Claviger: Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated? – Part III: Were Domino Plea Deals of Co-Defendants, a RICO Charge, and a Hasty Jury Improper?

This is the latest post in the series concerning the various legal claims that Keith Raniere put forth in his “Call To Action”. Prior posts in this series may be found at;

In keeping with my numbering system for this series of posts, the questions to be addressed in this post are as follows:

Sixth, were Keith’s legal rights violated because all five of his co-defendants pleaded guilty?

Seventh, were Keith’s legal rights violated because he was charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act?

Eighth, were Keith’s legal rights violated because the jury in his trial reached a quick verdict?

**********

Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated Because All Five of His Co-defendants Pleaded Guilty?

In his “Call To Action” piece, Keith makes  the following statement:

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 [sic] guilty; two even cooperated, with one of them testifying.

To begin with, let’s try to sort out who is who in this statement.

The five co-defendants are obviously Allison Mack, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Clare Bronfman, and Kathy Russell.

Clearly, Nancy is the one who has the “grave illness” – and Lauren is “her 40-year old daughter”.

Nancy and Lauren Salzman shared the same man. Will they soon share the same cell?

Allison must be the supposed “well-known actress” – and Clare has to be the “heiress”.

Clare Bronfman and Allison Mack

Which means that Kathy is the referenced “long-term partner”.

Kathy Russell

The two who cooperated are Lauren – and, according to several reports that we’ve received at Frank Report, Allison.

Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack both cooperated with the prosecution, Both are now awaiting sentencing.

And the one who testified against him is Lauren.

So, now that we know who’s who – why does Keith even bring up this point?

Does the prosecution in a multi-defendant criminal case often offer plea deals to the ones with lesser charges in order to get them to cooperate – and possibly even testify against the upper-tier defendant(s)?

Yep – it happens all the time.

And, guess what, there is absolutely nothing illegal with it.

Although it’s a few years old now, a treatise entitled “Co-Defendants, Accomplishes, And Co-Conspirators: Common Evidence Issues And Selected Cases” offers what I think is a very informative overview of many of the legal issues that arise when the prosecution allows some co-defendants to plead out their charges but not others.

And in this particular case, even Keith was offered a plea deal.

As he noted in his “Call To Action”, he was offered a deal whereby he would plead guilty to certain of the charges against him – he didn’t specify which ones – and, in return, he would spend 16-years “…in a low-security prison with the comparatively nice benefits of a track, baseball field, recreation center, library, two to four days a week of multi-hour visitation (almost full days in certain facilities), face-to-face visits with loved ones, and access to making phone calls every day…”.

Instead, Keith chose to roll the dice and go to trial.

Keith chose to roll the dice and have a jury trial. The dice came up “snake eyes” – and he was sentenced to 120-years in federal prison. 

And instead of serving 13.6 years in a minimum-security prison – which is 85% of the proffered 16-year sentence – he ended up with a sentence of 120-years, all of which will most likely be served in a maximum-security prison.

Keith explained that had he taken the proffered plea deal, he “…would have to lie to the court and the world, betraying myself, my actions, and even my co-defendants who had already plead guilty to lesser, sometimes different, charges. I would also waive my rights to continue fighting, protesting the truth, and worst of all: I would be obeying and feeding hate”.

He went on to explain that after thinking about the implications of accepting the plea deal for seven days, he decided that going to trial was what he “…needed to do”.

Thereafter, he consulted with Marianna whom he describes as “…my partner of fifteen-years, with whom I have a 21-month old son” – and one of his co-defendants who “…said she would totally support whatever decision I made…”.

So, will Keith win a Rule 33 motion for a new trial – or an outright appeal to have his conviction overturned – because all his co-defendants accepted plea deals?

Absolutely not.

There is nothing inherently wrong in the prosecution allowing defendants to plead guilty to lesser crimes in order to avoid taking every case to trial – and thereby taking the risk that some of those cases may not result in convictions.

Notwithstanding the above, I am greatly bothered when the prosecution begins its case by over-charging defendants solely to get them to accept plea deals for lesser charges.

In this case, however, it appears to me that all the original charges against Keith’s co-defendants were legitimate – and that their decisions to accept plea deals were fair, justified and rational.

If Keith wants to offer up some evidence as to why any of his co-defendant’s’ plea deals were unreasonable, I will be happy to reconsider my conclusion.

**********

Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated Because He Was Charged Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act?

Although Keith does not expound very much on this point, he does claim that because he was charged under RICO, he was not able to have any contact with any of his family, friends, or co-defendants before the start of his trial.

He also claims that because he was charged under RICO “…it was impossible to call any defense witnesses (he) knew, for they could be considered co-conspirators in RICO and would strongly be advised to use their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination”.

The Nxivm 5: L-R Suneel Chakravorty, Nicki Clune, Eduardo Asunsolo, Michele Hatchette, and Marc Elliot. According to Keith, none of these NXIVM/ESP associates of his – or any other NXIVM/ESP associates – could testify at his trial because by doing go, they would be subjecting themselves to prosecution.  

While Keith’s claims about the stifling impact of a RICO charge may be true, the reality is that he was treated exactly the same as any other defendant who is charged under that statute.

Since the inception of the RICO statute in 1970, it has been used extensively and successfully to prosecute thousands of individuals and organizations in the U.S.

In order for an individual or a company to be convicted of racketeering under RICO, the prosecution must prove that the defendant engaged in a pattern of illegal offenses – which RICO defines as the commission of at least two identified criminal offense within a period of 10-years (These underlying crimes to a RICO charge are generally referred to as “predicate acts”).

In Keith’s case, the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prosecutors identified sixteen (16) such predicate acts in the second superseding indictment.

And the jury in his case determined that the prosecutors had proven that Keith had committed every one of those predicate acts:

  • Predicate Act 1-A: Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft – Ashana Chenoa
  • Predicate Act 1-B: Conspiracy to Unlawfully Possess Identification Document
  • Predicate Act 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 2, 2005 – Camila
  • Predicate Act 3: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 24, 2005 – Camila
  • Predicate Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography
  • Predicate Act 5-A: Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft
  • Predicate Act 5-B: identity Theft – James Loperfido
  • Predicate Act 5-C: Identity Theft – Edgar Bronfman
  • Predicate Act 6: Conspiracy to Alter Records in an Official Proceeding
  • Predicate Act 7: Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft: Marianna
  • Predicate Act 8-A: Trafficking for Labor and Services – Daniela
  • Predicate Act 8-B: Document Servitude – Daniela
  • Predicate Act 9: Extortion
  • Predicate Act 10-A: Sex Trafficking – Nicole
  • Predicate Act 10-B: Forced Labor – Nicole
  • Predicate Act 11: Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft: Pamela Cafritz

So, while it’s understandable that Keith was unhappy about being charged under the RICO act, he has not offered any evidence to show why the RICO-related charges were inappropriate.

Nor has he offered any evidence to show why the jury’s conclusion that he committed all sixteen of the alleged predicate acts was unreasonable (Note: Even if Keith could have convinced the jury that he had not committed some of the predicate acts, the jury only had to conclude that he had committed at least two of them in order to find him guilty of Count One: Racketeering Conspiracy and Count Two: Racketeering).

Because Keith has offered no evidence to show that he should not have been charged under the RICO statute – or that he was treated any differently than any other person who is charged under that statute – I believe any request for a new trial regarding these matters will be summarily denied.

**********

Were Keith’s Legal Rights Violated Because the Jury in His Case Reached a Quick Verdict?

Keith also suggests in his “Call To Action” that the jury in his case was predisposed to finding him guilty. Here is what he said on this topic:

“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”.

Let’s start by recognizing that it was Keith’s decision to subject himself to a jury trial.

Had he wanted to, he could have had a bench trial: i.e., a trial in which the presiding judge not only makes all the usual procedural decisions – e.g., who can testify, what topics approved witnesses can testify about, what documents or physical evidence the jury can consider, etc. – they also decided whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

Given the sentence that U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis handed out – i.e., 120-years in federal prison and 5-years of probation – it’s doubtful that a bench trial would have resulted in a different outcome. Indeed, in that scenario, the verdict may have been rendered even sooner than it was.

But, instead, Keith decided to put his fate in the hands and minds of a group of twelve people that likely knew little about him prior to being called to serve as a potential member of his trial juror.

Keith chose to have a jury trial – and the jury chose to convict him on all counts. 

Fortunately, Frank Report began looking at jury-related issues even before Keith’s trial was over.

Back on  June 1, 2019, we published a report from an individual who was rejected as a member of the jury for Keith’s trial.

One of the most interesting aspects of that report was the rejected juror’s description of the start of the jury selection process:

“During jury selection, when the charges were read out, there was an audible gasp as well as people saying, “He’s guilty” (He looked like a dirty hippie arrogant piece of shit the day we saw him). It was so bizarre because I had never seen such a large group of people react that way.”

But the rejected juror also noted that Keith did not do a very good job of presenting himself to the pool of prospective jurors:

“My impression of Raniere and his crew [then-co-defendants, Kathy Russell and Clare Bronfman]: I actually had trouble figuring out who were the defendants and who were the attorneys until they were introduced, along with their titles. Like I said before, Raniere looked like a dirty hippie with a man-bun, but he definitely blended enough with the attorneys that I didn’t know who he was at first.

“When he turned around, he had this stupid, smug look on his face and waved to the room full of potential jurors. I can definitely see how women would be attracted to him despite him being an average looking guy at best – the air of confidence was there…

“I’m lucky that I have a high-powered hearing aid and was able to overhear a lot of people saying things like ‘He’s definitely guilty’; ‘What the fuck, who molests a child?’;  ‘Disgusting’;  and my personal favorite ‘This fucker is guilty I don’t want to be on this jury’.

“It seems most people had the same disgusted reaction I had. I can only imagine what they wrote on their juror questionnaires about being impartial to child molestation/rape charges because I wrote that ‘Anyone who says they can be impartial is lying’…”

While the observations and perspective of this rejected juror may not have been typical of the other 499 prospective jurors that were originally called for jury duty in this case – and, more importantly, of the twelve jurors who eventually decided Keith’s fate –  I suspect that is not the case.

The reality is that every juror in every trial comes to the process with certain biases, experiences, perspectives, etc.

No juror begins with a totally “blank slate” when it comes to being one of the determiners of another person’s fate in a jury trial.

In this case, it’s quite possible that some – or perhaps even all – of the jurors in Keith’s case were predisposed to find him guilty before “Opening Arguments” were made.

Does that sort of thing happen – a jury pre-judging a defendant based on the defendant’s appearance and/or the charges that the defendant is facing?

Yep – it happens all the time.

In fact, several analyzes have been undertaken to explain what is commonly referred to as “juror bias”.

One of the more interesting of these is a paper entitled “Overcoming Jury Bias” by Howard L. Nations.

As stated by Nations, “Jurors do not decide cases based upon reality. Why? Because unless the juror was standing on the corner and witnessed the collision and color of the traffic signal, the juror does not know what reality is. Jurors base their decisions upon their perceptions of reality. Therefore, it is relevant for advocates to consider at least six broad-based sources which affect jurors’ perceptions upon which they base their decision. These include the beliefs which the jurors have before entering the courtroom, i.e., biases; everything that they observe during the course of the trial, in and out of the courtroom; the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses; persuasion by counsel; the court’s charge; and persuasion by other jurors”.

So, if it could be proven that some or all of the jurors in Keith’s case reached a conclusion concerning his guilt BEFORE they began deliberations, would that be enough for Keith to win a Rule 33 motion for a new trial or an appeal regarding his conviction?

No – Nope – Naw – No way – Nee – Na – Nein – Nari – Ni – Ne – Taah – Mhai – Nani – Ney – Neen – Ochi – ‘A’ole – Iya – Aniyo – Bu shi – Nei – Nao – Noe…

Once again, Keith has raised an issue that may have been a real factor in terms of how his case turned out but that issue will not serve as the basis for getting a new trial.

While he might be able to win a new trial if he could prove that the jurors discriminated against him based on his age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual identification, etc., there is no special protection afforded to the leaders of cults who brand their female members with their initials.

Artist sketch of Keith Raniere at trial with Marc Agnifilo, one of his attorneys.

Nor are there any special protections for people who look like they might be a cult leader – or who shows signs of arrogance in front of jurors.

**********

Stay tuned as I wrap up my analysis of the legal issues that Keith raised in his “Call To Action”. And please feel free to ask any questions you may have concerning the subject matter of these posts.

 


About the author

K.R. Claviger

44 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Sorry I haven’t been following your articles enough to know the answer to this question, K.R. Claviger, but are you a licensed attorney at law or simply a “law correspondent?” If you’re an attorney at law, perhaps put that title after your name as the author of these articles? Regardless, thank you for offering your legal opinions and knowledge.

  • The photo of Keith at the top of this story is revolting. It is not just that he looks like disgraced walrus royalty (Like the bad walrus in a Disney movie). He looks like he feels wrongly persecuted. And very princessy. Like his one feeling (ego) got hurt. Maybe this was shot right after he read the text about his inferior dick from a branded victim? It oozes skeeve. Like you can smell his hair from the photo. Blech! Did I mention it is gross? This is the photo you show your daughter and say, “See this? Stay away”. And that beard. What’s probably in it. Shudder. That beard might be where covid originated. Other than that, he appears as an “ethical genius”.

  • KR in an ineffective of assistance motion, does the original lawyer argue he WAS effective and take an adverse stance to his client? If the client called the shots of the defense, are those privileged communications disclosed?

    • As you might expect, each case has some unique aspects to it. But, in terms of the general rules, here is what I can say in response to your questions:
      (1) An appeal based on a claim of “ineffective counsel” will be handled the same way as any other appeal: i.e., the appellate court will only review the record of the original trial and any briefs filed in conjunction with the appeal.

      (2) The appellate court will require briefs to be filed by the convicted defendant’s new attorney and the prosecution.

      (3) The appellate court may also order the former defense attorney to file a response to the defendant’s brief (Such an order can come directly from the court — or in response to a motion from the prosecution requesting that the former defense attorney be ordered to file a response). If that does not happen, then the former defense attorney can choose to file — or not file — such a response (The ABA offers some guidance in this situation but it is still a fairly murky area of the law).

      (4) Although the law is still somewhat unsettled on this issue, when a defendant files an appeal based on ineffective counsel, many courts interpret that as a waiver of the attorney/client privilege. If the court orders the former defense attorney to file a response, it can also mandate the response be filed “under seal”.

      Hope that helps…

  • Claviger,

    A big thank you for replying to my earlier message! The refined choice of words was impressive I have to say. I mean no harm to her at all but I think it could be a futile effort. I feel she’s beyond saving…

    I don’t think there are many of your educational background left who are still human. It brings a smile to see you differ.

    🙂

  • KR-

    What was the jurisdictional basis for Brooklyn, the Eastern District? How the hell did it up there?

    Any idea why the Northern District did zero????

    • Without going into all the jurisdictional details and legal nuances, what I can tell you is that the Feds were able to establish that certain illegal activities occurred in the EDNY. Originally, they identified eleven of those activities — but later, four of the related charges were dismissed and referred to the NDNY because Judge Garaufis did not agree that there was any jurisdictional basis for them to be prosecuted in the EDNY.

      As for the NDNY, my opinion is that law enforcement officials at all levels there were blackmailed, bribed, intimidated and/or lazy — maybe more than one of those things for some officials. I am personally aware of some of the evidence that was turned over to the Feds, state officials and local prosecutors — and I can assure you it was even stronger than much of the evidence that the EDNY prosecutors had to work with. Had a Grand Jury been impaneled in the NDNY to hear testimony — and consider evidence — regarding NXIVM/ESP’s illegal operations, I am confident that at least 20-30 people would have been indicted there.

      • Thank you.

        In my personal humble opinion, Brooklyn is better equipped and more experienced to handle a complex RICO case than Albany. In addition, the ED is probably less intimidated by the Bronfman millions.

        This stuff is out of the comfort zone of Smallbany.

        Could be other factors. Just throwing that out there.

        • I agree with all your points. But the remaining charges in the NDNY need not be farmed as a RICO case unless there are statute-of-limitations issues.

      • Any U.S. Attorney can file charges in any district. Why is this not being done? Why doesn’t a U.S. Attorney from the EDNY file charges in the NDNY? Not everyone can be blackmailed or bribed.

  • K.R. Claviger,

    Top-shelf legal reporting!!! I bookmarked this article to reread in a web browser. (seriously)

    Excellent explanation and analysis of the Keith Raniere trial. You are back to form.

    BTW:
    I’d pay money to know your true opinion of the job attorney Mark Agnifilo did in defending Keith Raniere.

    All the readers and myself would love it if you weighed in!!!!

  • I wonder if this article directly addresses Raniere’s concerns. It seems to me that there are legal questions and there are moral questions. K.R. Claviger helps reveal the legal questions, but what about the morality? Isn’t the morality of the prosecution’s and court’s behaviors more important than the legality of their behaviors? It may be legal to use inflated charges to get people to “admit” to crimes they didn’t commit and change their story to support the prosecution’s “theory,” but is it moral?

    • You could contact the morality police. I hear lots of non-legal issues are sorted out on social media. It will have no bearing on the legal trial in which Raniere was sentenced but you can self-soothe by just repeating the same non-issues until you are finally ready to move on. The # for the morality police is 1 800 we do not have legal standing. # 7 to speak to an elf.

      • KR- but why do you think an expert witness wasn’t called? Or the cured Tourettes patient? Or a psychologist, saying, ” Hey, this stuff is in line with acceptable standards”?

        The appeal is limited to the record, and there’s not much in the record in Vanguard’s favor…? Did no witnesses in hindsight hurt his case?

        • I will reply to your questions about trial tactics in a later post. Suffice to say for now that I think the “game plan” that was developed for Keith’s defense had no chance of winning.

          • I agree! The defendant doesn’t have to do a single thing. Just let the prosecution prove their case.

            Epic fail this time.

            It seems like Vanguard is trying to win post mortem. A day late, A dollar short.

    • Is it moral for a forty-three year old man to start grooming a thirteen year old for sex in order to start having sex with her when she was fifteen? Is it moral for a thirty-year old man to seduce a twelve year old and have sex with her over sixty times at his place of work?

      The fact that you clowns are attempting to gaslight the justice system and the members of the prosecution with a vacuous moral high ground considering who it is you are trying to defend would be laughable if it wasn’t so ludicrously pathetic.

  • Raniere is doing what he always does. Not taking any personal responsibility for his actions.

    He needs to take Blame and responsibility 2400 times and maybe he will finally see he was responsible for getting himself right where he is today, GUILTY OF ALL COUNTS

    I didn’t attend the trail except the closing arguments.

    The DOJ told the jury where they could find the evidence for every count Raniere was charged with.

    Every single page, every testimony, every picture, EVERYTHING that proved Raniere was guilty of every charge against him.

    There wasn’t a shadow of doubt he was innocent of any crime left in anyone’s mind when the DOJ was done with their closing arguments.

    Than Raniere’s team was up to bat. What a joke. They didn’t bring one ounce of evidence to the table to prove he was innocent of any crime he had been charged with.

    Nope instead, his attorney told a metaphorical story of a boy who was raised by a dad who made him study hard, in his room, all alone.He grew up to be a successful lawyer but found out his father never love him.

    What the heck. We were all shaking our heads. Talk about a strike out Dream Team Raniere. First you don’t put on a defense and now you don’t have a closing argument?

    Than to seal the deal the DOJ has the last bite at the apple. They get up, remind the jury of all Raniere’s wrong doing. Hold up the hard drive with the pictures of the 15 year old nude pictures and point to Raniere.

    Raniere looks deflated. Let’s out a noise as if he’d been punched in the stomach and the DOJ ends their case.

    After six weeks of testimony and closing arguments, Rainier and his Dream Team of expensive attorney that very few defendants could even afford (that he didn’t have to pay for) didn’t show up with a defense the entire trial.

    Now he wants to blame everyone but himself and his attorneys for his own guilty conviction and sentencing.

    He is so delusional, defiant and egotistical he wouldn’t take a great plea deal.

    Now he wants to have a meltdown and his most devoted followers will waste years of their lives being delusional with him, defending his delusion.

    His most faithful will not see the truth and will not take in reality based data. Not after spending thousands some hundred of thousand of dollars on NXIVM trainings.

    Yet they want to say how brilliant this man technology is, yet they themselves cannot apply it. They are so blinded by his bullshit.

    It always happens when a cult falls apart. There are always a few devoted followers who won’t wake up. They stay to the bitter end, wasting their lives defending their Master.

    It’s like a successful medical clinic. Raniere is the doctor who took advantage of his patients.

    His staff want to keep saying what a brilliant doctor he was.

    If he’s a criminal, it doesn’t matter how brilliant of a doctor he was, he can’t be a doctor any longer. He was a dangerous doctor and needs to be removed from society. The reason he won’t admit he has a problem makes him a dangerous man. Wake up sheep

    So sad but true. Just so you all know, I’m here for you when and if you wake up.

  • Helpful hint to all psychos/sociopaths: pay your taxes. Don’t commit identity theft or mail fraud. Every time Keith “paid that credit card bill in full” and continually perpetrated the fraud that he was the holder of the card, he committed mail fraud. And fraud against the bank that did not issue that card to him. They issued it to Pam. An ethical person would understand and respect that contract. Also, keep “your personal bank” — in this case Clare — out of the sex crimes. Like Manson – Vanguard made sure “everyone got their hands dirty” at the highest circle of trust. Therefore, no one was left “clean” to testify. So he was in a sense hoisted by his own petard. Not very intelligent for “one of the top three problem solvers in the world”. Is Suneel the # 2 problem solver in the world? If not, why does Keith need his help? Confusing!

  • I find these very interesting. I am almost hoping more accusations of an unfair trial are revealed so we can have more analysis of it.

    I have a few questions. Would the same judge have presided over a bench trial? Are the charges read out to the jury while the defendant is present?

    • Unless the case is transferred to another judge — which doesn’t happen very often — the judge who was assigned the case will also oversee the bench trial if that’s the option that the defendant chooses.

      Usually, the jury will be made aware of the charges as part of the jury selection process. In addition, those same charges will generally be delineated by the prosecution in its “Opening Statement” at the start of the trial.

      • Thank you. I guess with the jury trial, Keith has another bunch of people to blame.

        I spoke too soon earlier and didn’t see the next post. You may have answered a handful but, will you be addressing the 44 points Suneel is researching on behalf of Keith? It is getting a bit time consuming now! 😏

        • My original plan was to address the various “legal issues” that Keith raised in his “Call To Action” — and then address the various “legal issues” that Eduardo raised in his post. Now, with Suneel about to provide evidence regarding 44 “legal issues” concerning Keith’s case, I will be addressing each of those issues as well (There is some overlap in all three presentations). At the end of all this, Frank Report readers should be able to determine for themselves whether they think that Keith is innocent or guilty — and whether he will likely be getting a new trial.

  • Well written, excellent analysis.

    A question, and I have pondered this:

    Are you surprised the Vanguard didn’t take the stand to defend himself?

    It sounds like, with his calls to action now, he is trying to relitigate his case postmortem.

    I wonder if he regrets not taking it?

    • Defendants in criminal cases choose not to testify for a variety of reasons: e.g., they (and their attorneys) believe that the prosecution has not adequately proven its case against the defendant and that they can win via an acquittal, or they are concerned that they may not fare well when the prosecution asks them questions about the charges they are facing, or they are concerned that the judge may allow the prosecution to ask questions about related yet uncharged crimes, etc.

      While one or more of those factors probably played a role in Keith’s decision not to take the stand, I think he was also highly motivated to maintain the aura of ethical leader and spiritual guru that he had worked to build for almost 20 years. Seeing their leader reduced to babbling and/or tears on the stand (like he was in the patent case in Texas) would have led many of Keith’s followers to see through the aura he had created around himself — and caused them to abandon him.

      • Well said. Also Keith does not handle adverse questioning well since he is used to solely talking to his brainwashed minions. The opposing lawyer and judge in the patent case made Keith look like a blithering idiot. Agnifilo was no doubt concerned about this and also likely figured Keith would not handle hostile questioning well from a young attractive female (Penza).

      • That’s fascinating. I was not aware of the patent case in Texas.

        Keith actually cried on the stand. I am surprised.

      • Just read it. What a babbling idiot!

        But I did notice something interesting:

        He put those shares in someone else’s name to hide ownership because of “media”.

        But I also read he put Nxivm in NS’s name to also hide his ownership!!!

        Then, to make matters worse, he hid his identity as the leader of DOS.

  • I can think of no greater evidence that Keith Raniere is The Smartest Man Alive™ than him turning down a plea deal of 16 years in low security detention.

    The wages of grandiose narcissism…

    Thanks for this analysis, Claviger, as always.

    • NXIDVMDVM, I have found that you are smarter than Raniere. You also belong to this select group of superintelligent people. But how do you explain that the most intelligent person in the world is inferior to you in intelligence? You must have an extraterrestrial intelligence, or someone must have made a mistake with Raniere.

      • Well… check the new edition of the Guinness Book of World Records and I’m sure you’ll see my photo in the Highest Everest IQ category.

        And also in the Most Able to Affect Radar Detectors and Weather category.

        • I admire your response and am simply impressed by it. With your comments and reply, you make Raniere’s superintelligence look all pale and insignificant. You are my new champion here on the comments page. But I have one question: How do they explain the blue light, did it really exist, or did it exist only because of a hypnotic suggestion? We know Raniere can’t perform miracles, not even a teeny tiny one. So was it just another lie?

          • Regardless, Raniere won’t ever walk the earth as a free man.

            That’s what’s important.

          • FMN, at least they deserve credit for going off-script for a change.

            Their sarcasm at least suggests some glimmer of thought process outside of The World’s Smartest Child Rapist’s™ bubble of idiocy.

            Perhaps it is a hopeful sign.

About Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato Investigates

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

Parlato has 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, which was ironic since many credit Parlato as being one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083

Archives