[Editor’s Note: I miscalculated the amount of time that Keith Raniere was incarcerated before he went to trial: that was 15 months. It was another 16 months after his trial before he was sentenced. Appropriate corrections have been made to this post].
**********
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:
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?
After reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances regarding each of those questions, I concluded that the answer to each of those questions was “No” – and that none of the claims that Keith has raised concerning those matters will likely result in him winning on a Rule 33 motion for a new trial and/or on an appeal regarding his various convictions.
In this post, I will address two more of the claims that he raised in his “Call To Action” (To keep them in sequence with the prior questions, I will label them as the Fourth and Fifth questions):
Fourth, was Keith illegally indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York?
Fifth, was Keith illegally denied his request to be released on bail while he was awaiting trial?
Once I have addressed all the legal issues that Keith raised in his “Call To Action”, I will go back and address the various misstatements that are contained in that document. Although those misstatements will not have any impact on whether or not he will get a new trial, they do affect how people might respond to his various legal claims – and, as such, need to be addressed.
**********
Was Keith Illegally Indicted by a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of New York?
In his “Call To Action” screed, Keith made the following statement:
“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?”
In order to fully respond to the issues Keith has raised in this claim, I need to review several aspects of our federal criminal justice system (As usual, I apologize to all of the Frank Report readers who already know all this stuff). So, let’s begin with some basics.
In terms of our federal criminal justice system, an “arrest” refers to the act of law enforcement officials taking someone into custody for the alleged commission of a federal crime. In this regard, there are three ways that an arrest can occur:
- Direct Arrest: A Direct Arrest occurs when a federal law enforcement official personally observes a suspect committing a federal crime – and takes the suspect into custody. In such cases, the law enforcement official is deemed to have “probable cause” to believe the suspect committed the crime in question because they saw the event take place.
- Arrest Warrant: In some cases, an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) will request permission from a federal judge to arrest a suspect who is believed to have committed one or more federal crimes. In such cases, the AUSA will prepare a “Complaint” that sets forth the allegations regarding the crime(s) for which the government wants to arrest the suspect – and present whatever evidence is available to support those allegations. Thereafter, if the judge determines that there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed the crime(s) in question, they will issue an “Arrest Warrant” for the suspect. This is exactly what happened at the outset of Keith’s case.
- Formal Charges Following A Grand Jury Indictment: Oftentimes, an AUSA will present evidence regarding the commission of a crime to a grand jury – and request that it issue an “Indictment” against the suspect. If the grand jury decides that there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, it will issue an “Indictment” (Once someone has been indicted, federal agents have the legal authority to arrest them). This is what happened after Keith had been arrested in Texas – and transported back to the EDNY.
If I correctly understand the above-cited portion of Keith’s “Call To Action”, he’s arguing that he either should have been indicted sooner after he was arrested and brought to the EDNY – or that there was insufficient evidence for an “Arrest Warrant” to have been issued on or about February 14, 2018.
As noted in a prior post, the Federal Prisoner Locator System first indicated that Keith was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) on April 11, 2018. While it’s possible he arrived at MDC before that, it’s unlikely that it was more than a few days sooner. But, just to be as fair as possible, let’s assume for purposes of this post that Keith arrived at MDC on April 4, 2018.
According to court records, Keith was arraigned on April 13, 2018. Those same court records also indicated that the initial Indictment in his case was issued on April 19, 2018.
Thus, contrary to Keith’s claim, it did not take “almost two months to indict [him]”. On the contrary, it took less than a month to indict him after he was arrested in Texas on March 25, 2018 – and only two weeks, at most, after he arrived at MDC.
In sum, Keith was properly arrested on March 25, 2018 based on an “Arrest Warrant” that had been issued on or about February 14, 2018. Thereafter, he was transported to MDC – and properly indicted on April 19, 2018.
Based on these facts and circumstances, I do not believe that Keith will get a new trial – either via a Rule 33 motion or an outright appeal – with respect to the issues he has raised regarding the legal basis for his arrest and/or the timeliness of his indictment. Simply put, there is no “there there” with respect to those issues.
**********
Was Keith Illegally Denied His Request to Be Released On Bail While He Was Awaiting Trial?
In his “Call To Action”, Keith made the following statement:
“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.”
Although he did not directly make such a statement in his “Call To Action”, Keith clearly implies that the denial of his proposed bail package was at least inappropriate – and more likely a denial of his due process rights. So, let’s take a look to see if that’s true.
On June 5, 2018, Keith’s attorneys did, in fact, present a bail package that was very similar to what he outlined in his “Call To Action”. The exact components of the proffered bail package were as follows:
- Keith would sign a $10 million bond that would be backed by the assets of others;
- Keith would surrender his passport – and his travel would be restricted to locations within the EDNY and NDNY;
- Keith would be confined to a residence to be selected by a private security company – and would be subject to both GPS monitoring and round-the-clock supervision by two armed guards;
- Keith would have access to a computer but the computer would lack internet access and would be used only to review materials regarding his case;
- Keith would have access to a cell phone but the phone could only be used to make calls to – and receive calls from – telephone numbers that were approved by the U.S. government; and
- Keith would not have contact, outside the presence of his counsel, with any of his co-defendants, his alleged co-conspirators, and/or any other current or former affiliate of NXIVM/ESP or any affiliated entity.
Under 18 U.S. Code 3142, a judge has four (4) options to choose from at a defendant’s detention hearing. Those four options are as follows:
- To release the defendant on his personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond;
- To release the defendant on a condition or a combination of conditions;
- To temporarily detain the defendant to allow for the revocation of a conditional release or deportation; or
- To detain the defendant.
At the conclusion of Keith’s detention hearing on April 13, 2018, the then-presiding judge – U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione – chose Option 4: to detain him until further proceedings in the case. Thus, the purpose of the prosed bail package that Keith’s attorneys presented on June 5, 2018 was to get the new presiding judge – U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis – to reverse the decision that had been made at Keith’s detention hearing.
After reviewing the charges pending against Keith – and the circumstances surrounding his case – Judge Garaufis rejected the proposed bail package and ordered that Keith be retained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC).
In announcing his decision, Judge Garaufis indicated that he considered Keith to be a “flight risk” despite all the components of his proposed bail package. The judge also indicated that because he had concluded that Keith would be a “flight risk,” there was no need for him to consider whether Keith would also pose a danger to the general public if he were released.
Keith’s attorneys filed a second motion for him to be released on bail on November 14, 2018. In doing so, they basically proposed the same components as the first bail proposal with a few minor changes (e.g., he would be confined to his residence in Clifton Park, NY; three specific properties would be used to secure the bail bond, etc.).
In rejecting the second bail bond motion, Judge Garaufis once again concluded that despite all the pledged assets and promises, Keith would still be a “flight risk”.
Finally, on January 25, 2019, Keith’s attorneys filed a third motion to have him released on bail until the start of his trial. This time they added one new component: i.e., an unnamed third-party who would post $300,000 as part of the proposed $10-million bond.
Once again, Judge Garaufis denied the motion on the grounds that Keith was a “flight risk.” There were no further motions for bail before Keith went to trial in June 2019.
So, did Judge Garaufis do anything illegal in thrice denying Keith’s request that he be let out of MDC pending the outcome of his trial?
No, he didn’t.
Nor did the three denials amount to a denial of due process under the current rules and standards for such matters.
But therein lies the problem.
How can anyone who is facing criminal charges be expected to prepare for trial when they are incarcerated – especially when they’re incarcerated in a place like MDC?
In reality, pre-trial detention makes it extremely difficult for any defendant to adequately prepare for their trial.
In addition, being incarcerated in a place like MDC also debilitates a defendant – both emotionally, mentally and physically.
Keith Raniere was incarcerated at MDC for almost 15-months before he went to trial.
And while he was there, he was beaten up by fellow detainees several times, subjected to an inferior diet and horrible living conditions, not allowed access to any sunlight, and routinely derided and ridiculed by many of the guards at the facility.
Unfortunately for Keith, there is little chance that his pre-trial incarceration will be enough to earn him a new trial via a Rule 33 motion or an outright appeal of his conviction.
That’s because the current law of the land is that any federal defendant can be subjected to pre-trial incarceration if the presiding judge in their case deems them to be a “flight risk” or a threat to the general public.
Such decisions can be very subjective – and worse yet, they can be papered over with numerous citations to previous cases in which pre-trial bail was denied to the defendant.
In my opinion, the rules and standards regarding pre-trial detention should be changed so that judges are required to set conditions that would allow a defendant who is facing charges that do not involve violence – and who has no criminal history – to be set free before they go trial (I would still allow judges to deny bail to defendants who were charged with crimes of violence or certain designated crimes, who had a prior criminal record, or who would pose a danger to the general public or to a prior victim. In this regard, I would allow Congress to designate certain crimes as requiring pre-trial detention: e.g., sex trafficking, terrorism, etc.).
Surely, a federal judge could come up with some combination of conditions that would mitigate whatever risk of flight 99.9% of prisoners might pose.
Instead, we still have judges refusing to grant bail even when the proposed bail package would seem to minimize any chance of flight.
Given our existing ability to track people and their communications, there is little chance for a released defendant to slip away unnoticed.
And we could certainly set penalties for those that do try to escape that would deter most from even thinking about doing so: e.g., a separate penalty of 5-years that could not be served concurrently with any penalty related to the original crime(s) the defendant was facing; immediate detention and the loss of any credit for time-served prior to trial or pleading; etc.
We could also get creative and start offering released defendants an incentive to stay within their jurisdiction: e.g., an automatic reduction in whatever sentence was eventually meted out to those who are found guilty or who plead out; a “credit” of one-half day towards their ultimate sentence for those released defendants who are subject to home confinement; etc.
Or how about offering those who have been released a range of assistance and services that might make it easier for them to eventually transition back into society: e.g., counseling, education, substance abuse treatment, vocational training, etc.
Unfortunately for Keith, I do not believe that he will get a new trial – either via a Rule 33 motion or an outright appeal – with respect to the issue he has raised regarding the denial of pre-trial bail.
I do, however, believe the fact he was forced to be incarcerated at MDC for 15-months before the start of his trial was unfair and unreasonable – and should be considered as a denial of his right to due process.
**********
Stay Tuned as We Consider Keith’s Other Claims
In the next post in this series, I’ll evaluate some more of the claims that Keith put forth in his “Call To Action”. When I’m done doing that – and I’ve also reviewed the various misstatements and unsubstantiated claims set forth in that document – I’ll review the various assertions and claims that Suneel Chakravorty has put forth on behalf of Keith and why he thinks Keith is innocent.
All in all, I’m glad that Keith’s “Call To Action” was made public because that is why we’re now able to review his various claims – and to determine whether we think any of them are valid.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] […]
“JOSHUA” please google “run-on sentence.”
Please.
Pretty please.
Your writing style undermines any shred of credibility you might otherwise have.
I’m not the first person to point this out to you. Take our advice.
Judging from the comments on this website, NXIVM training impairs both writing skills and reading comprehension, but that does not preclude improvement.
The evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s Office was influenced by sensational and hateful feelings, with the sole purpose of causing harm, discrediting, dishonor and destroying Keith Raniere and the group, for which they used false testimonies and manipulated evidence, such as admitted the investigating authority, which is not allowed in law.
Bangkok-
I DID miss you. Hope all is well – and that life on Twitch has meaning. We missed you.
I bid you good day! 😉
Anyone know how this sentencing compares to other sex traffic cases? I heard the judge is very pro govt but not sure what’s the basis?
I am afraid that this is not about a person, it is about a justice system that should watch over the interests of all and in any case we should all have the right to due process, absent of particular interests
It’s about person. Please name one other battle for justice in the U.S. legal system you have fought? ____ vs. _____? Fill it in. Any other case. You can’t say, ” it is about this man’s rights” and then ” it’s not about a person”. That’s the hyperbole again. If it’s not about a person why should we care? Of course, it’s about a person! And on the other side of the case are lots of other people too. If it’s not about people, what are we all doing here? You guys think yourselves right into outer space. It’s about rights. Whose rights? (whispers) a person.
Hey Claviger,
Could you please reply to my 2nd message to you, under the entry titled “Clare’s move to Philadephia FDC…” ?
Thank you
🙂
Ankle Bracelet & Keith????
If Keith were let out with an ankle bracelet, he would have plenty of resources and people willing to breaking the law to get him out of the country. That’s not debatable in any way.
Keith allegedly has no money.
So how then does a 10 million dollar bail compel Keith to stay in the country? It’s another individual’s money. Keith would lose nothing.
Methinks someone may have been sniffing modeling glue with Bangkok. 😉
Claviger it’s the only thing I’ve ever disagreed with you on besides the day of the week.
Niceguy is my hero.
Did I ever tell you he’s my hero?
He’s everything I wish I could be.
He is the wind beneath my wings.
PS — My buddy visited Beantown last month and went to an adult club (sex club). He told me about this chick getting passed around, he didn’t know her name but said she was a divorce attorney who was married to a guy who failed to wear the pants in the marriage. I can’t be sure who it was but I have an idea. 🙂
Hi Bangkok,
—Niceguy is my hero. He’s everything I wish I could be.
That’s cuz I married a woman like your mom with only 1/2 the mileage. God bless 3 input women.
—He [Nice Guy]is the wind beneath my wings.
Wrong! That’s the roofies talking and your trans-babysitter blowing [wind].
BTW: When your buddy returned home….
…..Did he let you sniff his stink finger or is that something only grandpa does?
Second and third meaning:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stink%20finger&=true&defid=492101
Sanitized Version 2.0
*************************************************
Hi Bangkok,
—Niceguy is my hero. He’s everything I wish I could be.
That’s cuz I married a woman like your mom with only 1/2 the mileage. God bless 3 input women.
—He [Nice Guy]is the wind beneath my wings.
Wrong! That’s the roofies talking and your trans-babysitter blowing [wind].
BTW: When your buddy returned home….
…..Did he let you sniff his stink finger or is that something only grandpa does?
Nice Guy — Why are you after Bangkok — are you trying to drive him/her off the Frank Report?
Frank,
We were both poking fun at each other for old time sake. I would never want to drive away the prodigy known as Bangkok.
I am painfully aware too much of a good thing can go south. So I’ll refrain from anymore banter. Thank you for allowing us to post.
Nice Guy; Bangkok is an emotionally fragile individual underneath that gruff exterior. Bangkok is craving love and affection, quite possibly because of the very reasons you alluded to – a rather libertine mother and confusion about the identity of the father. Go easy.
Frank,
Recently I imagined what would happen if my wife and Bangkok’s mom hung out together. I believe it would be a kind of synergy not seen since John Lennon and Paul McCartney came together.
It probably look something like this….
Warning: What is ahead is not for the faint of heart!
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJWJuFe9/
Last risqué post!!!
Frank,
Please Scratch the 9:48pm. They change the damn video one.
Sorry
Hey, Frank,
Not very likely to drive me away, sir. 🙂
In fact, you have my permission to let anybody insult me whenever they choose —— and I promise not to get upset or take anything personally.
I am giving you a waiver —– so that you don’t need to enforce your rules against people insulting me. It’s all in good fun no matter how personal the insults get.
You went overboard in banning Scott Johnson and/or driving him away. His short, one-liners were not even remotely upsetting to people. You simply used that as a pretext to drive him away.
You need to learn how to discern a true insult (meant to TRULY hurt somebody’s feelings) from a corny one.
I will say that I truly don’t like you and feel that you’ve become a liberal asshole over the last 2 years. But I know that you won’t take that personally, thus I say it anyway.
Have a nice day. 🙂
I think this is a good precedent. A commenter can waive his/her right to be protected from insult. Bangkok has done so, and so I hope other readers take full advantage of it.
By the way, Bangkok, just to make it easier when I write about you in the future, would you please tell me which, if any, gender you identify with?
Frank,
You should be more sensitive, you are right.
“Are you trying to drive him/her off.”-Frank
Him/her may be offensive to Bangkok. He might be non-binary. In the future, we should use Sie or Zie when referring to Bangkok.
Examples of gender-neutral, gender fluid’, and non-gender pronouns:
Sie or Ze: (see or zee) A non-gender specific pronoun used instead of “she” and “he.”
Ve: (vee) A non-gender specific pronoun used instead of “she” and “he.”]
Frank, I emphatically agree we must make Bangkok feel like he’s in a safe space.
Dang! Nice Guy totally shutdown Claviger. He made Claviger look like his paralegal. Shah-bang-baby! 🙂
Please show me where Nice Guy “totally shut me down”.
I didn’t say that any of Keith’s proposed bail packages should have been accepted. What I said is that I think Judge Garaufis could have put together a bail package that would have ensured — as much as that’s possible — that Keith would show up for trial. Whether Keith could meet the terms of such an acceptable bail package is another question…
Snap! Clavy is losing it like Tom Cruise on a movie set or an old broad in menopause. A real man can take criticism and not act like Nice Guy. Clav’s podunk law school must suck monkey balls. Take care Clavy!
Feliz Navidad! 🙂
Claviger got owned! Is Claviger’s real name Ben O. Verbich?
Jeffrey Epstein reportedly used a conference room for up to eight hours every weekday excluding wknds, while he was incarcerated in his Manhattan jailhouse, doing the limbo rock. Jeffrey had a linebacker sized problem as a roommate and still tried to hang on to his executive success, by the skin of his sicko teeth.
No excuses for Raniere being such a disorganized fuckwit, with all of his boo hoo hoos. It’s all barf, constipation and indigestion. Life is a rotten K-Mart, when nobody wants any more blue light specials from a 60 year old sperminator convict who cannot shut up. Geez, that is tough. Tough luck. Maybe go back to partying like a tranny.
Try wearing a 38 double D as a mask. This is not an editorial. Do not be be be smallminded. Raniere has finally gotten gotten. That’s all. Like an infected zit.
Raniere disguised his violence, but life is seeing that it all comes out in the wash. Maybe somebody remembers to say thanks to Rosa Luna’s daddy. ( Whatever her name is, the chiquita who wanted to give her teenage daughter over to Raniere and co., to turn “her” teenaged child into a slab for Flabturd’s personal mincemeat collection.)
Think of it as field hockey, because somebody scooped a big cow plop out of Puerto Vallarta and sent it packing, all the way back to New Yawk. You never know who is going to be defiant about what. That is a fine thing. Look at Frank! Did Frank know that he had it in him? Even if he were born this way, this is taking a lot of time and thought, to expose Raniere, away from all of his dirty secrets. And who is the wiser for it? A whole lot of the whole world, that’s who. Word, Frank Parlato. And beyond words.
Raniere. Sacré bleu.
Out, damned spot. O-U-T. Montezuma’s revenge. The view is long. A rebalancing of the wheels has changed the ride. Surprise. Surprises are a real blast. Huh, Rose Luna? But then, her cell has always seemed to be so well-padded. Ching gau!
Good read and awesome legal analysis as usual, Clav. I’d love to know how much that proposed bail package – with add-ons including a star court appearance by the retired head of the US Secret Service — cost Clare. Or was that part of a long term defense subcontractor halfsy deal to be paid in part by US? …Btw, did Cemex ever get “the wall” contract?
Short answer:” No”. Other factors He had previously tried to enter Canada. He ditched his standard communication devices. And most importantly, he was dangerous. If he was let out as the leader of a cult, what if he implemented a mass suicide of followers? That is the flip side of being in control and assuming responsibility for large numbers of people. What if he directed them to harm anyone in opposition? Or their families? Then, all you would hear from the public and the victims is “Who let this guy out”?! They could be sued for damages. If it had gone that way, I do not think anyone would really have been surprised. If you were at risk or your family from this cabal of cult members, it would be terrifying to have this vengeful psychopath out. That’s reason enough. How could they protect the really large number of enemies Keith could potentially target? Keith said he ” took a vow of non-violence” but he directed the very violent branding ceremonies. He caused so much harm by directing his “community”. That is not something the average accused criminal has at their disposal. And it cannot be disregarded as a bail factor.
Excuse me, again, but Keith DID direct his followers to harm his opponents and they did do so even while Keith himself was behind bars.
In fact, one of his attorneys, Marc Agnifilo, relayed that Keith was confident of freedom bc there “weren’t very many of (we enemies)” with those (our) “criminal minds” out to destroy him and his precious teachings. If only we didn’t exist or could be exposed as the crookedly minded individuals we are, all will once again be well in NXI-land.
But Keith is far from the only NXIAN leader giving out destruction directives MLM style.
[redacted]
My apologies. Heidi ! Should have said ” further harm, more harm” etc. You are so right! Even denying bail put up by followers not vanguard was in a sense protecting his ( sill indoctrinated) followers. It’s not” ethical” ( their favored word) to let them forfeit assets if they aren’t of sound mind. Pay your own way ” smartest man in that particular condo complex of Albany” ( maybe. Need more “data” to grant even that title)
Hey Heidi,
Can you clarify what you mean by “Keith DID direct his followers to harm his opponents and they did do so even while Keith himself was behind bars.”? I’ve never heard of someone doing that before so trying to understand how that all happened…is that something he’s still doing?
Yeah, leaving the country, sudden burner phones and encrypted email makes judges suspicious when it comes to granting bail. Plus, when you don’t put up your own money or assets so no “skin in the game“ as the judge said. The man coulda got bail, he just screwed himself. Not the smartest cookie.
“Vanguard” and all his acolytes who have followed him over the cliff now whine about how the courts and the media have treated him “unfairly.”
They need to review the 12 point mission statement, in particular, the first two:
1. Success is an interior state of clear and honest awareness of who I am, my value in the world and my responsibility for the reactions I have to all things.
Vanguard can succeed even if he is being beaten and raped in prison. Whether he gets a new trial is irrelevant to his success.
2. There are no ultimate victims; therefore, I will not choose to be a victim.
Vanguard has chosen the life he lives.
Repeat these statements until you achieve clarity.
Re:
“1. Success is an interior state of clear and honest awareness of who I am, my value in the world and my responsibility for the reactions I have to all things.”
“2. There are no ultimate victims; therefore, I will not choose to be a victim.”
This only describes a subjective, inner attitude that does not necessarily have any relation to reality. That is, it can lead to self-deception if the external feedback (external perception) from other people is simply ignored or objective facts or evidence is not believed.
“Does not necessarily have any relationship to reality” is a pretty good description of Vanguard’s psuedo-philosophy.
“Does not have any relationship to reality” is spot on.
Private Learjet. Out of U.S. airspace in 3 min. from N.Y.
I have no problem with Raniere spending his entire time at the MDC without bail. It’s called karma for all the shit he’s put people through his entire life.
He was a flight risk. None of that money was his. So why would he care about the bond? He would have been gone. He ran once.
The two armed guards couldn’t stop him from leaving with those guns. They could only protect him if someone was going to harm him.
We already know he wouldn’t have followed the rules of having a cell phone and when he could use it. He got caught with several at the MDC. You can also get on the internet with a cell phone.
He had the best defense team money could buy and they didn’t put in a DEFENSE at his trail. WTF!!!
Are you saying that in the time Raniere was at the MDC & him and his expensive team couldn’t come up with one ounce of a defense? I don’t buy BS.
Raniere spent decades filing one lawsuit after another against people. He was the Mastermind behind his legal team and now you’re trying to convince us he was hindered.
He had two years to come up with a defense with his dream team.
OJ Simon did it from inside a jail cell, why not Rainier?
I can understand if he had an overworked public defender.
Raniere didn’t even have to pay for his own expensive team, Clare Bronfman ponied up the defense fund.
Most likely, his rich believers in Mexico are paying now.
I don’t believe he will get a new trial and he will lose his appeal.
May he rot in jail. He knew the cost of getting caught. He knew his luck would run out some day.
Now he’s being a baby, trying to say he didn’t have his hand in the candy jar.
Keeping someone incarcerated for more than two years without being first found guilty does beg to question the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
It’s not just Raniere who was repeatedly turned down for bail: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ghislaine-maxwell-again-denied-bail/ar-BB1ciITb Something the VERY liberal Claviger didn’t mention is that most judges aren’t interested in a two-tiered bail system, one for people who have lots of money and others who don’t. Apparently the only thing that saved Bronfman from being locked up was the charges weren’t as serious as Raniere’s were, but her lawyers didn’t anticipate the massive hatred she created.
Me parece lamentable y preocupante para el sistema de justicia americano que se vulnere de esa manera el Estado de Derecho. ¿Acaso el derecho al debido proceso de un acusado debe ser selectivo? Considero de gran importancia que autoridades y ciudadanos coadyuven en el establecimiento y fortalecimiento de una verdadera cultura de la legalidad. La cultura de la legalidad tiene como base no sólo que los ciudadanos y AUTORIDADES conozcan la ley, sino que su cumplimiento sea cotidiano.
The rule of law was not violated.
Dear “Vanguard,” having your minions spew the same, generic, empty abstract platitudes about “justice” in Spanish isn’t going to improve your chances of ever walking outside the gates of a prison.
A phrase that might be useful for you to know when one of your fellow inmates decides they would like some intimate time with you: “Por favor sé amable con migo y usa condón.”
Hi, Scott!!
Hi NiceGuy 666!!
It is important to keep people who have behaved badly monitored, that’s precisely why the conditions of someone’s bail are a matter that should be treated with extreme caution. To impose someone a 100 million dollar bail not only takes away the assumption of innocence and substitutes it with an assumption of guilt, but it also contributes to the belief that the defendant is a dangerous criminal.
In an immigration charge with no violence, drugs or weapons, this type of bail bends and breaks all of the standards of bail and the very reasons why they were created.
The assumption of innocence is a key cornerstone of our justice system.
Llorán
That has little to do with the reasons why bail was denied.
The denial of bail is a complete violation of any citizen’s rights. In today’s world — with our current technology — there should be very few circumstances where people are denied bail. This judge hated Keith from the get-go and was prejudiced against Keith and Clare’s money. Regardless of your wealth, you have the right to fight your trial, which, as the article states, is almost impossible from within MDC.
There is no absolute right to bail.
–The denial of bail is a complete violation of any citizens rights.
LOL. No it’s not. The denial of bail only occurs for a few reasons, one of which of those is to those who pose a significant flight risk in the “eyes” of the law. The justifications for denying bail to your leader were given in a lengthy statement by the judge, who is an elected enforcer of the law. Allowing an alleged perpetrator of a crime to escape would be a violation of the rights of citizens who are possible victims of the one whose bail is being denied.
The fact that you kool-aid drinkers can’t see this is likely based on your “brainwashing”, or that you believe in the baseless “no ultimate victims” canard, unless of course you make an exception to the rule when that “victim” is your “Vanguard”.
As I stated in the post, I would still allow bail to be denied in certain, very limited circumstances: e.g., defendants who are charged with crimes of violence; defendants who have a history of committing violent acts; defendants who have previously not shown up for trial after being let out on bail; etc. Other than those types of exceptions, I generally agree with your statement.
Good thing that you’re not in charge.
Claviger-
First time I’ve disagreed with you. And yes, I know you don’t care.
The following is why you are wrong…
…The defendant, Keith Raniere, had a sexual pornographic photo of a minor he had allegedly had sex with. In addition, the defendant had a sexual assault complaint by Rhiannon.
How can you say Keith Raniere is not a threat/danger to the public?
Please point out where I said that Keith was not a “danger to the public”. I may have noted that Judge Garaufis never considered that issue because he had already determined that Keith was a “flight risk” but I do not remember stating that I did not consider Keith to be such a danger (If I did state that, I shouldn’t have done so).
Since you haven’t responded to my request, I went back through the post to see if I had inadvertently written what you indicated I had written – and came up empty.
Here is what I wrote – which is basically the opposite of what you claimed I wrote: ” In my opinion, the rules and standards regarding pre-trial detention should be changed so that judges are required to set conditions that would allow a defendant who is facing charges that do not involve violence – and who has no criminal history – to be set free before they go trial (I would still allow judges to deny bail to defendants who were charged with crimes of violence or certain designated crimes, who had a prior criminal record, or who would pose a danger to the general public or to a prior victim. In this regard, I would allow Congress to designate certain crimes as requiring pre-trial detention: e.g., sex trafficking, terrorism, etc.).”
I think you may be guilty of CUI but I don’t have enough facts to prove that…
I’m still waiting for a response to my reply to this comment…
Cartesius.
Never admit anything as truth without having known with evidence that it was so.
I find it very interesting and I appreciate the position to evaluate these points of view, what is being discussed is the rule of law of the citizens and these discussions help to evaluate and think more about the subject, it seems very relevant to discuss and expose the different points of view, suggest that a defendant is detained 27 months before trial and how this affects the preparation of his defense is something that just imagining it is terrible, thank you for putting this perspective of the case that in my opinion should us import everyone, regardless of the case in question
On the other hand, Raniere had plenty of time and no blow job distractions (except perhaps servicing his cellmate) while preparing for trial.
News From Roger Stone
BREAKING: Trump Has Something Up His Sleeve, Says Roger Stone
Roger Stone joins Alex Jones live via Skype to break down why President Trump left his Mar-A-Lago New Year’s vacation early to return to the battle for the American republic in Washington, D.C.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-trump-has-something-up-his-sleeve-says-roger-stone/
Pelosi’s San Fran Estate Vandalized with Leftist Graffiti, Severed Pig Head: “CANCEL RENT… WE WANT EVERYTHING”
https://www.infowars.com/posts/pelosis-san-fran-estate-vandalized-with-leftist-graffiti-severed-pig-head-cancel-rent-we-want-everything/
All information presented as facts, but are they really facts? There is space for interpretations and maybe looking for similar cases it will have a precedent.
WIll lawyers go for an appeal or new trial without evidence?
Why not go for an appeal or a new trial without evidence? They didn’t put on a defense and are getting handsomely paid by the hour.
As previously explained in one of my posts, a Rule 33 motion/request for a new trial would have to be based on “newly discovered evidence” (That’s the only motion for a new trial that is still available to Keith). Any appeal – and there will likely be several of them over the course of the next few years – will not allow “new evidence” to be introduced — and will, instead, depend entirely on the trial record and the briefs filed by Keith’s attorneys and the prosecution.
Sorry Claviger, but your CLAIM that our current ‘monitoring systems’ (ankle bracelets, etc) are enough to ensure defendants don’t run is not grounded in reality.
Look dude, the ONLY thing an ankle bracelet can do is to give the FEDS a tipoff when the defendant cuts it off.
However, there are many defendants being monitored at any given moment —– so the response time from law enforcement will be hours, not minutes.
Get a clue. It’s hours, dude.
But that doesn’t even matter. Why not?
Cuz a person with unlimited wealth at his disposal (Bronfman wealth) can disappear EVEN IF the response time was just 5 minutes after he cut off his ankle bracelet.
…and if Clare gets out while the appeal is pending, she’ll likely be on a boat (and out the country) before anybody even visits her home to find out why she cut off the ankle bracelet.
So your point is pure and unadulterated crap, sir.
As for Keith’s inferior meals, he was still FAT AS A COW during his hearings (at least chubby, anyway) so there’s no evidence he wasn’t getting enough food.
I’m getting tired of your claim that conditions at MDC are unbearable. It’s a jail. It’s not a hotel.
If the food is so ‘horrible’ then where the fuck are your REPORTS to document the serious medical issues which are happening as a direct result from the inferior food?
You have no such reports. Do you, sir?
MDC is a fine facility. Inmates at MDC have WAY better living conditions than South American prisons and Mexican prisons.
You’ve gotten spoiled by your privileged life here in America. I suggest you travel south of the border for a real wake up call.
If you got put in a Mexican prison you’d be BEGGING to do your time at MDC. I guarantee.
Have a nice day.
Here are a couple of reports regarding the conditions at MDC (Note: These are all reports by governmental agencies — and, as such, are likely not the most forthcoming):
– https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/e1904.pdf
– https://www.nawj.org/uploads/files/monthly_update/referenced_docs/july_2016/bop_nawj_june_3_2016_visit_metropolitan_detention_center_ny.pdf
– https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-report-remote-inspection-federal-bureau-prisons-metropolitan-detention-center
And here’s a recent New York Times article regarding MDC’s current COVID-19 outbreak.
I look forward to reading whatever reports and/or newspaper articles you’ve relied upon to support your conclusion that “Everything is fine at MDC”.
“Klaviger has privileged white life here in America.”- Bangkok
Bangkok is now saying Klaviger suffers from “white privilege”. Bangkok is woke.
Sorry Bangkok, but just because Klaviger does not eat baloney sandwiches every day does not mean he suffers from white privilege.
Another very good one.
I don’t think it was so wrong that he was refused bail particularly in the context of what a lot of other cult leaders have done – Warren Jeffs went on the run, got on the most wanted list etc. Bagwhan escaped the USA and many others. Rich cult leaders are usually a massive flight risk and with the Bronfman island and money available I think the judge did the right thing in denying him bail
So, a man’s legal rights should be based on what other men have done in the past? If so, our legal system ceases to exist.
It’s called precedent. The whole of life including every letter of every word in the sentence you just wrote is based on ‘what other men have done in the past’. Without ‘the past’ you don’t exist.
That has very little to do with why Raniere was denied bail.
Thanks for your careful analysis.
Are there cases of convicted federal felons who were determined to be flight risks successfully appealing their convictions based on the length of their pre-trial detention?
Question for the NXIVM 5 and fellow travelers: how is it possible that a judo master and athletic demigod like “Vanguard” could be beaten up by other prisoners? Isn’t it the other prisoners who should be afraid of “Vanguard”? Are the claims of “Vanguard” being roughed up true, or are they propaganda spread by government to make him appear weak?