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, OK on or about April 1st.
Unfortunately for Keith, the Bureau of Prisons does not offer private jet service for those prisoners who must be moved from one district to another.
Thus, it appears that Keith was likely held in Oklahoma City for about 10-days – which, according to several criminal defense attorneys who practice in federal courts, is about average.
So, while a portion of Keith’s claim about being isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for a period of time is true, the reality is that he was treated just like every other federal prisoner in similar circumstances would have been treated.
Once again, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Stay Tuned as We Evaluate Keith’s Other Claims
In the next post in this series, we’ll evaluate some more of the claims that Keith put forth in his “Call To Action”.
Hopefully, those who support Keith will respond to each of these posts with questions and/or counter-evidence.
That will help all of Frank Report’s readers to hear from both sides – and to form their own conclusions about each of Keith’s claims.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
From my point of view, it was an illegal detention because he was “extradited” in a couple of days. The process usually takes several months or even years. This is why I would even consider he was not extradited but kidnapped. I don’t know if taking a man in an illegal way nullifies it’s trial, but it is a fact that he was kidnapped in Mexico.
Keith was not extradited from Mexico. Instead, he was expelled from Mexico — which is perfectly legal per Mexico’s constitution and statutes. So, the fact that you consider him to have been “kidnapped” is totally irrelevant and totally incorrect.
[…] I’ve already addressed this issue in one of my posts concerning Keith’s “Call To Action”. […]
[…] Claviger: Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated? – Part I: Was He Illegally Kidnapped in Mexico, Wa… […]
It’s so interesting that only one version of the story had been shown, I’m glad to read the other part, I think the truth must be upheld no matter what.
Keith didn’t even defend himself in the trial; that was very weird to me, I look forward to the process of his appeal!
I hope he can speak and we can see more of what he has to say…
[…] Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated During the Course of His Case? – Part I […]
Los niveles de violencia que está viviendo México son muy lamentables y realmente preocupantes. El gobierno no ha sabido control el poder de todas aquellas bandas que se dediquen a llevar a cabo alguna actividad delictiva.
Cada semana cientos de niños son llevados a las sierras para ser entrenados como sicarios, de esa manera inician su carrera en el narcotráfico u otras actividades. Se podrá debatir acerca de si el Raniere fue expulsado o no legalmente por una supuesta participación en la política mexicana. Pero yo como mexicano agradezco a todas aquellas personas, sean compatriotas o extranjeros que voluntariamente sumen esfuerzos en movimientos relacionados con promover la paz. Esos son considerados actos honorables en favor de una mejor convivencia social.
I think it would be interesting to see K.R. Claviger and Suneel Chakravorty (or someone else from the pro-Raniere group) respond to points made in each of their recent articles. Both seem to be operating in good faith and it could be the beginning of a productive dialogue.
[…] In the most recent post in this series regarding the various legal issues that Keith Raniere raised in his “Call To Action”, I addressed three questions regarding what happened to him in Mexico and immediately afterward: […]
I agree [ I am a lawyer in a different jurisdiction, not that that makes me an expert in the US or Mexico but the points certainly all seem correct to me). I have never understood why the Nx5 think there are breaches of law over this. They need to speak to more lawyers about it as it has always seemed quite clear to me.
Claviger, thanks for laying this out.
It seems to me pretty clear that in the big picture, Raniere is trying to portray himself as the ultimate victim — an ironic twist on his exhortations to followers, though it’s actually typical in cults that ‘responsibility’ only flows downward, while narcissistic leaders at the top both blame others for failures and claim to be the victims of attempts to undermine them.
In my observation, it is also fairly typical of culty thinking to make sort of childish sovereign citizen style arguments, that because some ‘I’ was perhaps not dotted or a ‘T’ not crossed, that the whole legal shebang was somehow fundamentally wrong and should just be thrown out, leaving the claimant reigning supreme.
Raniere’s notion of justice is ultimately a self-serving and egocentric, ends-justifies-the-means one — again, typical for cults and their narcissistic, psychopathic leaders. He had no qualms about ruthlessly and fanatically persecuting perceived enemies, including just ex-girlfriends and former business partners, by stretching the legal system to the point of abuse and using extra-legal means, including harassment as well, but he is self-righteously indignant when not treated with kid gloves and given every due consideration himself.
We can certainly see that he has a cunning and practiced way of twisting things that would take in the less observant.
AnonyMaker,
—In my observation, it is also fairly typical of culty thinking to make sort of childish sovereign citizen style arguments, that because some ‘I’ was perhaps not dotted or a ‘T’ not crossed, that the whole legal shebang was somehow fundamentally wrong and should just be thrown out, leaving the claimant reigning supreme.
Excellent metaphor…‘I’ and ‘T’ not dotted.
I’m still dumbfounded how Keith Raniere’s followers believe he was completely shafted based on their own interpretation of the law and how they believe how a judge/courtroom should be run.
Haha! Good point.
How long before the NXIDVMDMs start complaining that it was the “strawman” KEITH RENIERE who was charged in the indictments, convicted and sentenced, not the real person Keith Reniere. Then they’ll point out that the courtroom flag had fringe on it so it must have been an admiralty court. Etc, etc. ad nauseum.
That’s really their most promising opportunity to get “Vanguard” out of jail.
Someone send the NXIVM 5 a copy of _Black’s Law Dictionary_.
Very well put indeed.
They have such a wrong way of looking at it because either they are cult members or it is KR with his own over inflated view that he is always right, that they damage their case and their ability of their lawyers to defend them and they go their own way on things and ignore legal advice and thus do worse in the end.
So what if Mexico took Keith from the house he was in (and the closet in which he hid) and handed him over to U.S.Marshals? Yhey didn’t want filth hiding in their country. Who can blame them? We don’t want their murderers, rapists, or pedophiles hiding out in our country.
Let’s not forget how Keith tried to destroy the people he’s civilly suing. All because his path was christened. He also tried to destroy Frank, to underslation his honor, his reputation with fabricated charges, in an evil way. But karma once again showed its presence. Keith was pretentious and self-belief, thinking he was above everything and everyone.
What an outrage!!!! OMG! Someone’s civil rights were abused in Mexico! Well, Keith should have, like Roman Polanski, ran to France where polish-pedophile-ass-rapists go.
Raniere should be thankful papa Salinas, or one of the other members of the Billionaire dad’s Mexican contingent didn’t have Keith assassinated.
Someone in Mexico pulled some strings to get Raniere expedited. El Chapo the drug kingpin took weeks to extradite.
El Chapo went through the extradition process. Keith, on the other hand, was simply expelled from the country.
El Chapo was also not a foreigner, unlike Raniere, which precluded El Chapo’s deportation because it would have otherwise violated Mexican law.
I think he’s a sick, sick man, and maybe should have had an expert witness testify to that end.
NOTE FROM K.R. CLAVIGER: I neglected to add one very important point to this post: i.e., under the current U.S. case law, a U.S. citizen may be prosecuted for alleged crimes even if they actually kidnapped in another country – and brought back to the U.S. solely for the purpose of prosecution. As unbelievable as that may sound, it is, in fact, the existing law per the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent ruling on the issue.
Here are some more details on this issue:
If the fugitive is not a national or lawful resident of the country in which he or she is located, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs (OIA), through the Department of State or other channels, may ask that country to deport, expel, or otherwise effectuate the lawful return of the fugitive to the United States.
In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), the Supreme Court held that a court has jurisdiction to try a criminal defendant even if the defendant was abducted from a foreign country against his or her will by United States agents. Though this decision reaffirmed the long-standing proposition that personal jurisdiction is not affected by claims of abuse in the process by which the defendant is brought before the court [See Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952)], it sparked concerns about potential violations of foreign sovereignty, territorial integrity, and criminal law.
Due to the sensitivity of abducting defendants from a foreign country, new rules were enacted by the DOJ to avoid challenges to such prosecutions, Under the new rules, prosecutors may not take steps to secure custody over persons outside the United States (by government agents or the use of private persons, like bounty hunters or private investigators) by means of Alvarez-Machain type returns without advance approval by the DOJ. In this regard, prosecutors must now consult with OIA before they undertake any such operation. In addition, if a prosecutor anticipates that a defendant may raise a claim that his return was illegal, the prosecutor must consult with OIA before arranging for – or authorizing – such a return.
Fugitives deported to the United States or otherwise legally returned without a formal order of extradition may claim that they were returned illegally to the United States. The courts generally dispose of those arguments under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine.
Claviger,
Thank you for sharing/providing that tidbit. That’s an odd tidbit.
Bring him back any way you want.
Maybe we pool our money together and hire someone to grab Roman Polanski. A Go Fund Me to bring a child rapist to justice.
Yes, it’s interesting stuff.
But Claviger’s heartfelt reference to US agents violating due process (by kidnapping Dr. Alvarez-Machain) isn’t exactly a good example to pull on our heartstrings.
Why?
Cuz Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain was a Mexican gynecologist involved in the torture (and eventual murder) of U.S. DEA Agent Kiki Camarena, which was allegedly ordered by the Mexican Attorney General.
Kiki Camarena was tortured for 72 hours by having sharp instruments slowly jabbed into every organ, among other things.
Normally, a person would pass out, go into shock or have a heart attack and die long before 72 hours.
However, Dr. Alvarez-Machain injected Kiki Camarena with certain drugs to keep him from having a heart attack or dying too soon, so that his torture could continue.
This entire torture session was captured on audiotape and the US government was eventually allowed to hear it (but could not make a copy of the tape and had to listen to it in Mexico).
Anyway, even though Alvarez-Machain was eventually set free by US Courts (for lack of ‘admissible’ evidence) —- it’s common knowledge that he did help to enable Camarena’s torture, at least to some degree.
Thus, Claviger isn’t really being honest with us by leaving out the fact that US government agents WERE FORCED TO KIDNAP PEOPLE (like Dr. Alvarez-Machain from Mexico) because the Mexican judicial system was corrupt all the way up to the Attorney General and President.
Think about that for a moment.
The Mexican Attorney General allegedly ordered the torture & murder of a US DEA Agent. But then, that same Mexican Attorney General gets to control who gets charged for that crime in Mexico, LOL.
Kidnapping becomes necessary in such circumstances. That’s why the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘kidnapping’ somebody doesn’t necessarily prevent prosecution.
If Claviger wants to tug on our heartstrings about violations of due process, he should choose somebody other than Dr. Alvarez-Machain. I approve of such kidnappings. 🙂
Here’s the kicker…
US DEA Agent Camarena was tortured & murdered BECAUSE the Mexican government was taking HUGE bribes from the country’s largest drug cartel every month and wasn’t sure if the DEA had evidence of these bribes or not.
As it turns out, the DEA did not have solid evidence of these bribes (at that time) and the torture was not necessary.
Long story short… The Mexican government swept the case under the rug by only prosecuting one scapegoat for this murder, a guy named Rafael Caro-Quintero. This trial was forced to happen in Mexico so that Quintero couldn’t cut a deal with US prosecutors (and give evidence against the Mexican Government for accepting bribes, or provide other evidence of people involved in the torture itself, like Dr. Machain).
I approve of such kidnappings. We need more of them, not less. 🙂
Have a nice day. 🙂
I was merely citing the case to establish the fact that even if Keith was, in fact, kidnapped in Mexico, that would not affect the legality of his subsequent conviction in the EDNY. At no point did I suggest that I opposed the kidnapping of U.S. citizens in other countries in appropriate cases.
So Raniere’s claim that he was kidnapped by unknown ruffians is… a lie. Why am I not surprised?
If there had been anything improper about Raniere’s arrest, his attorneys had ample opportunity to raise the point at trial. They didn’t.
Same goes for all the other BS Raniere is claiming about “injustice”. The man’s a liar. His high-priced legal team had over a year to prepare his defense. They had nothing to work with because Raniere is guilty of every charge leveled against him.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of this “he said/she said” back and forth “discussion” of Raniere’s guilt. The man was convicted by a jury of his peers. He had able legal representation. He was found guilty on all counts. The case is literally closed.
At this point, “discussing” it is like giving equal time to flat-earthers.
He’s also a hypocrite, for whining about minor supposed injustices, while having gone to extensive and protracted, abusive legal and extra-legal means to try to ruin the lives of people who he imagined crossed him, or who even just had the misfortune of crossing paths with him.
Private Message for Frank… (this is not meant to be published, but I don’t care if it’s published)
Regarding my below post in this thread…
Since you chose not to approve my previous post from last week for reasons which sounded rather fishy (you’ve allowed others to post about the pandemic) —— I decided not to honor my promise to remain gone until next June.
If you’re not acting honorably, neither will I 🙂
Truth is, you simply disagreed with my pandemic facts. You were annoyed with the facts I presented in that post. You simply didn’t want the liberal backlash from such a post. The off-topic nature had nothing to do with your decision not to publish it.
It’s called finding a PRETEXT to silence a particular point of view that you don’t want aired. You’re an expert at finding such PRETEXTS.
So much for your slogan about “standing up to the world if they’re holding out swords”, LOL.
Have a nice day, Frank. 🙂
BTW: My below post is 100% on topic and not vitriolic towards anybody. It’s a fair post but I’m guessing you’re looking for reasons not to approve it, LOL
Just curious what PRETEXT you’ll use this time. 🙂
Thank you, Bangkok
Bangkok I am going to get around to your COVID post —
Claviger’s analysis about Keith being deported from Mexico for ‘political’ activity is not the reason he was likely expelled.
Here’s the reason…
Regardless of whether Keith had a valid passport with him in Mexico or not, Americans traveling beyond Mexico’s border zone (20 kilometers beyond the border) are REQUIRED to show their passports to Mexican authorities and to get a legit VISA to stay in the country, especially if staying for months or longer.
It’s not enough to have a passport with you. You must allow Mexican authorities to examine your documents when entering beyond the 20-kilometer “border zone” and you must obtain a legit VISA to remain in the country.
I seriously DOUBT that Keith ever showed his passport to Mexican officials when entering deep into Mexico (beyond the 20-kilometer zone) since he likely traveled there by “private plane” and I’m sure that his wealthy Mexican benefactors arranged to have him enter without showing his passport. That’s an illegal entry. He could be expelled just for that reason alone, without having to be extradited by the courts.
But there’s also the VISA issue.
Did Keith get a valid and truthful VISA to remain in Mexico for that long?
Regardless of whether you’re applying for a tourist VISA or a work VISA (or a family-based VISA), you must be 100% truthful in your VISA application when answering every question.
If you don’t answer every VISA question 100% honestly, your entry to Mexico is ‘illegal’ and you may be expelled without extradition.
I seriously doubt that Keith obtained a correct VISA to remain beyond Mexico’s border zone for many months —— since that would have required him to let Mexican officials know where he’d be staying and what his activities would be. He sure as fuck wasn’t staying with his infant son and baby mama. He was hundreds of miles away, shacked up with a half dozen sex slaves. So he wasn’t in Mexico to be with family.
If he lied about his location or activities in Mexico then his VISA isn’t valid and his stay in Mexico is illegal, making him eligible to be expelled without extradition.
Also, he probably lied on the VISA application about other things —– since he wasn’t really in Mexico as a tourist and he wasn’t really in Mexico to officially manage NXIVM’s business operations.
Keith wasn’t an official paid staff member of NXIVM, nor was he an owner, nor was he an official ‘volunteer’ donating his time to NXIVM for a specific period of time in Mexico —- so I doubt he qualified for a work VISA.
Besides, he was there (in Mexico) getting blowjobs and hiding out with his sex slaves, so he wasn’t there for any legit work purpose.
Thus, Mexican officials were allowed to expel him immediately (without having to extradite him thru legal channels) BECAUSE he was in the country ILLEGALLY and without a proper VISA to remain beyond Mexico’s border zone for many months.
The “political” argument brought up by Claviger sounds kind of fishy to me. Mexico expels American fugitives all the time without going thru formal extradition and without using such LAME arguments like “political activities” —– mostly because they enter Mexico illegally without getting a legit VISA to remain in the country beyond the 20-kilometer zone.
While it’s true that some American fugitives go thru formal extradition in Mexico, many of them don’t.
For instance, I’m pretty sure that rapist Andrew Luster didn’t voluntarily waive extradition when he was captured in Mexico and handed over to US authorities within days. But even if he did waive extradition voluntarily, I’ve seen a dozen other fugitives expelled without extradition. The reason given was ‘illegal entry’ beyond the 20-kilometer zone.
Have a nice day. 🙂
It’s quite possible that Keith was expelled because of one or more of the issues that you have mentioned. Unfortunately, I doubt there is any paperwork to document the exact reason that was cited for his apprehension and expulsion.
Regardless of what reason the Mexican authorities cited, the primary point is that what they did was perfectly legal under Mexican law. The secondary point is that if Keith wanted to challenge the legitimacy of his apprehension and expulsion, he would have to do so in an appropriate court in Mexico. Claiming that he was “kidnapped” and that his expulsion was illegal are both false claims – and are not going to lead to him being granted a new trial.
Why do I think you’re right? Maybe because I do?
Welcome back, Bangkok. You were missed by Frank and me. I believe Claviger said you’re like a ‘skin tag’. He rips you off his neck and you show up on his balls.
At any rate, nice to have you back. Tell your mom I send my sweet kisses.
Welcome back, Bangkok. You were missed by Frank and me. I believe Claviger waxed poetically about you…He said you’re like a ‘skin tag’. He rips you off his neck and you show up on his balls.
At any rate, nice to have you back.
I bid you good day! 😉
Bangkok-
Andrew Luster—Dog the Bounty Hunter…. …Interesting comparison. I remember the incident like it was yesterday…..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/19/usa.mexico
Oh, the outrage of the Nxivm diehards about their (misconceptions of) Mexican and American law. But no problem with breaking immigration laws, driving boxes of cash illegally over borders of the two countries, etc. But now. Now! The laws of these countries must be upheld!* and by “upheld” they mean whatever works to give Keith another trial on the taxpayers’ dime. Too bad they can’t say, ” Keith is a tax-paying citizen!” Because that is yet another crime he committed.
Can someone explain ( in serious terms) what a recommitment ceremony is, and the role a group blow job plays into it.
Serious. What was this all about.
It’s not ” a thing”. It is part of the made-up world of Nxivm. Read Lauren’s testimony. From what I remember being revealed during the trial, it is typical Keith garbage. He conditioned his branded first line slaves with readiness drills like Pavlov’s dogs and then starved them to the point of such a burning hunger that they were willing to put his smelly flaccid old dick in their mouths as a group. To further their growth. You know, normal stuff you do in “sorority” situations.
[…] Part 2 By Claviger Were Raniere’s Legal Rights Violated Via His Apprehension and Expulsion From Mexico – and/or His… […]
Both Mexico and the United States of America are sovereign nations with the right to determine who enters and remains in their countries.
America’s deportations should be as rapid.
Are you saying that the Mexican authorities “Apprehended” Keith by coincidence because of his political peace movement, or that the US government asked them to apprehend him so they could arrest him. If it is the later – is that legal?
I do not think that Keith’s apprehension was a coincidence. On the contrary, I think he was grabbed up at the request of U.S. law enforcement officials (probably the U.S. Marshals) – and transported to a pre-arranged location on the U.S./Mexico border.
Based on my understanding of Mexico’s constitution and applicable statutes, I think what the Mexican Federal Police did to Keith was probably “legal”. But the only place where Keith can challenge that action is in a Mexican court.
He may have been able to make a conspiracy argument in a U.S. court: e.g., “U.S. officials and Mexican officials conspired with one another to have me apprehended and expelled – and, therefore, my arrest in the U.S. was illegal” – but he didn’t do that. Instead, he’s argued that he was “kidnapped” in Mexico – which is not what happened.
Remember – all I’m doing here is analyzing the arguments that Keith put forth in his “Call To Action”. I am not looking at all the legal arguments he could have advanced.
Not only the Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution can be applied in Keith’s arrest. Remember that Mexico has an agreement with the US about narcs and drug dependence; they do share information about this matters. If the Mexican police found drugs inside the property (and as far as I remembered, some of the NXIVM folks used marihuana), the Mexican Police could use this argument. Also, if the National Security of Mexico is in danger, they can apply the National Security Law. Remember how the former Secretary of Defense Salvador Cienfuegos was captured in the US and later released as these treaties were in danger. And yes, Raniere can start a trial in Mexico because of his arrest in this country. But, as Emiliano Salinas is in que equation, the Mexican government is going to defend his arrest as a correct thing. (Andrés Manuel López Obrador hates Emiliano’s father). Another thing we have to research about is Keith’s passport. Did he entered legally to Mexico or he was staying as an illegal. In Mexico we have several American citizens living illegally in México, but you only hear in the news that poor Mexicans are illegal in the US. No, we have rich Americans without a passport living here and also they have properties. So Claviger, it would really be interesting to research if Keith entered legally to Mexico and if he had his passport with him. https://aplicaciones.sre.gob.mx/tratados/muestratratado_nva.sre?id_tratado=861&depositario= and https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiys8zm__PtAhVPUK0KHfAZAaQQFjABegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diputados.gob.mx%2FLeyesBiblio%2Fdoc%2FLSegNac_081119.doc&usg=AOvVaw25uLSFXADO-29Qzo3AecMn
I find this so interesting. I love reading about legal processes and it’s interesting to find out about some Mexican ways.
I think this is what Keith’s problem is the fact that “he was treated exactly the same way as any other U.S. citizen who is arrested”. Keith feels he is special and above the law. Why on earth should he be treated like any other US citizen? He has friends in high places that served him well getting away with decades of illegal activity. I think we will all learn that Keith was treated exactly like all the regular folk he despises.
“Political activity means an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/733.101#
Calling for peace in and of itself is not political activity IN THE UNITED STATES. Not sure of Mexican statute.
The term “political activity” in Mexico is much more broadly interpreted than the definition you cited with regard to the U.S. Inserting yourself into the debate regarding public policy — which is what Keith did — would most definitely qualify.
1. I am not convinced calling for peace is ” political activity “. He was not attempting to gain political power, and acquire political office or engage in revolutionary strategy.
He was pleading for peace in a country wrought with violence;
2. There is an extradition treaty with Mexico. Was it followed? Was there an extradition Hearing?
( in my humble opinion, it was a ruse to create a pipeline of pretty senioritas, but that’s besides the point)
Expulsion is a separate process from extradition. Apparently, the U.S. did not request that Keith be extradited. But I’d be shocked if the U.S. didn’t ask that he be expelled.
Great piece and hopefully enlightening for Eddy
Why are US citizens treated like this when they are abroad? I’m surprised this is seen as normal.
Did KR try to flee to Canada before hightailing it to Mexico?
Yes – it was only after being rejected by Canada that Keith and Cami went to Mexico.
Why did they need to arrest him this way? Why not just go through Mexican authorities with a warrant?
Expediency. No need to waste Mexican taxpayers’ pesos on nonsense.
Because it was the quickest, easiest, shortest, and cheapest way to turn him over to U.S. justice.
Fascinating and enlightening article. Thank you.
Why are US citizens treated like this when they are aboard? This would never happen on US soil.
LOL. I’ve literally been in a situation where six cops in bulletproof proof vests and machine guns surrounded two people in a car, first in unmarked vehicles, then by themselves, next to my car when all of us were stopped at a traffic light.