By Suneel Chakravorty
In my recent article, I analyzed Keith Raniere’s “Call to Action” and examined some of what I consider major breaches of due process and justice in his case. That was just the beginning. I have a lot more to say.
I have a plan to redress this injustice.
Before Frank Report readers get too upset, let me say that I do not have all the answers. That’s why I am asking questions and investigating. Some of you might say Keith is convicted, so the matter is settled. But if it was unjust, untrue, if it was a railroading of an innocent man, then it is not settled. It will never be settled if justice was not done.
There is no infallibility I know of ascribed to the US criminal justice system. Innocent people get convicted all the time, as many studies show.
My plan is to question anything and everything, even the fairness of the most hated, despised and reviled Keith Raniere’s trial. And I plan to publish the results. Personally, as of now, I think he did not receive a fair trial. Still, I am examining all the issues and my plan is to wage a campaign to get this information – whatever it is – out to the world at large.
My plan is to not only judge the trial from a standpoint of fairness but also judge of whether he is innocent. Someone could be guilty and at the same time have been robbed of due process. But is he innocent as well?
I am willing to listen to anyone with evidence to prove or disprove Keith’s innocence.
Below are some of the issues which I am concerned about – and of which I or my colleagues are currently examining and plan to write about. I think the results of this examination may lead to the public gradually adopting my view that Keith got anything but a fair trial.
If I am right, I expect an appeal to be granted, a new trial and an acquittal – when the trial is fair. I can well envision Keith walking out a free man and in the process showing the world that the system can be brutally unfair.
But if, on the other hand, I am wrong, and the results of the investigation I am conducting shows that there was due process and a fair trial, and that Keith is guilty then I will tell that to the world or anyone who will listen and then for me the matter will be settled.
For those readers who are certain that Keith did get a fair trial, then you should have nothing to be worried about in my little investigation of the issues. That truth will be evident soon enough.
Here is the list of topics.
1. How does Keith’s 120 year sentence compare to other cases?
Keith’s charges had no violence, weapons or drugs. We will look for cases with similar charges to Keith’s and compare the sentences and look for similar sentences and compare the cases across several dimensions..
2. Was the evidence presented by the prosecution fact-driven or sensational or emotional?
Much of the evidence in the charges rests on witness testimony. It is essential that we examine what the so-called “victims” such as Nicole and Jaye testified to, how their testimony relates to the charges, if it all, and whether it was factual or emotionally charged.
3. Was the evidence against Keith strong or flimsy?
A man was sentenced to 120 years. Let’s see how ironclad the evidence was.
4. Was Keith condemned for alleged moral deviance or actual crimes?
A thorough examination of the government’s closing statements in the trial and statements at sentencing may tell us what Keith’s most egregious transgressions were, in their eyes.
5. How can there be sex trafficking if there was no money exchanged?
Sex trafficking was a single act of oral sex between two women wherein no money changed hands. Is that what Congress intended in their federal sex trafficking statute?
6. Was the element of “coercion” met in the sex trafficking charge?
Coercion has a legal definition. We will test if it fits Nicole’s so-called sex trafficking and deal with another “C” word: consent.
7. Was the element of “intent’ met in the sex trafficking charge?
We will examine if Keith knew Nicole was being coerced, assuming she was being coerced. Without intent, there can be no sex trafficking.
8. What is Blackstone’s Ratio and should we uphold it?
Blackstone’s ratio is that it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Let’s examine this idea and its merits and downsides.
9. How does the 97% US federal conviction rate compare with fascist regimes?
Maybe prosecutors only pick worthy cases. We will compare the US to other developed countries and to authoritarian regimes to delve deeper into this.
10. Should someone who is hated be treated the same under the law as someone who is loved, and did that happen in this case?
Let’s examine if the prosecution passed the litmus test of Lady Justice being blind. If hated Keith received the same treatment as a beloved defendant, then they passed.
11. Could any of the charges against Keith be considered “victimless crimes”?
Let’s examine the charges and see if there are any where we cannot identify an actual victim and see what sentence Keith received for those.
12. How is jury nullification relevant to Keith’s case?
Let’s define what jury nullification is. We’ll look at the jury questionnaire and aspects of the jury selection process to see if there were any notable irregularities.
13. How was the attempted sex trafficking of Jaye proven without India Oxenberg or Allison Mack testifying?
Let’s unpack the testimony of Jaye and the prosecution’s argument and see how Keith was even involved in the charge.
14. Should a mysteriously accessed device in the child porn charge be admitted as evidence?
According to experts, alleged child porn pictures “found’ on electronic devices may have been tampered with. The FBI admitted during trial that someone accessed the device while in FBI custody but did not know who it was. Should this evidence have been admitted?
15. What is Camila’s new role in the case?
Let’s examine what Camila’s role in the case and the charges and what may have inspired her to come forward at last.
16. What if the tampering is proven and Camila is also telling the truth?
We will examine what due process would demand in such a difficult situation.
17. What are the ramifications of the judge stopping Lauren Salzman’s cross examination?
Lauren was a major witness in the government’s case and she was excused by the judge when she started crying. It was also during Marc Agnifilo’s questioning of issues related to her plea deal.
18. Should Lauren have been recalled or was it better to go for a mistrial?
Keith’s attorney asked for a mistrial. Let’s examine the strategy behind that as compared to asking for Lauren to be recalled.
19. Did the judge “poison the well” by his remarks about Lauren and his scolding Agnifilo?
Let’s examine the judge’s comments when he stopped Lauren’s cross-examination and during the next morning as well as what effect this had on the jury’s perception of Marc Agnfilo. Also, let’s examine how this affected Agnifilo’s practical ability to cross-examine the subsequent female witnesses.
20. How did the judge treat prosecutor Moira Penza versus defense attorney Marc Agnifilo?
Let’s compare the judge’s remarks toward Penza and Agnifilo and see whether the judge treated them similarly.
21. What impact did the judge’s decision on witness anonymity have on the case?
The judge ruled that certain women testifying against Keith or being mentioned in court should be identified by only their first names, while supporters of Keith were identified by first and last names. Let’s look at what impression this gave to the jury and if the judge made any attempts to address this.
22. What impact did the judge’s rules regarding the partial sequestering of the jury and their anonymity have on the case?
Let’s examine what impression this may have given to the jury.
23. What probative value did the Camila texts have?
Let’s examine the Camila texts in detail, including the texts that were not used by the prosecution, and identify what charges they were relevant to or what the evidentiary purpose behind them was.
24. How were the Camila texts obtained and should they have been admissible?
Let’s look at the chain of custody for the texts and the defense’s argument for their inadmissibility
25. What does Daniela and Nicole’s participation in a civil lawsuit have to do with the case?
The defense argues that Daniela and Nicole lied about their planned participation in a civil lawsuit. Let’s examine the defense’s argument and consider what the prosecution might have known about the civil case and Neil Glazer’s involvement.
26. Can adult women consent at the time and later withdraw their consent to create a crime?
We will evaluate this in the context of DOS and explore the ramifications
27. Can a female victim be questioned?
We will debate whether or not questioning of female victims should be allowed, what the implications are for due process, and what, if anything, should gender have to do with this question.
28. What were Lauren’s motivations and relationship with the prosecution?
Let’s look at Lauren’s role in the case and what her motivations may have been in testifying.
29. Were some witnesses given deals of immunity?
It seems Daniela and Sylvie were both unindicted co-conspirators in racketeering, immigration fraud and other crimes. Maybe this influenced their decision to testify and how they testified. Maybe it didn’t.
30. Was Keith kidnapped or arrested?
Keith was seized by unknown gunmen – possibly police, possibly bounty hunters- in Mexico and removed to the USA on the same day, circumventing legal extradition procedures. Does this nullify jurisdiction in the case? What actually happened? Who seized Keith?
31. Did prosecutors mislead the court to deny Keith bail?
Prosecutors alleged Keith fled to Mexico to hide from US authorities. He was denied bail and held in custody. Did they mislead the court?
32. Did the judge not properly review the evidence that Keith wasn’t hiding?
Marc Agnifilo, [Docket #43] in his motion for bond rebutted the prosecution’s theory of Keith being a flight risk and offered concrete evidence to that effect. Should this not have been enough to allow Keith on bail?
33. What impact did Keith not having bail have on his ability to mount a proper defense?
Let’s look at how getting out on bail or remaining in detention affect a defendant’s chances in general and examine the specifics of Keith’s circumstances and the size of his case.
34. Did any “victims” in the case have a motive to lie?
Let’s go through each of the “victims”, investigate their motives, and determine whether they were all above board or if any had dubious motives.
35. What were Keith’s relationships with the alleged victims?
36. What were Keith’s relationships with the alleged co-conspirators?
37. Was Daniela really a captive in the room? What role did her father and mother play?
Let’s go through her testimony in detail as well as her victim impact statement at sentencing as well as those of her mother and her brother to paint a picture of what happened.
38. What were the elements of Daniela’s so-called imprisonment in the room?
Let’s go through the legal definition of the document servitude charge and see if Keith’s conduct or Lauren’s conduct meet the legal definition.
39. Were any potential defense witnesses intimidated by the government?
Agnifilo filed a Rule 33 motion for a new trial prior to sentencing and included affidavits alleging the prosecution threatened witnesses into silence. Let’s examine the affidavits, who, if anyone, was threatened, and why they were threatened.
40. Were any statements made by the government to the court or to the press incorrect?
Let’s look at the government’s press releases, motions, and statements in trial and identify if there were any inaccuracies or false statements and what the possible impact of those were.
41. Did any witnesses have legitimate reason to fear for their lives?
The prosecution alleged that witnesses feared for their lives. Let’s look at what investigation they did into this, what evidence they found, and what the impact of these claims were on the case.
42. Did any witness for the prosecution change their story overtime?
Many of the major witnesses seemed to have a change in perspective. Where once they were positive towards NXIVM and Keith, now they feel the opposite. Let’s investigate why their story changed. Did they simply discover the truth?
43. What does the case look like when without sensational language and moral judgments?
Let’s restate Keith’s case in a purely fact-based way and see what that looks like.
44. What does the case look like when all the genders are reversed?
Let’s tell the story of the major charges, but with the genders swapped, and see whether we feel the same about both versions and what the significance of this analysis is.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
The issue of “crime without a victim” is relevant in criminal matters, since it raises the following question: what does Criminal Law protect? Undoubtedly, they are the legal assets protected by the State, with the limit that the penalties used for this purpose must necessarily derive from the injury or endangerment of the legal assets protected by law, a contrary sensu, if there is no affectation or endangerment of a legal asset, there should be no penalty, that is, the penalization of a conduct is necessary as long as it causes damage to third parties, for which it is illegal, that it is intended to punish a person for a conduct that does not affect, really or potentially, anything or anyone, based on the fact that there would be no need or harm for such a sanction.
[…] 5, Suneel Chakravorty posed 44 questions concerning Keith Raniere and his trial in a post entitled My Plan to Show the World What Really Happened to Keith Raniere. The questions were meant to raise potential legal issues to persuade readers that Raniere may not […]
There are no substantial differences in the convictions of the fascist countries and the USA, since they are almost equal, what I consider relevant are the similarities in the forms, fascism has a discourse in defense of legality, at the same time it defends to skip all legality to be able to prevail, he will rely on it when he can take advantage of it for his interests, but he will resort to illegality every time that suits him, the same we see in the USA, both tend to severely limit individual freedoms, in both the Law of force must to impose on the force of the Law, and the opponent becomes a suspect who is going to have to prove that he is not guilty, when in the law it corresponds to the judicial system to accredit him, a sector of fascism is made up of the officials of the coercive apparatus, police, judges, military and employees of the judiciary and are their first-rate collaborators to ensure impunity for their attacks and acts of violence, pri Giving its victims the possibilities of resorting to the judicial authorities, which we already see in the USA, when developing a police state, contrary to the Constitutions, therefore illegal, but which has been legalized with the Patriotic Act promulgated in 2011.
[…] Suneel Chakravorty recently posted a list of forty-four (44) legal questions regarding Keith Raniere’s case that he and his colleagues are currently examining in their quest to obtain a new trial for Keith. […]
In criminal law, the Blackstone formula is a principle that establishes that: “it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for an innocent person to suffer”, it is linked to the principle of innocence of criminal procedural law,
we emphasize that the phrase is intended to indicate the importance of “due process”, as a core for the administration of justice, since otherwise, it would be injustice that will reward, hence it is preferred that those guilty of proven crimes are free, than that a single innocent is convicted, to point out the care of the entire criminal process, which did not happen in the Keith Raniere process, because contrary to this, he suffered so many irregularities, that if they did not occur, they would prove his innocence and the phrase I comment would be applicable and going to the extreme of propose that if the conviction of an innocent person is to be totally avoided, this can only be achieved by convicting absolutely nobody.
A couple of salient points related to your assessment on this particular issue.
Your reference to Raniere being “found innocent” is inaccurate. The process begins with the “assumption of innocence” until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “beyond a shadow of a doubt” (depending upon the severity of the crime). In western jurisprudence, defendants are judged either “guilty” or “not guilty.” The distinction is important in that the onus of proving the case falls 100% on the state/prosecution – while the defendant has no burden to prove his/her innocence – setting the bar intentionally high, and a not guilty verdict does not mean “innocent” but simply that the prosecution “failed to prove guilt.”
The Blackstone Theorem has always suffered a fundamental flaw. While it seems utilitarian – even egalitarian – in its noble goal of protecting innocents from injustice — it fails to account for recidivism. Of the ten guilty men released under Blackstone, at least seven will likely repeat their crime or worse crimes – and most of those multiple times – having been further emboldened by the removal of consequences or penalties. Sexual deviance has a particularly high recidivism rate.
Thus, ultimately, the release of the ten “guilty” men/women will in all likelihood result in far more than 10 further innocent victims.
Does anyone here seriously believe that if exonerated, Raniere would cease his chronic manipulation, abuse and exploitation of women and children? Please.
A cogent and well-focused argument. My only question is your reference to “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Although that is not a legal standard in the U.S., it could be in other countries. In the U.S., the legal standard for criminal cases is always “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
To prove the crime of sex trafficking, it is necessary the intentional element of satisfying a sexual desire at the expense of the victim, and accurately determine the elements that comprise it, without changing its content, in order to impart a correct administration of justice, as well as, contain the clear and precise setting of the act that the norm or article of the Law provides, which did not happen in the Keith Raniere Trial, regarding this crime, this is so, since it is appreciated in the process that the Prosecutor’s Office does not demonstrate the required intention, since the mere saying of the
victim,
Rather, all the elements that the Law provides must be gathered, since if not, the responsibility of the accused is inadmissible.
Very interesting this point of view. I think it is very important to analyze the Raniere case based on facts and not emotions. Justice must be blind, and be based on direct, true and verifiable evidence. I understand that the case attracted the attention of public opinion due to the emotional burden involved in the charges.
Coercion is based on the threat of using violence to force the conduct or change the will of a person, which was not proven in the prosecution’s sex trafficking accusation in the KeithRaniere Trial, since the alleged victim expressed his interest and consent for the sexual relationship, of whom he later accused, unfortunately and to the shame of Justice the judge of the case did not admit the evidence that demonstrates the conduct of the accuser, such as that which, provocatively manifests his interest in sexually active relations with the defendant and more, which shows that she was not violated, threatened, or forced against her will, which could be demonstrated in the cross-examination that was denied to the lawyers by the judge to the complainant.
Either you like or dislike a person based on what? Many people used to make things personal, why? In this case, just following what some people said a judgement and a prejudice based on hate was follow.
Based on whether they are involved in child rape, porn and trafficking, for example.
You’re more than welcome to like The World’s Smartest Child Rapist™ and his co-conspirators to your heart’s content. No one is stopping you.
Feel whatever you like! Isn’t freedom wonderful?
Wow. I never allowed myself to even think of these questions… Thank you, Suneel for inspiring us to think outside of the box.
Was Keith condemned for alleged moral deviance or actual crimes? The prosecution (not the official one) the ones drive by hate were succesful, the media create a monster and make everything go around feelings hate and fear. How does it affect the whole system.
The accusation of sex trafficking to Keith Raniere, was not accredited in the Trial, and as in the entire process, full of irregularities, such as the one that the Judge will allow the Prosecutor’s Office to promote hatred and prejudice towards the accused, by the Jury, as was the issue of abortions that had nothing to do with, nor were they related to the Trial, without caring about the harm to third parties, but only creating anger and hatred against Keith, knowing that most of the The jury stated that it was against abortion, in addition to the fact that the defense evidence was not admitted, which would demonstrate the lack of veracity of the alleged victim, in which she admits to having consensual sex, nor were the defense attorneys allowed to question her to prove that he was lying and that his accusation was false, nor was he credited with paying any, all of which are necessary requirements for the accreditation of this crime.
Again, I suggest you write the judge one of these really, really long sentences, Joshua. Be sure to tell him about the allegations of jury misconduct and clothes coordinating. And remember, no matter what proof you are shown to contradict your narrative, just keep repeating the same thing.
Also, ask the judge what he thinks of the veiled threats from Keith about retaliation on what you guys called the (in)justice system if he gets his pardon (not a chance he will). I bet he has seen Keith’s missive and the dead Ender’s plea. Now, during what our country is going through and with a newly murdered law enforcement officer, I am sure the justice system wants more extremist cult members colluding to take down the court system.
You are all so tone-deaf and unable to read the energy in the real world. Too self-absorbed, self-centered, and Keith-centered.
26 – on consent – it is the wrong question really. If you are told your brand will be a small tattoo and it is not, then that is not consent. It is not a question of changing your mind later. If you are coerced into sex that is not consensual, etc., etc. No one is saying as in point 26 that you can consent at the time to something and later change your mind and then change the past as it were.
The trial was fair but I have no problem with the nxm5 raising issues if they want to. If they think the result will be that lots of people will ultimately agree with them that it was not they are wrong.
Jane Smith. And they lied about the initials of Raniere. It was like deciding to get a small tattoo of a hummingbird and instead you are branded with “Property of Jimbo”. They will definitely win damages in the civil case for that lie. How much is being mutilated by your vagina and unwillingly having your skin marked with a sex slave brand?. A lot. That is my guess.
Do you think proving things in court with evidence matters anymore?
Keith Raniere was not convicted of real crimes, as we have seen, the documents that were not allowed, the interrogations that they do not allow and the evidence that is not allowed to the defense, and in contrast to the Prosecutor’s Office everything is admissible even if the evidence were illegally manipulated, as well as the media climate of hatred and discrediting caused by the distorted diffusion of the media, show that it was the double standards of both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Judge that influenced the Jury so that without an analysis of the data, documents, evidence and arguments, rush to convict the accused, which shows the time they take to deliberate, rather than not deliberate, because everything seems to indicate that the jury already had the instruction to convict.
“We” have not seen that. You have seen that. Because that it is what you want to see.
Joshua, the inability to control the train of one’s thoughts, to write only in a run-on stream is a sign of psychosis.
I used to think you were just a troll, but I’m actually starting to worry about you.
Is there someone you trust you can talk to?
If you feel like you are in crisis, you’ll find help at this hotline 24/7: 1-800-950-6264
How does Keith’s 120 year sentence compare to other cases?
What was the judge looking for once he sentence Mr. Raniere?
Why if there were no agravants did he do that?
You should write the judge and ask him. Be sure to do it in your cult speak run on sentence style. Also no matter what he says make sure to just repeat the same baseless claims over and over and over. Especially about the kidnapping. And the jury misconduct outfit collusion. Oh! And the gem about the government only releasing DOS collateral. That’s a good one! It doesn’t sound crazy. At. All.
When the claim of prosecutorial misconduct was first raised, I was very skeptical. I really want to trust the outcome of any trial, and know that the verdict means the defendant is indeed innocent or guilty. I’m undecided as to whether Keith Raniere is ultimately innocent or guilty, but the more I read about this case (and the more I watch documentaries that expose just how pervasive prosecutorial and investigative misconduct is), the less I trust that the verdict aligns with the truth. If even a handful of the claims implied by the above questions are true, it raises some serious questions about the trial.
Agreed. Common sense should prevail!
Naive: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment
Devotee: an ardent follower, supporter, or enthusiast
Sycophantic: fawning, obsequious
Idiot: a foolish or stupid person
Disposable: designed to be used once or only a limited number of times and then thrown away
Tool: one who is used or manipulated by another
Poetry nxidvmdvm, and a possible Sestina Challenge?!
Oh damn.
Thanks for the inspiration.
Satyagraha (Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह; Satya: “truth”, āgraha: “insistence” or “holding firmly to”), or holding onto truth,[1] or truth force, is a particular form of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. Someone who practices satyagraha is a satyagrahi.
Thank you, Suneel
This is very interesting, Suneel… I stand for truth so if this is real, it must be shown and proved. Otherwise, the justice system is one of three legs were the principles of our constitution is failing badly… My concern is why people are so lost in the content instead of being committed to truth and upholding justice. It’s not about being wrong or bad but upholding the truth and only very few actually know it…
The good thing about truth is that it’s always consistent and so you can prove it!
So, Suneel, I’m very curious about you showing data and showing the other side of the coin that the justice system and the media were not into it… I wonder why? I wonder who benefits from all of this…?!
OK, I’ll bite on a couple of these points just to see what kind of “evidence” he can present. And I will say I think the interesting thing Suneel brings up is the question about whether or not we can question victims. It started with the Me Too movement where people are “cancelled” for questioning any victims and accused of victim-shaming. And that doesn’t mean I don’t support victims or believe them. But we can’t blindly believe everything a victim says without asking questions and searching more. I’m curious to know what evidence Suneel will present that questions these women. Especially because there are so many of them that came forward to say how bad Keith is…is there countering evidence that discredits all of them?
“For those readers who are certain that Keith did get a fair trial, then you should have nothing to be worried about in my little investigation of the issues. That truth will be evident soon enough”. So why are you so mad and asking for responses from Suneel, if you believe what you believe, why do you care? Why do you want to be engaged in a discussion, there is no way to change anyone’s opinion without his consent. Stop worrying and hating, let everyone go on with his own beliefs.
Joshua, why are you so mad?
Why do you want to be engaged in a discussion since there is no way to change anyone’s opinion without their consent?
Have you thought about not worrying and hating and allowing everyone go on with their beliefs?
Have you every considered that your questions and arguments are self-referential and self-defeating?
That’s what kept these idiots going for decades. If only people had harmless beliefs. Suneels beliefs aren’t harmless.
Did the manuscript of Vanguard’s “Magnum Opus” that disappeared when his cell was robbed back in March 2020 ever reappear?
Wouldn’t that be helpful in writing this work in progress?
Shouldn’t that robbery be added to the list of the victimizations he has suffered?
What about his broken ribs and other injuries from his various “encounters” with other inmates? Did those impact his ability to prepare for trial? Or were those from him practicing his karate and judo skills?
I hope this forthcoming piece will include “Vanguard” opening up about his victim feelings. That way it’ll be easier for the haters to empathize with his Vanguardness.
[…] This is in response to Suneel Charkravorty’s My Plan to Show the World What Really Happened to Keith Raniere […]
Suneel,
You haven’t engaged in any conversation/discussion here.
The questions I’d like to see answered, are the ones concerning morality. Ethics.
Let me start by saying that if due process was withheld from Keith, he should get a new trial.
But if you take away all the legal matters, you all are still left with the ramifications of what everyone knows now.
Let’s for example, talk about Susan Dones. Barbara Bouchey. Toni Natalie. And many others who Keith & co. tried to destroy.
Because that’s what happened. Keith/Nxivm, Nancy and the Bronfmans didn’t use the law to fight injustice. They used the law to tear other human beings, emotionally, mentally and financially apart.
How do you reconcile the things you do now with what happened back then?
Let’s say Keith, for argument’s sake, walks out of prison as a free man in June.
Are you gonna talk to Keith about all the things being said and done?
In fact, do you, or did you, ever talk to Keith about all the things he and his companions had done to people, way before the shit really hit the fan?
Was Nxivm in its day also this concerned about due process? There was a lot of interest in how to live joyfully.
So Nxivm joyfully was engaged in God knows how many lawsuits.
What’s your opinion on that?
I have so many questions about what happened during Nxivm, and all the things some of you now suddenly seem to care about.
Next, I will try to send a more coherent reply.
Looking forward to your answer(s).
Greetings from Holland,
All those stories people tell about what was “done to them” need to be proven in court with evidence. Victim impact statements in my opinion are very convenient for trashing a person, and not being questioned at all. It is a strange and perverse aspect of the justice system, if you ask me.
You do realize that Keith and his attorneys were free to call witnesses too? So, if they thought that questioning any of the people who gave impact statements under oath would have been informative and helpful, why didn’t they do that?
I do not know why they didn’t. but that doesn’t make “victim impact statements” necessarily true, or evidence for that matter.
Oh, my goodness. Why am I still paying attention to this? I guess I just feel sad that this maniac Vanguard still appears to have a hold on people. It’s really disturbing that all this very clear evidence that what he did was manipulative, sick and wrong is being thrown back on the victims and jury?
Trying to get off on some technicality? And pick at things some more? I don’t think public opinion isn’t good because people hate him. I think it’s because he’s blame-shifting.
All this drivel about gender roles, etc.? Whoa. I can only wonder about how you ever lost touch with your humanity? The very suggestion only perpetuates a divide.
You’re only contributing to the problem.
justice, due process… “technicalities”.
“My plan is to question anything and everything, even the fairness of the most hated, despised and reviled Keith Raniere’s trial. And I plan to publish the results. Personally, as of now, I think he did not receive a fair trial. Still, I am examining all the issues and my plan is to wage a campaign to get this information – whatever it is – out to the world at large”.
What is wrong with this? Nothing once a Man sees injustices, it is valid and in accordance with his values to look for Justice. Not all people live, all people dies and Mr. Suneel shows that there is a way of living upholding principles.
The Sentence of 120 years in prison for Keith Raniere is unjust, excessive and illegal, since as Mr. Suneel pointed out, no weapons, drugs or damages were used, the accused does not have a criminal record, which proves that there is no aggravating circumstances, therefore, supposing without granting, that the crime had been committed and proven, which does not happen in this case, the sentence would have to be the lowest, and the Judge benign, since the human interest of the Justice is the rehabilitation of the offender, which happens in most of the Penal Codes of the world, as well as, in the International Treaties, of which the USA is a part, what happens in the precedents that exist in all the trials in this matter , in the Courts of the American Union, in which the Judges show their humanity, integrity and justice, acting with benignity when condemning the offenders. Contrary to what happened in the unjust sentence to Keith Raniere, who despite his innocence and without proving his guilt in a fair procedure, the full rigor of the Law was applied to him.
Good Lord, research run on sentences!!!
1 long paragraph, 2 sentences, 0 coherence.
Jeffry Dahmer had no previous criminal record either. The latter only comes into play when the crimes committed aren’t major, like misdemeanors. No one gives a shit about the previously clean criminal history of a person who has just been convicted of committing serious crimes.
The good news: Pro-Raniere people are coming out of the woodwork and making comments.
The bad news: Frank allows anonymous commenters.
A tad un-self-aware?
Articles like this authored by Suneel empower Mr. Parlato’s site as an open forum in the search for justice and due process.
Just the willingness to explore other ideas is worth it for justice and humanity.
Looking more into the case I’ve found a lot of the points that Suneel bring up are real and there’s evidence. What an interesting case for America’s Justice system is coming. So interested in looking at what Suneel present next.
Hopefully, this case will be thoroughly examined.
Suneel, you bring up some very important points. If these things indeed happened during the case, it is no doubt multiple violations of the legal system. I found your current articles about the kidnapping in Mexico, the sex trafficking charge and certainly the tampering of the child porn quite solid and backed up by evidence (as much as one can through articles) and I’m willing to hear your explanation of each one of these points. We are all better off if we carefully analyze anything we initially believe to be true at face value.
Harvard-
Do you think something smells fishy regarding the arrest/kidnapping?
“In February 2020, a total of 2,551 exonerations are mentioned in the National Registry of Exonerations. The total years of these exonerated people spent in jails adds up to 22,540 years. Detailed data from 1989 regarding every known exoneration in the United States is listed.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States
And these are just the ones that have been exonerated. How many more have not?
What if this case is no different? Suneel makes some good points and there is nothing to lose if he is wrong….there are people’s lives at stake here….what if he is right?
80 Years ago a nation wrongly convicted a group of people for their beliefs and life style….Germany today still lives with a guilty conscience because of it…are you willing to do the same?
Keith has already filed and lost a Rule 33 motion for a new trial – and he may file additional Rule 33 motions in the future. In addition, he will undoubtedly file several appeals — the final one of which will quite likely be based on his assertion that he had “inadequate counsel” at trial.
So, it appears that his side of the story will be heard. What else do you think should be done to ensure that he gets to raise all the issues he thinks are relevant to his case?
Who 80 years ago???
Seriously? You are going to compare Vanguard to the holocaust? And how many criminal juries have you done your civic duty and served on? The jury takes it very, very seriously. No matter what happens, they did what they thought was right. Stop trying to shame them just because it’s your buddy who committed heinous crimes.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State”. Goebbels
Is that why all the. Nxium cult members repeat the same false claims ad nauseam?
but can you tell which claims are false? based on what?
I think Suneel presents some interesting points. Looking forward to reading more.
I think Suneel’s task at hand is a win-win situation.
If it turns out evidence wasn’t as strong as to convict Keith, then, it’s a win because when someone innocent walks out of jail and can go on with their lives it’s something to be celebrated.
If it turns out the evidence is strong enough and Keith does deserve the sentence he was handed then, it’s also a win, the justice system acted with due process, did its part and it’s a true consequence for unlawful behavior.
Either way, people living in this country and all those who look up to this country for its justice system will be better off after this investigation. Regardless of the findings.
So you will accept his sentence when he’s denied appeals? Good for you.
Hopefully, that will be the case!
Raniere didnt put on a defense. Was this his plan all along — to just say it was rigged? Sounds familiar.
Excellent Suneel. I will add more, please help us get to the bottom of these fascinating questions as well:
45. How does it feel as a man to dance around outside a prison for other men?
46. If a young woman confronts Keith at a volleyball match and he runs and hides in the bathroom, is it better for him to sit in a stall with his feet up, or just turn the lights out and hope nobody notices?
47. When Keith walks in the rain, he doesn’t get wet. So what happens when he tries to take a shower?
48. Here’s a math story problem for you. 8 women are set to give 1 man a group blow job. 3 of them receive his ejaculate on their face. Of the remaining 5, 2 of them see a blue light. So when the police arrive, which closet should he hide in?
I look forward to your answers to all of these important questions.
LMAO!
Ha ha ha. I would add “Knowing everything you now can’t deny knowing about Keith – legal issues aside – do you still find him an honorable person?” And will you, Suneel, please get a brand near your penis just to prove it ain’t no thing?
Holy Suneel, you have a long list of questions to address! Thank you in advance for taking this on because you are asking some questions I have had for a while.
I’m particularly interested in what you have to say about #23, especially the Camila texts that were not used by the prosecution. The ones the prosecution did use sure paint a horrific picture but at the same time, they’re all very fuzzy and suggestive, rather than outright damning.
Wow. Honestly, surprised at how much there still seems to investigate in this case that most people seem to think has already been figured out. Looking forward to seeing Suneel and whomever else dive more into the topics outlined. Seems like a worthwhile endveavor. I’ve got my popcorn ready 😉
I’ll be following along. Thanks for putting yourself out there to bring some discussion from another point of view.
Judging by the comments, the Nxivm 5 and their friends have commented their support. I would like to hear why they are ok with the clear moral violations that Raniere has committed even if they may not consider them illegal. What is illegal and what is immoral are not the same thing. For example, sex with children is not illegal in some countries but I think most people around the world do not question its immorality. If you do not, explain why not. That is just one of many questions that I think they should be answering first considering their concern about righting wrongs and all that.
Is Suneel a lawyer? If so, then his legal minutiae make perfect sense and are what the law and precedent are built on.
If not, then I have to question his morality as a human being. In his focus on asking “Did Raniere actually break the law?”, he seems to have skipped right over basic moral questions that probably should be answered by himself first.
For example:
Is it ok for an adult male to groom and have sex with underage children?
Is it ok for an adult male to actively brand a woman with his name?
Is it ok to collect blackmail material on women before putting them in a position where they have to choose to have sex with him and get branded?
Is it ok to create a pyramid scheme of master and slaves all geared towards providing him with sexual-based material to view and individuals to enjoy at his leisure?
Is it ok to harass continuously through legal measures people that disagree with him on things to the point that several may have committed suicide?
There are more that I am not thinking of.
The law is an attempt to codify behavior we consider to be moral. The law is always playing catch up on the new ways humans learn to harm each other. But often, morality is in that “You know it when you see it arena”. Just because the law doesn’t say a thing is wrong doesn’t mean you do not know it’s not morally wrong. Any one of the above is morally wrong. A lawyer is not required to really care about the morality of their client but I suspect Suneel is not a lawyer. He doesn’t have that excuse. My guess is he considered himself a “concerned citizen” who thinks railroading has occurred. As a concerned citizen myself, I have to know why he is completely ignoring the moral questions that Raniere’s behavior brings up and why he does not care about such things.
Erasend,
Suneel is incapable of addressing the very valid aspects you raised due to being very mentally ill and/or refusing treatment and/or being untreatable. Suneel represents the cannon fodder of society and is regarded as having no object value, let alone human value, by those who manipulate him.
10/10. Would respond with curiously similar comments about grave injustice again.
Reading these same nonsense arguments by Eduardo and Suneel over and over again: that KR did not get a fair trial or there was some great conspiracy or that the judge was biased or that due process rights were violated is counterproductive and insulting to the victims.
It is so obvious that Keith is being given a platform on FR under the guise of ‘Suneel and Eduardo’, two of his stooges.
NEWSFLASH: KR will not be granted a new trial or be heard on appeal EVER.
With 3 years as an avid Frank Report reader and commenter, I can say with certainty that this is my last visit to this site, the last article I will read, and my last comment.
That’s precisely what Bangkok said quite some time ago and look at him now! :-)))
“Can adult women consent at the time and later withdraw their consent to create a crime?”
Being tied to a table is not consent. Submitting to sex acts because someone has collateral over you is not consent. Having sex with someone under the legal age of consent is not consent. None of that is giving consent and withdrawing it later.
Wow!!!
Love all the positive reviews of this article!!!!!
I feel like I’m at the Amazon website because even the 2 star reviews are positive.
Wow! I don’t think I´ve seen or heard of so much injustice since Jesus´ crucifixion!
Yes, or Salem Witch Trials!
Wow! You guys have been around since Jesus walked the earth and the Salem witch trials respectively? And did you really just compare Keith Raniere to Jesus Christ? And how many women brutally murdered by drowning, crushing, etc. For fantasy powers, do you feel you’re equal to just one actually guilty smelly little man sitting comfortably on his fat ass after a lengthy very expensive jury trial? Is Keith imprisoned equal to one dead woman? 30? Hyperbole doesn’t serve Vanguard defenders well. Or show “rational inquiry”. It reads as highly emotional. Lacking ” data”.
Whew
The 120-year sentence and the 100 million dollar bail for Clare (for a first-time offense of a non-violent immigration charge that amounts to approx 100K) are both truly unprecedented. To me, this points to how tipped the scales were in this case. It’s been a true circus if you actually know the law. Even Frank seems to see it.
I must say Suneel makes some interesting points and I’m willing to play along at home. He definitely has me willing to hear him out and gained some credibility with me when I saw the article about how the prosecution falsely portrayed Keith as a flight risk.
I mean they had his freakin’ passport and the stamps show something that’s the complete opposite of what they said. This is either gross misconduct or a mistake that shows them to be unfit to serve in this capacity. He even registered his whereabouts.
I also agree that the standard for a sex trafficking charge was absolutely not met with one sexual act between two women DESIGNED BY the woman testifying where no money was exchanged. If you look at any other sex trafficking charge in history, it looks nothing like this. I give Suneel and crew my vote on these 2 points. Will investigate the other points more and look forward to watching this analysis play out. I’m especially interested in your opinion, Frank.
The comments in favour of Suneel and his approach seem to have been written from a template. They are all so similar and don’t appear to respond to anyone’s replies. Much like on an Eduardo post. Even the comments appear to be orchestrated in a certain way. Lovely work, villain Keith.
Natasha-
—The comments in favour of Suneel and his approach seem to have been written from a template. They are all so similar and don’t appear to respond to anyone’s replies.
You are 100% right!
The comments praising Suneel are like Amazon boilerplate products reviews written in bad English. 😉
Where the hell did all these new alias commenters come from? Could it all be the work of Bangkok?
.
Niceguy. It seems like the NXIVM MO. Remember Clare’s template-followed letters of support to the judge? Their comments are not true to themselves, they are following a standard response authorized by Keith of the NXIVM 5 at the least. Also with this, they can say that they were subjected to ‘hateful’ replies and they took the high road and didn’t bite. So, so predictable. I am not going to comment further on any of Suneel’s or Eduardo’s posts from now on (at the risk of sounding like Bangkok!). If all that was left on future NXIVM5 posts were the copy, paste, edit comments, then that would speak volumes. I will be seeing you on another post NG!
Yeah, I am with you on this one.
Conspiracy theory much? All spiral hearts and spiral triangles are pedophile symbols….therefore, Wall’s Ice Cream and Disney World must be Pedophelic…isn’t this 2021?!?
WAIT– I THINK I FIGURED IT OUT!!!
THE JURY LIED.
THE JUDGE LIED.
THE FBI LIED.
THE PROSECUTORS LIED.
THE WITNESSES AND VICTIM STATEMENTS– ALL LIARS.
THE ONLY ONE WHO DIDN’T LIE?
THE ONE WHO CLAIMS HE BLOCKS POLICE RADAR, SAYS RAIN DOESN’T FALL ON HIM, ARGUES HE NEEDS SEX CONSTANTLY OR HIS ENERGY CONSUMES HIM, AND THAT WHEN HE BLOWS A LOAD ON A WOMAN’S FACE, THEY FEEL HIS BLUE ENERGY.
EUREKA! THAT’S IT!!
There is something on which I fully empathize with Keith. To watch specimens like Suneel, Eduardo, Nicole from Canada, or what’s her name Clyne… all get worked up over pointless aspects to the extent they waste their lives for it. Really, these people can’t contribute in any positive way to human society so it serves them right to drive themselves into the ground. Might sound callous, inconsiderate, cruel, etc, but, would you feel sorry for a rat wreaking havoc in your attic? No. So… why use double standards? You will set up a trap to kill that rat… Yet, simply because these beings have been trained to clothe themselves, use specific enclosures for various daily activities, you feel they should not even be allowed to self-destruct.
Damn, good questions. I am keen to see the result.
From the in-depth and objective analysis of each and every one of the questions posed by Mr. Suneel, the manipulation of the Keith Raniere Trial can be seen, since his kidnapping in Mexico and his illegal transfer to the USA, the Prosecutor’s Office of that country demonstrates his clear intention of “imprisoning him at any cost”. Who and why so arbitrarily ordered such a procedure?
It will be necessary to see who was bothered by the philosophy and actions of the accused. In my opinion, it seems a State Order and, therefore, I am a Mexican lawyer who firmly believes in his innocence. Later, I will try to help answer the inconsistencies raised.
Since you’re a Mexican lawyer, I’m surprised that you would throw around terms like “kidnapping” and “illegal transfer to the USA” without citing any basis for such labeling. Please tell me which provisions of the Mexican Constitution and/or codes and statutes were violated — and which provisions of the U.S. Constitution and/or statutes and regulations were violated — by Keith’s expulsion from Mexico and arrest in the U.S. Also, please cite any cases that overturned the cases I cited in determining that Keith’s arrest in the U.S. was perfectly legal regardless of how he was brought into the country.
I will monitor this post to be sure I see your answers.
I am predicting that the result of an appeal — if it does not favor Raniere — will be met with skepticism by his supporters.
It reminds me of the President, who along with his supporters, believe that any vote which does not favor him is illegitimate. There is a religious zeal at play, and that is impossible to fight with facts and reason, especially when the leader is not the messiah but a narcissistic sociopath. I hope that the author here can eventually let go and rebuild his identity and his life.
This is a grown-ass man, being hand-held down the path of critical thinking skills and ethics. If at this late date, he can’t grasp these concepts, perhaps he is a lost cause and a danger to society. He’s a member of a hate group with a convicted pedophile leader. These are Suneel’s ethics, substandard and self-directed. At this point, he should be on a watch list.
Well said.
Suneel, please Tell me two answers:
(1) How many alleged cult leaders that talk about raping babies do you know?
(2) How many people that you know will defend someone that is accused of raping girls, that was caught on video talking about doing a rapeable baby, compares the masculine sexual desire to raping babies, that made a cult be a happy group of people like you call them, that show snuff videos in experiments, that branded woman like cattle, that has múltiple pedophile accusations and suspicious deaths all around him, that tortured woman in other ways, that stole money, that raped múltiple woman, that was a misogynistic pig and was caught on camera talking about it, that likes ayn rand, that was caught on tape saying that he wanted to impact the elections in an illegal manner, or that killed people by his beliefs?
I have read through some of the comments and I would like to speak to a few of them, the ones that hit most ‘close to home’:
1. Talking about something and actually doing it are two separate things. I understand the topic of what Keith was discussing in that video (about rape and babies) is extremely sensitive, however, we cannot condemn people just because they decided to express themselves a certain way; we may dislike what they share, but it is important to make the distinction; particularly in a country where free speech is so highly valued; we shouldn’t make speaking freely a crime. Now, let’s keep in mind that unless we were there, we don’t fully understand the context of the conversation.
2. Being accused of something does not equal being guilty (I’m referring to the rape claim, which I think is important to note Keith was not charged with). I am a mother of boys and honestly, my heart skips a beat every time I hear a case of a young woman claiming rape; as a woman, I understand the seriousness of this crime and this is the very reason why I think it shouldn’t be ‘thrown around’ or taken lightly. I have seen in recent years how this term has been almost been exchanged for discomfort and I do worry when I see how easy it is to get a finger pointed at you and how difficult it becomes to prove innocence or guilt when the evidence boils down to ‘your word against mine’. This is where I pray for due process to exist.
3. The evidence we have seen shows that women decided to get a brand, it was a consensual act and there is no evidence that collateral was held as blackmail. Also, the evidence shows Keith did not do the branding. This one hits close to home because of Suneel’s last point, if the genders were reversed on this one, I highly doubt this would’ve made news.
They were lied to about the brand. You can consent to get a tattoo. But if the tattoo artist disregards your chosen design and instead inks, “I belong to Jimbo” not the hummingbird you agreed to get – is that consent? Sarah Edmondson had her branding (blackmail) released; it was on TV in Mexico. You aren’t credible if you don’t have accurate “data”. The tape is gruesome.
In order to join the sorority, women agreed to a lifetime vow of obedience, this was an inherent consent. Women agreed to the design of the brand before they got it. The video that was released in Mexico was not Sarah’s collateral (I’m assuming this is what you mean when you mention blackmail); no women’s collateral has ever been released.
So Sarah consented to appear naked and being branded? Or are you alleging she released that recording? The design of Keith’s initials was not revealed. Also, this is planet earth we are on. The sky is blue on a clear day. Healthy grass is commonly green… I can’t – if you just can’t accept reality. So tiresome.
So… Went back ( just to confirm) yes there is audio where Keith Raniere specifically says the branding video can be used as… Collateral. The entire audio is Keith giving explicit directions to Allison. How to pose the naked slaves exposing them. How to hold them down. What angles to film them from. Allison literally only says the word, ” Yes” repeatedly. So, do you accept and acknowledge that your Vanguard said “the branding video is collateral”? And if you are so ethical and all, you owe me an apology. In the future, you might want to examine evidence in full. Get your “data” straight.
If the genders were reversed and a woman had a pyramid of male sexual slaves branded near their penis, had sex with a minor boy child, had created male child porn, had male ex-TV stars as ” first-line branded sex slaves”, had pornographic collateral (blackmail) on her male slaves and all the rest, it would be the biggest International news story we have ever seen.
Dream on about this claim that if the genders were reversed, it wouldn’t have even made the news. And heads up Pioneer of Possible. There is no such thing as a “lifetime vow of obedience”. It is a made-up DOS tool enforced by fear, coercion, blackmail, and abuse. You can’t even make two people stay in a legal marriage (look at Nicki and Allison’s looming divorce) what you are describing is… Slavery. That is illegal.
Good points, Suneel, and thanks for posing them as questions. I choose to believe you are really examining the case with an open mind. If you reverse the genders, the whole thing becomes laughable. We’re just not there yet as a society to see women as strong, conscious decision-makers. It’s sad.
Maybe you aren’t there. Don’t speak for all of us. Speak only for yourself. And you should work on getting there. Women are strong, conscious decision makers. Catch up. It’s 2021.
To explore deeply helps to clarify if due process was followed or not.
There is no harm to look further if Keith is guilty.
And if it’d found that due process was violated, the least we expect is a new trial, even though the damage done to Keith and the Nxivm community never could be repaired fully.
What is at stake is very important, justice a pillar of society conformed by citizens, human beings.
The future life in prison of just one citizen matters. It could be any one of us.
If Nicki Clyne is going to pose in her hat and use her image to further this murky fundraising ( id they do the work to become a legal charity?), it is only fair that you post comments about her so people have a more complete rendering of who she really is and can make informed decisions.
You really protect her too much and your justification that you are holding off in order to write an article about the matter does not ring true anymore. Fair is fair. You are the one who posted about her employer using the same reasoning I have outlined here. Thank you.
I feel both honored and privileged that we get to see the world’s smartest man in action, teaching his students ethics.
This is the work of a true scientist:
“In one message, Mr. Raniere wrote her:
“If you want me to come tonight, I will under these conditions: there will be no talking. You will meet me at the door in the outfit you think I would find sexiest. You will arouse me, we will make love for my satisfaction and pleasure. You will do everything you can to provide that. I will finish and leave. Do you agree yes or no?”
When Camila had a relationship with another man, Mr. Raniere “punished [her] emotionally, psychologically, and sexually.”
He branded her.”
FMN, as it states in the trial record that the prosecution’s own witness verifies that the hard drive was accessed by an unknown, how do you know then that those texts are legit too? How can you say for certain those texts were not altered or tampered with? The prosecution really shot themselves in the foot. If Raniere is such a horrible criminal, why would they need to bend the law to put such a horrible criminal away?
Andy, here’s a few excerpts from Camila’s victim impact statement. This guy was a true scientist, a true ethicist. All women should be treated this way, don’t you think? C’mon, admit it. He is a gentleman, a man’s man.
How come you nxians never answer our questions? Is this the way you treat your s\o?? in no order:
“He expected me to be available for sex all the time. He would come in the house, have sex, and leave.”
“He knew exactly what he was doing. He even asked me at some point if having his initials on my body would keep me from being with other people.”
“He drove me to the point of a suicide attempt with his cold-mind games. That night when he finally, in a state of shock with blood running down my arms, one of the first things out of his mouth was, “Do you know how bad it could have been for me if you had killed yourself?”
“Because he manipulated me into a sexual relationship, I carry the pain and shame of aborting a child at his direction, which is something that would haunt me every day and a wound that will never heal.
I also have cervical dysplasia, which is a precancer in my cervix from the HPV virus. Every step of the procedure has been traumatic because it reminds me of the way in which he violated my being. The lasting effects of his abuses of me include threatening my ability to have a family in the future in a normal manner and having to deal with long-lasting medical effects.”
“He told me that he knew better than doctors anyway and always denied me any medical care. Now I believe he never let me seek medical attention to make sure our relationship stayed a secret.”
Truly, a great guy, don’t you agree?? Yes or no?
I agree, Andy. Even if you don’t buy any of Suneel’s other points, we are talking about an FBI agent stating under oath that the drives were accessed by an unknown person while in their custody.
I don’t know how anyone can argue that this should still be seen as admissible evidence especially for such a horrific charge that comes with such a hefty sentence. This stands alone but couple it with the multiple experts certifying the tampering of the photos (and getting freaking daylight savings wrong no less!) show that the trial allowed things that are typically unheard of.
If the prosecution needed to tamper with evidence to prove their case, then to me that points to Raniere not being the psycho animal they say he is. If he were, no tampering would be needed. The truth provides proof. They didn’t have proof because it wasn’t the truth so they had to fake it.
THOSE EMAILS WERE TAKEN FROM CAMILA’S EMAIL. IT WAS NOT A HARD DIVE. Are you saying the prosecutors tampered with email evidence too? Prove it.
How did the “prosecution shoot themselves in the foot”? They won.